Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Micro wrote:Some sort of statutory immunity would be great. But insurance is not a bad idea. A combination of both is probably best.

I'm not sure what the basis for statutory immunity would be. Perhaps, if the shooting was ruled justifiable, and happened inside the home of the shooter, them that might pass. The problem is that the applicability of any statutory immunity (like sovereign immunity for police officers) is rebuttable. In other words, a savvy lawyer might be able to argue that statutory immunity doesn't apply for some reason or another. Then insurance would be a good fall back.

There is no two ways around it. Shooting an intruder in your own home, even under the most justifiable circumstances, is a life-altering event.

What is your take on the "Good Samaritan Law"? Did it or did it not eliminate the bulk of the lawsuits against first responders?

Micro wrote:Shooting an intruder in your own home, even under the most justifiable circumstances, is a life-altering event.

That is an important point which can never be understated.

allingeneral wrote:

Micro wrote:Shooting an intruder in your own home, even under the most justifiable circumstances, is a life-altering event.

That is an important point which can never be understated.

Yes, and not shooting him/her/them would be life altering as well.

Agreed ,taking a life should not be something to relish anymore than it should be discounted in one's self defense, By the basic action of owning and carrying a firearm we all have taken the first step in providing for our own self defense. Obviously we are all aware of the implications involved in self defense and accept them as necessary. Clouding the mind with negatives only serves to cause one to think of them rather than react to the situation.

Thoughtful commentary from all...
much appriciated!!

VBshooter wrote:Agreed ,taking a life should not be something to relish anymore than it should be discounted in one's self defense, By the basic action of owning and carrying a firearm we all have taken the first step in providing for our own self defense. Obviously we are all aware of the implications involved in self defense and accept them as necessary. Clouding the mind with negatives only serves to cause one to think of them rather than react to the situation.

That's why I'm trying not to dwell on this too much...but, since insurance was brought up, does anyone else feel that the presence of insurance might lead to the illusion of deeper pockets, thereby encouraging more lawsuits?

WRW wrote:

VBshooter wrote:Agreed ,taking a life should not be something to relish anymore than it should be discounted in one's self defense, By the basic action of owning and carrying a firearm we all have taken the first step in providing for our own self defense. Obviously we are all aware of the implications involved in self defense and accept them as necessary. Clouding the mind with negatives only serves to cause one to think of them rather than react to the situation.

That's why I'm trying not to dwell on this too much...but, since insurance was brought up, does anyone else feel that the presence of insurance might lead to the illusion of deeper pockets, thereby encouraging more lawsuits?

I don't think the "Deeper pockets" issue will come into play much. As the law is currently written (i.e., no Castle Doctrine), I think if you shoot someone, you can pretty much expect a civil suit either from the person if he/she survives or from the decedent's family.

allingeneral wrote:I don't think the "Deeper pockets" issue will come into play much. As the law is currently written (i.e., no Castle Doctrine), I think if you shoot someone, you can pretty much expect a civil suit either from the person if he/she survives or from the decedent's family.

So, you're saying that, what?, 25% of justifiable shootings result in civil court cases? More? Less?

When does the castle doctrine come up for vote?

WRW wrote:

allingeneral wrote:I don't think the "Deeper pockets" issue will come into play much. As the law is currently written (i.e., no Castle Doctrine), I think if you shoot someone, you can pretty much expect a civil suit either from the person if he/she survives or from the decedent's family.

So, you're saying that, what?, 25% of justifiable shootings result in civil court cases? More? Less?

hmm...I would have to say that number would be upwards of 50%+ - but that's just a silly wild @$$ guess.

The legislation for a Castle Doctrine in VA will need to be resubmitted to the General Assembly after this election cycle.. It had previously been killed in committee and never made it to the Senate floor for a vote. That made the bill DOA. So we will have to strongly encourage our elected reps to support it again when it is brought up.

Hello??? If we can successfully push the issue of insurance for gun owners against civil suits we can just as successfully push legislation for a meaningful castle doctrine with immunity from civil prosecution. IMHO seriously discussing an insurance issue without having exhausted the democratic process to get said castle doctrine is admitting defeat. I do not and will not support any insurance for civil prosecution unless we determine beyond all doubt that the legislative route is completely DOA. Many states already have this and so can we.

Send your state legislators a letter telling them we want castle doctrine with the following:

- Ability to stand your ground without retreat if threatened in your castle
- Castle defined as anywhere you have a legal right to be
- Immunity from criminal prosecution in justifiable self defense cases IAW castle doctrine
- Immunity from civil prosecution in self defense cases IAW castle doctrine

Spence, did I miss anything?

What is your take on the "Good Samaritan Law"? Did it or did it not eliminate the bulk of the lawsuits against first responders?

I understand the Good Samaritan isn't a law that protects first responders, but rather protects "unpaid" persons who render aid in good faith, but whose aid has detrimental consequences. For instance, if you see me floating face down in a pool, pull me out, perform CPR and fracture by sternum, I can't sue you.

First responders, such as city police and EMS, are protected by laws of soverign immunity.

Thoughtful commentary from all...
much appriciated!!

Yes, very good, civilized discussion. Glad I joined this forum.

That's why I'm trying not to dwell on this too much...but, since insurance was brought up, does anyone else feel that the presence of insurance might lead to the illusion of deeper pockets, thereby encouraging more lawsuits?

That happens now. That's why an attorney will tailor his lawsuit to allege the shooting occurred as a result of negligence, and not an intentional act. Your current homeowner's or renter's policy carries liability coverage that will cover a shooting due to negligence. An attorney knows he's not going to get a dime from an insurer is he proves the shooting was intentional, so he tries to prove negligence. It's the insurer that will try and prove the shooting was intentional, so they don't have to pay.

I thought a law was passed in Virginia a year or so ago that prevented someone from being sued if they shot a criminal in self defense ? It also prevented the family of the crook from sueing too. Hell maybe I dreamed it but I thought I saw it a VCDL alert.

WRW wrote:

SgtBill wrote:In the situation where the bad guy was followed out of the house by the shooter and the shooter kept on shooting he was dead wrong. As soon as the threat is over you don't fire anymore and you don't chase a perp. If you do chase the perp YOU have now become the aggressor.
Bill

If he threw away his weapon and ran, I agree with that.

I can't agree with you. Even if he kept his weapon and was running away he is no longer a threat. I am assuming you are talking about the bad guy.
Bill

Vahunter wrote:I thought a law was passed in Virginia a year or so ago that prevented someone from being sued if they shot a criminal in self defense ? It also prevented the family of the crook from sueing too. Hell maybe I dreamed it but I thought I saw it a VCDL alert.

I dont think we have that here in VA. Would be very nice though. Btw, when I google anything to do with VA self defense civil - these VGOF posts are at the top of the list...

Howdy, Y'all,

I'm still trying to suss this civil liability stuff. Here is what I've got so far:

1) I shoot BG in self defense, and am cleared of criminal liability.

2) BG (or survivors) sues me alleging civil liability. BG's attorney goes after my homeowners insurance, alleging negligence on my part.

3) My insurance company defends itself, alleging I committed a willful act and that they are not liable.

4) My insurance company may decide (without my authorization) to settle the case in order to minimize THEIR expenses. Or, they may decide to go for the win. In any case, they are calling the shots, and some where along the way I went from being the defendant to being a witness.

How am I doing so far, and can you see where I'm tryng to go with this?

Regards,

George

1) I shoot BG in self defense, and am cleared of criminal liability.

You are cleared of criminal misconduct. "Liability" applies to civil claims.

2) BG (or survivors) sues me alleging civil liability. BG's attorney goes after my homeowners insurance, alleging negligence on my part.

He or his survivors might sue you. In order to be successful, the BG (I like that term ) will have to prove to a jury that it was not a shooting in self defense, but rather an acciental shooting that occurred as a result of negligence. If he were to prove it was a self defense shooting, he wins the case for you, and looses it for himself. No jury will award damages to a BG if he proves he deserved to get shot and the shooting was justifiable. But if he proves you were negligent and shot him, then he can collect from your insurer, or you, or both.

3) My insurance company defends itself, alleging I committed a willful act and that they are not liable.

This is where is gets complicated. The insurance company is bound by its contract to defend you against a suit that alleges negligence covered by the policy. So they will do that. Simultaneously, they may assert to the court, through a seperate attorney they have hired, that the allegations of negligence in the suit can't possibly be true since taking aim at someone and pulling the trigger is a calculated, intentional act. They may ask the judge to rendered a summary judgement that there was, indeed, no negligence and that the act was intentional. They may use your testimony on the criminal end to prove your mindset when the shooting occurred. If the judge does so, then the fact has been established that there was no negligences, and that the act was intentional. At that point, the insurance company may stop defending you. Since you've now committed an act that is excluded from coverage under the policy.

4) My insurance company may decide (without my authorization) to settle the case in order to minimize THEIR expenses. Or, they may decide to go for the win. In any case, they are calling the shots, and some where along the way I went from being the defendant to being a witness.

Yes. The insurer is calling the shots, to which you consented when you bought your policy. They may feel it is appropriate to settle the claim to minimize their expenses without acknowledging that you did anything wrong. Actually, this is a potentially good outcome. They pay, and eliminates the possibility that you may have to pay something out of your pocket.

However, if the the plaintiff (BG) refuses to settle, then they may try and get out of coverage. If they are successful, you may be left having to defend yourself, hire your own attorney, and pay any judgement rendered against you. I have seen defendants in scenerios like this admitting to negligence just so insure that insurer can't get out of coverage.

I'm not trying to scare anyone. I'm just wanted to bring up a legal aspect that isn't discussed as frequently as the the criminal aspect. I am not a lawyer, and I am certainly not offering legal advice. I just want us to think about ramifications other than criminal ramifications. When a shooting is ruled justifiable, it is very rare to get sued. But it does happen. Remember, when a Commonwealth's attorney refuses to prosecute you for shooting an intruder, that does not absolve you of potential civil responsibility. It's just the state refusing to prosecute you. You can still be sued.

SgtBill wrote:

WRW wrote:

SgtBill wrote:In the situation where the bad guy was followed out of the house by the shooter and the shooter kept on shooting he was dead wrong. As soon as the threat is over you don't fire anymore and you don't chase a perp. If you do chase the perp YOU have now become the aggressor.
Bill

If he threw away his weapon and ran, I agree with that.

I can't agree with you. Even if he kept his weapon and was running away he is no longer a threat. I am assuming you are talking about the bad guy.
Bill

I'm not likely to shoot someone in the back, but what's to say that a man armed with a gun, who has just busted your door in, isn't a threat just because he ran out of your house? He could easily have just ducked for cover so that he can put a round in you from a greater/safer distance.