Exactly. When I said "...a grand jury rules that the use of lethal force was justified...," that is an inverse way of saying the same thing. The GJ is not positively affirming that the shooting was justified. What they are saying is that there is not enough evidence to rule that it was not justifiable, so there will be a no-bill returned. In effect, they are kind of backing into saying it was justifiable. Even so, they are not the ones, as I understand it, who will rule that a shooting is justified. An actual ruling of "justified" would be obtained by either a successful defense during a criminal trial if the GJ returns a true bill, or during a civil trial following a no-bill.srothstein wrote:I thought this statement might need a little clarification. At first glance, I thought it was wrong in the first half, then I realized what I think TAM is saying and he is right. But if I might get confused, so will others.The Annoyed Man wrote:If you get no-billed because a grand jury rules that the use of lethal force was justified, then there are no "12 peers in Civil Court" because you are immune to lawsuit, so civil trial is not a concern. You may have to pay a lawyer to get you through it, but plaintiff is not going to succeed in taking your house, or levying your wages, or anything like that.
So, let me see if I understand this right, because there is one part that is going to be wrong if taken out of the context.
If you are involved in a shooting, in almost all cases, a grand jury will examine the situation. not every case will go to a grand jury, but most police department's will want to share the political blame if the shooting is unpopular. If a grand jury does indict you, they return what is called a true bill of indictment. If they decide not to, they return a no bill of indictment. A true bill has only one legal meaning, and this is that the grand jury thought there was probable cause to believe you had committed the crime accused in the bill. If they return a no bill, this has only one legal meaning, and that is they did not feel there was probable cause to believe you had committed the crime. There is no legal way for a grand jury to indicate that you were justified. sometimes, the grand jury, the D.A., the police, or your lawyer will get the media to say this is because the grand jury thought you were justified. This is just an opinion that the media reports though, and not a legal fact.
Exactly. And to this point, the law uses terms like "reasonable fear" of bodily harm and/or death; and it even states, within limits, that lethal force may be justifiable because there is no way for the victim of the attack to know what the attacker's intentions are with regard to committing murder, or merely administering a beating. Those are the kinds of ideas your lawyer (if he/she is any good) is going to bring to the jury's attention. So, unless you have the kind of situation that existed during the OJ Simpson trial, where you had a jury that clearly had its own agenda separate from seeing justice done, you stand a reasonable expectation of the jury finding that the shooting was justifiable — and thus, you are immune to civil penalties.When you are no billed, you are not immune from a lawsuit. If you were justified, you are immune from being found liable. This is a fine line to understand, but the criminal you shot may still find a lawyer to sue you. The judge in the case may decide on his own that you were justified and will throw out the suit, but there is also a chance that he will let it go to a jury to decide if you were justified. This is where you will still need the lawyer TAM mentioned, but you should not have to worry about the outcome. If you are justified, you will win the lawsuit.
Bingo!So, here is what the immunity really does to you and your odds, presuming you are justified in a shooting. It guarantees that you will win the lawsuit at some point in time but it does not protect against a lawsuit. Most personal injury lawyers work on commission. So, if there is little chance of a big cash award, they do not want the case. It will be very hard to find a lawyer willing to sue you, but it is always possible. There are some lawyers who disagree with this law and would sue for the publicity of the case (more clients later to pay for it). If the suspect you shot does find one of those lawyers, most cases will be dismissed by the judge because of your immunity. There are a few judges out there who prefer to let juries hear all points in dispute, so in a small number of cases, you might have to wait until a jury decides. There are always a few juries who feel sorry for the poor deprived little robber and will give him a settlement, especially if they think it is coming from your homeowner's insurance instead of out of your pocket or if you make some dumb statements on the news (like Joe Horn to the Dispatcher). Since the law still applies, these cases may end up going to an appellate court. Appellate courts are notorious for not being swayed by the feelings of the people like a jury is, so I doubt it would ever go past this stage. If the facts and the law support you, you are almost certainly going to win at this stage.
Long term, TAM is correct and you do not have to worry about losing your home or paying off judgments against you. Your defense attorney may even be paid for by the insurance company, but you might need to pay him. That might be expensive enough but should be affordable. To me, worrying about the law suit should be the last thing on your mind when thinking about the possibility of a shooting. It is always much better to survive to be sued than to not fight back and die.
Let me add to all the above: IANAL, IANYL, YMMV, etc., etc., etc. This is just how I understand things to be.
Exactly. But beyond that, thugs do what they do because they get away with it. No other reason. They stop doing what they do when they A) get shot; B) get arrested; or C) both.