Why would any law that prevents innocent bystanders from suing be ok with anyone?

[Logical]

I guess some states say that an innocent bystander accidentally shot by a CCW carrier shooting at a bad guy cannot sue? If I am wrong please correct me. But how is that fair at all for the innocent persons medical expenses? Shouldn't the shooter know what is behind who they are shooting at. This seems extreme and horrible for the person shot with no recourse.
These seems extreme.

[drm604]

1. Context?

[ileus]

2. safety first, accidents later.

[Logical]

3. ???

[AtheistCrusader]

4. We have good samaritan laws here in WA.

They are no protection if you do something negligent. (Say, someone has a heart attack, and instead of properly administering CPR, you jump up and down on their chest, the law would not protect you)


That should be a similar/same model. Immunity against all but criminal acts or negligence should be good.

However, I also carry a half mill in umbrella liability coverage for this exact reason. If you carry, it's a good idea. It gives me peace of mind that if I fire, even in good faith, and have an unintended result in which a bystander is injured, that party will be taken care of, in any case.

[Hoyt]

37. That's righteous. If you shoot a baby in head, leaving them paralyzed, your $500K is worthless.

Why don't you leave the gun at home since your realize that is a distinct possibility?

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Your theoretical baby is more likely to be injured by a car than a gun.

Let us know when you sell your ride and quit driving, hm?

[Hoyt]

41. Well our buddy above specifically says he purchased insurance coverage for it.

Besides, if there is a certain probability of getting hit by a car -- why increase the probability by toting your gun.

Dang, I'd hate to be a baby in a car, while it's lightening, in an earthquake prone area, and you guys are running around with your guns.

[petronius]

46. You left out tornadoes and killer bees

:rofl:

One of the funniest posts I've seen in a while - thank you for being you... :toast:

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Because I am a tool using mammal, and I rate the risk to my person

substantially higher than the risk of me accidentally shooting a baby in the head.

One might think you would appreciate someone being responsible, and planning for risk of unintentional damage to others, but apparently you are determined to be an ass about it.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. What state has that law?

Definately not Texas, and we are a very strong Castle Doctrine, Stand-your-ground state. A criminal can't sue you if you shot him in self-defense. If you hit an innocent person then you are liable. The statement that innocent people can't sue is usually made by people who are anti-RKBA rights and are willing to use any falsehood to further their agenda.

[Logical]

6. Sounds like Minnesota is trying to pass it. n-t

[GreenStormCloud]

10. Nope. Here is the text of the proposed law:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1467.1.html&session=ls87

Subd. 5. Criminal investigation; immunity from prosecution. (a) An individual
7.16 who uses force, including deadly force, according to this section or as otherwise provided
7.17 by law in defense of the individual, the individual's dwelling, or another individual is
7.18 justified in using such force and is immune from any civil liability or criminal prosecution
7.19 for that act.
7.20 (b) A law enforcement agency may arrest an individual using force under
7.21 circumstances described in this section only after considering any claims or circumstances
7.22 supporting self-defense or lawful defense of another individual.
7.23 Subd. 6. Justifiable use of force; burden of proof. In a criminal trial, when there
7.24 is any evidence of justifiable use of force under this section or section 609.06, the state
7.25 has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were
7.26 not justifiable.

Shooting the wrong person, even by accident, is negligence at best and isn't self-defense. That they were aimin at an attacker doesn't count. The injured part can still sue. But the family of the dead perp do anything but go to the funeral.

[Logical]

11. Thank you, I was wrong. Should have found the real text first. n-t

[X_Digger]

13. But you were having so much fun jumping to conclusions.. why let that stop you?

:eyes:

[Logical]

16. Way being an ass? The information I got was from....

Scott Knight from the Chaska Police Department. I didn't make it up.

I guess you just wanted to get a slam in because I don't 100% agree with your pro gun stance. Typical here.

The rolling eyes icon was cute also. Congrats.

[X_Digger]

18. And add on an appeal to authority? "The police department said.."

C'mon.. how often have you seen something uttered by some authority figure with an axe to grind turn out to be utter bullshit?

Hook, line, and sinker.

[Logical]

19. So believe you over the chief of police? Yea right. I don't trust either of you. You..

are not what I call unbiased.

[X_Digger]

24. Where did I ask you to believe me? Which post?

It's posted legislation. When you see an incredible claim like the one the mouthpiece blathered, it's easy to check.

You've been here long enough to know better.

[beevul]

21. Chaska police chief scott knight is an antigun mouthpiece, and a drinker of brady/vpc kool-aide.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x297118#297118

We've seen him before.

[Logical]

23. I wrote him to ask how he came to that conclusion. I'll post his response here. n-t

[beevul]

25. Thats one possible course of action.

Me, personally?

As far as I'm concerned, someone that drinks the brady campaign/vpc koolaid is pretty much a lost cause.

The guy sat down at the same table with fucking daley to talk gun control for cripes sake.


Hes already shown that hes either ignorant, or deliberately misrepresenting the facts on other gun related issues, in the past.


As far as I am concerned, that makes him a brady bunch true believer, and he and his word should be accorded the apropriate amount of weight.


Which is to say none.

[Logical]

30. So you doubt the NRA just as much I hope! They are biased the other way. n-t

[beevul]

32. Whats the nra have to do with this?

And why do you bring them up?


I can, because I am familiar with this issue and the facts involved in it, determine when someone is referencing objective truth, versus biased untruth.


And those things actually matter when it comes to formulating a position, but only if and when it is important to the person formulating it, that it be based on objective truth.


And thats really the key here:


Our posterboy here scott knight - has no interest in basing anything off objective truth re:guns.

Not his stated opinions.

Not his position.

And not the arguments he uses in an attempt to support either of those two things.

[Logical]

33. Don't ger defensive. I think the NRA lies about Obama. That should upset you also. n-t

[beevul]

35. What does the nra have to do with this thread? N/T

[Upton]

26. Scott Knight has an anti gun agenda..

A ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court last week threatens Chicago's 28-year-old ban on handguns. But the court's finding that residents have a Second Amendment right to keep a handgun in their home for protection could also provide a new opportunity for Chicago -- and other cities and towns across the country -- to enact strict firearms policies.
-----

Solid first steps would be to close the gun show loophole that allows the sale of guns on a cash and carry basis, with no identification required. Add those who commit crime(s) with a gun to the Predatory Offender Registry, and require them to register where they live and when they move, as we now do with sex offenders and other predators. And we should enact an assault weapons ban.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/07/06/knight/

[Logical]

29. OK, but that does not mean he is wrong any more than the NRA having a pro-gun agenda....

makes them always right. true?

[Upton]

34. You know...

I can always tell when you're losing an argument, because you inevitably revert back to going after the NRA...even when they have virtually nothing to do with the topic.

[Logical]

38. No, and I can tell when you are mad because you always get sensitive about....

the NRA. My point, once you get over your NRA anger, is that just because someone is anti-gun does not mean they are wrong on topics no more than a pro gun person might be wrong also. This place, or many of them like you, are so pro-gun that you only see one side and not both. Real biased people do that. I'll keep working on you.

[Euromutt]

31. Cops are all too often not the best source for legal information

In my experience, they tend to err on the side of caution, and by "caution" I mean "covering their asses." I've asked for information from local law enforcement agencies on occasion, and received responses that, upon further digging, were flat out wrong. LE agencies, as organizations, would rather tell you it's not legal to do something that is, than tell you that it's legal to do something that isn't.

I can see why they'd do that; what I can't see is why, instead of erring either way, they won't just say "we don't know." Maybe they're afraid it would reflect badly on them that they can't answer the question, but it doesn't reflect as badly on them as falsely pretending to know.

[PavePusher]

49. It's not because of your stance.

If you got your opinion of gun rights from the the Chicago police chief, you'd be just as wrong, and just as open to criticism.

As you admitted, you took your information from a biased source, and not the actual data.

[Logical]

12. Where does it say the criminal only. It just says.....

"is immune from any civil liability or criminal prosecution for that act."

What part is identifying the criminal only?

[GreenStormCloud]

20. That is part of the basic defination of self-defense.

I only get to shoot the perp. I am responsible for every bullet that I fire, whether I am hunting or shooting in self-defense or doing informal target practice in the country. If I fire a round that causes damage, whether to property or to person, it is my fault.

You can use the same link as above.

Subd. 2. Circumstances when authorized. (a) The use of deadly force by an
6.9 individual is justified under this section when the act is undertaken:
6.10(1) to resist or prevent the commission of a felony in the individual's dwelling;
6.11(2) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or
6.12 attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial
6.13 bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
6.14(3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or
6.15 imminent commission of a forcible felony.
6.16(b) The use of deadly force is not authorized under this section if the individual
6.17 knows that the person against whom force is being used is a licensed peace officer from
6.18 this state, another state, the United States, or any subordinate jurisdiction of the United
6.19 States, who is acting lawfully.

Shooting bystanders doesn't meet the defination of those whom I am authorized to shoot.

[Logical]

22. I understand the explanination of self defense but in reading the law I am not....

sure some defense attorney would not take that phrase to mean no matter who gets shot if you were justified in shooting.

It does not specifically say only the criminal cannot sue.

I can see how someone could read it to mean no one involved in the shooting can sue.

I am writing the chief of police to see how he came to that conclusion.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. To go further you would have to talk to an attorney.

Or you could take a CCW course and have the law explained to you.

[Logical]

28. Yes, I'll base my decision on the CCW instructor. Sounds brilliant! n-t

[X_Digger]

36. A CCW Instructor.. who uses state provided materials..

*sigh*

In Texas, when you apply for a CHL permit packet, one of the things that comes *from the state* is a little booklet with all the laws pertaining to guns, carrying, licensing, self-defense, etc etc.

That is the main material you cover in a CHL class. Instructors are certified *by the state* based on their knowledge on these subjects.

You would give Job ulcers, I swear.

[Logical]

40. Well, since we are talking about Minnesota and a new law just passed this week....

I don't think my CCW class will help much in Kansas. But thanks for the legal advice.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Castle Doctrine laws are pretty much the same from state to state.

There is a reason for that. If a state has a successful Castle Doctrine law, other interested states tend to copy the law instead of trying to start from scratch. Same goes for other elements of CCW laws.

[X_Digger]

44. Hence GreenStormCloud's comment re an attorney.

I assume he meant one in the state in question. A CCW instructor in the state in question would also be the first one to start asking questions about how that law applies, since they'll be teaching it to students.

[petronius]

47. Kansas? What does Kansas have to do with it? Are you a Kansas voter planning to take a CCW class?

:shrug:

[GreenStormCloud]

42. In most states a CCW instructor has to be state certified. N/T

[Oneka]

45. The statute is pretty clear on this

(a) An individual
7.16 who uses force, including deadly force, according to this section or as otherwise provided
7.17 by law in defense of the individual, the individual's dwelling, or another individual is
7.18 justified in using such force and is immune from any civil liability or criminal prosecution
7.19 for that act.

If you shoot an innocent bystander, you are not using force according the "this section" and therefore not justified in using such force.

And also therefore not immune from civil and criminal liability.


Iow,, you are only immune if you are justified in using force, killing or injuring an innocent bystander is is never justified as a result of this statute.

Scott Knight is blowing smoke, and he knows it.

[RSillsbee]

7. If you can't be bothered to do your research

why should I do it for you?

I guess some states say that an innocent bystander accidentally shot by a CCW carrier shooting at a bad guy cannot sue? If I am wrong please correct me.

Unrec for pointless fear mongering

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. And what states would that be? Do your research (with cites), and get back to us.

Until then, this is just fearmongering.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. It may be covered as part of the felony murder rules

The perp(s) owns all the injuries suffered in a crime kind of thing.

[rl6214]

14. gotta unrec you on this one

for not having the correct/entire information.

[Logical]

17. Wow, what a shock. I'll try to deal with it. n-t

[ileus]

15. They should sue the criminal that instigated the incident.