You Knew This Was Coming

[Peggy Reist]

And of course it's not the first time some sleeze ball lawyer has sued the good guy. A store clerk got the jump on a gun-wielding robber and shot him first. Now the bad guy's widow is suing the store clerk for shooting the idiot.

Link Removed

 

[SR40c]

This is an example of what I was talking about in another thread in reference to how screwed up the legal system is in this country.

 

[Ringo]

Arizona prohibits such law suits.

 

[jcreek]

Everyone gun owner in that city needs to go slip on that lawyers front lawn, injure themselves, and sue the living crap out of him. And then punch him in the face.

 

[kelcarry]

Try it in SC and find out what happens to the lawyer and the miscreant's wife. Good shooting equals civil lawsuit immunity. Hopefully, the person being sued in this thread will turn around and sue the lady AND the lawyer for harassment and unprofessional conduct if the shoot was a good one.

 

[apvbguy]

this would never happen in FLA, as long as it is a justifiable shooting the law protects the shooter from civil suits like this.

 

[ConcealCincinnati]

Unfortunately, not every state grants civil immunity when using deadly force in self-defense. Ohio is one such state. No civil immunity here. The good part is civil suits can be tried by jury. I doubt a judge will throw out this case, so get some of this store clerk's peers in the jury box and let them decide whether he owes this criminal's wife any money.

 

[Sir Diealotz]

this would never happen in FLA, as long as it is a justifiable shooting the law protects the shooter from civil suits like this.

Unless one shoots a 17yr old thug and all the looney liberals plus media get involved
Just sayin

 

[ConcealCincinnati]

Unless one shoots a 17yr old thug and all the looney liberals plus media get involved
Just sayin

They haven't determined whether Zimmerman's use of deadly force was justified. If they determine it was, civil suit can't be brought against him.

 

[apvbguy]

Unless one shoots a 17yr old thug and all the looney liberals plus media get involved
Just sayin

you are confusing criminal and civil liabilities, one reason the libtards are trying to force criminal convictions is so that they can start the gravy train of civil lawsuits upon a criminal conviction. No conviction means no easy moola

 

[apvbguy]

They haven't determined whether Zimmerman's use of deadly force was justified. If they determine it was, civil suit can't be brought against him.

originally it was determined that is was a justifiable shooting.
zimmerman was not arrested or charged for many weeks after the incident, only after the racial pimps got involved did the politicians force criminal charges upon zimmerman, in fact the police chief down there was forced out of his job over being overruled about the findings of justification by his departments investigation of the shooting.

 

[XD40scinNC]

Two words "Castle Doctrine"

My state has one, that protects the good guy in their home, place of work, and vehicle.

 

[Sir Diealotz]

Unless one shoots a 17yr old thug and all the looney liberals plus media get involved
Just sayin

you are confusing criminal and civil liabilities, one reason the libtards are trying to force criminal convictions is so that they can start the gravy train of civil lawsuits upon a criminal conviction. No conviction means no easy moola

Did the parents not cash in on this deal? I recall the neighborhood association paying a hefty settlement.

Regardless it's still in process with mr Zimmerman.

Back on topic, this is one of many things wrong with these frivolous lawsuits and the lawyers laugh all the way to the bank. Shameful...

 

[BC1]

A good example of why we should all serve on a jury. WE are the justice system in America. When we walk into that jury room we can send a message.

 

[apvbguy]

Did the parents not cash in on this deal? I recall the neighborhood association paying a hefty settlement.

..

yes, the HOA made a decision to pay out about a million dollars to the family, I cannot speak for the HOA but I would never have paid that "shake down" money.
in addition the fact that the HOA did settle like that could be very prejudicial.

 

[Sir Diealotz]

Did the parents not cash in on this deal? I recall the neighborhood association paying a hefty settlement.

..

yes, the HOA made a decision to pay out about a million dollars to the family, I cannot speak for the HOA but I would never have paid that "shake down" money.
in addition the fact that the HOA did settle like that could be very prejudicial.

I concur....
Wonder if they ask for a refund if/when Mr Zimmerman is found not guilty

 

[BC1]

Did the parents not cash in on this deal? I recall the neighborhood association paying a hefty settlement.

Regardless it's still in process with mr Zimmerman.

Back on topic, this is one of many things wrong with these frivolous lawsuits and the lawyers laugh all the way to the bank. Shameful...

The HOA was in a bad spot. Their insurance declined to cover them. Martin's parents sued the HOA because it allegedly endorsed Zimmerman's crime-watch activities. Zimmerman was not experienced by education or training nor was he licensed as a security guard. Soooo, back to the liability issue. Did the HOA act in a reasonably prudent manner? Should they have hired a security company? It prompted HOA's all over America to rethink their activities.
.
An HOA isn't liable for damages simply because a crime happens on its grounds. Where "The Retreat" went wrong is in allegedly holding Zimmerman out as a resource for residents to contact regarding crime. The HOA's apparent endorsement of Zimmerman's actions was it's downfall. Jed L. Frankel, a partner at Eisinger, Brown, Lewis, Frankel & Chaiet PA in Hollywood, FL specializes in HOA representation. He opined "If the association told people to report things to Zimmerman, that's a much different function than a crime watch program. The role of persons involved in a crime watch program is to call the police and report suspicious activity. But that's where their legal rights end." He advises HOA clients to never follow a suspect or get directly involved. Just make the call.
.
The HOA knew they incurred liability and settled the matter. They were advised by their attorneys to settle this matter. They were not the innocent targets of a frivolous lawsuit. Had that been true this matter would still be going on. What I don't understand is why they settled before the criminal matter was decided. Should Zimmerman be found not guilty they could have beat the suit.

 

[dogshawred]

Unfortunately, not every state grants civil immunity when using deadly force in self-defense. Ohio is one such state. No civil immunity here. The good part is civil suits can be tried by jury. I doubt a judge will throw out this case, so get some of this store clerk's peers in the jury box and let them decide whether he owes this criminal's wife any money.

SB 184 states otherwise regarding Ohio Revised Code;

What SB184 means to you: Part I ? Castle Doctrine

What SB184 means to you: Part I – Castle Doctrine
A person is barred from recovering money (suing) if their injury arises from their criminal behavior, including injuries sustained by acts of the intended victim. If you injure an innocent bystander (hit by a stray bullet) you may be ordered to pay damages to that person.
Sec 2307.60 (B) (2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if the any of the following apply:
Sec 2307.60 (B) (2) (c) The person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim's residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. Division (B)(2)(c) of this section does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underlying conduct that prompted the victim's exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence.

 

[ConcealCincinnati]

Interesting. The manual provided by the Ohio AG looks to be contrary to the Ohio Revised Code.

"Even if the situation does not lead to criminal charges or result in a criminal conviction, the licensee may still face civil liability. The victim or his survivors could sue the licensee for the harm from the licensee’s use of deadly force."

This is from page 18 of the current manual.

 

[dogshawred]

Ohio Revised Code the rule of law for Ohio.

SB 184 states otherwise regarding Ohio Revised Code;

What SB184 means to you: Part I ? Castle Doctrine

What SB184 means to you: Part I – Castle Doctrine
A person is barred from recovering money (suing) if their injury arises from their criminal behavior, including injuries sustained by acts of the intended victim. If you injure an innocent bystander (hit by a stray bullet) you may be ordered to pay damages to that person.
Sec 2307.60 (B) (2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if the any of the following apply:
Sec 2307.60 (B) (2) (c) The person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim's residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. Division (B)(2)(c) of this section does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underlying conduct that prompted the victim's exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence.

Interesting. The manual provided by the Ohio AG looks to be contrary to the Ohio Revised Code.

"Even if the situation does not lead to criminal charges or result in a criminal conviction, the licensee may still face civil liability. The victim or his survivors could sue the licensee for the harm from the licensee’s use of deadly force."

This is from page 18 of the current manual.

Additional source information regarding the subject of recovery by tort from a self defense act;
~
Lawriter - ORC - 2307.60 Civil action for damages for criminal act.
~


(2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if any of the following apply:
~
(a) The person has been convicted of or has pleaded guilty to a felony, or to a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, arising out of criminal conduct that was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action.
~
(b) The person engaged in conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence and that conduct was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.
~
(c) The person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim's residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. Division (B)(2)(c) of this section does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underlying conduct that prompted the victim's exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence.
~
(3) Recovery against a victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if conduct the person engaged in against that victim was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action and that conduct, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.
~

Effective Date: 06-28-2002; 04-07-2005; 2006 SB117 10-31-2007; 2008 SB184 09-09-2008

Effective dates show when what bills changed/affected ORC, this indicates that no bill has been added later that would subsequently nullify the effects of SB184 as originally passed.