You made some very good points but I don't think there is no grounds for any civil suit in this case. The victim shot the kid while trying to rob him. I hope the kid come out of this okay. Emotionally as well as physically.The important lesson that EVERYONE needs to take from this:
This IS a good ending, since the defender survived the encounter. In fact, this is the most likely ending you can expect when defending yourself against an armed attack on the street. Pistols are comparatively underpowered firearms. One shot will rarely stop an attacker. If both the assailant and defender are armed with pistols, good chance the encounter will end just like this, with both participants hospitalized.
The defender's life will never be the same. He will likely have a long and painful physical recovery.
His emotional recovery will likely be even longer and more painful in many ways, despite intellectually knowing he was in the right. In times when he's feeling vulnerable, the moment where he shot a 15 year old kid will play over and over in his head. He will doubt himself. "Did I need to shoot him? What if I'd just given him the money? What if I hadn't gone outside for a smoke? What if it had been my friend and not me who got shot? What if he had died?" On and on.
While the defender rightly is not facing any criminal charges, he may still have to defend against a civil suit, which can be a cumbersome financial burden even if you win the case.
What makes this a GOOD ending? Only that it beats the worst alternative, which is being robbed and killed with no viable means of defending oneself.
I've said this in other posts...but all the "keyboard killers," "mall ninjas," "sheep dogs," and other "tough guy" types need to take note. This is serious business, for serious-minded people. The stakes are incredibly high. And even if you do everything right, you can still have a really crappy outcome.
You made some very good points but I don't think there is no grounds for any civil suit in this case. The victim shot the kid while trying to rob him. I hope the kid come out of this okay. Emotionally as well as physically.
Phil Gain :yu: The only thing that will truly stop the civil suit I am happy to let you know is >>>>>
Our new Republican Governor recently signed a Castle Doctrine Bill. It went into effect the end of August!
Unless I mis-understand Castle Doctrine...that would relieve the defender of any criminal liability, because there is no "duty to retreat" which is GOOD to hear. But if there is no language about civil liability, it may not preclude the assailant's family from filing a frivolous lawsuit
So noted and thread tagged.
As frivilous as a law suit sounds, many states do not bar the civil action based on Castle Doctrine or stand your-grund laws if the suit meets certain criteria, such as use of excessive force. Castle doctrine will not bar the suit in certain circumstances. If the perp can show a tort was committed against him, that he sustained damages as a result and that there exists a "close causal connection" between the two, he has a suit. With any luck the defendant will be successful in filing a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgement in his favor. Many times the suit arises from the accusation that the victim used excessive force, above and beyond what was necessary to thwart the crime, and that such excessive harm caused the damages as defined in the Complaint and/or Bill of Particulars.You made some very good points but I don't think there is no grounds for any civil suit in this case. The victim shot the kid while trying to rob him. I hope the kid come out of this okay. Emotionally as well as physically.
As frivilous as a law suit sounds, many states do not bar the civil action based on Castle Doctrine or stand your-grund laws if the suit meets certain criteria, such as use of excessive force. Castle doctrine will not bar the suit in certain circumstances. If the perp can show a tort was committed against him, that he sustained damages as a result and that there exists a "close causal connection" between the two, he has a suit. With any luck the defendant will be successful in filing a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgement in his favor. Many times the suit arises from the accusation that the victim used excessive force, above and beyond what was necessary to thwart the crime, and that such excessive harm caused the damages as defined in the Complaint and/or Bill of Particulars.
§ 8340.2. Civil immunity for use of force.
(a) General rule.--An actor who uses force:
(1) in self-protection as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 505 (relating to use of force in self-protection);
(2) in the protection of other persons as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 506 (relating to use of force for the protection of other persons);
(3) for the protection of property as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 507 (relating to use of force for the protection of property);
(4) in law enforcement as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 508 (relating to use of force in law enforcement); or
(5) consistent with the actor's special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 509 (relating to use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others)
is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which were caused by the acts or omissions of the actor as a result of the use of force.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?