Use of deadly force and civil litigation

River Rat · April 5, 2008, 06:29 AM

Does anyone have a link to a website or organization that keeps track of civil suits brought as a result of the use of deadly force? I frequently read/hear of situations in which a person was found to be justified in the use of deadly force, but then faces civil litigation. I'm interested in doing some research on that issue. Thanks.

thallub · April 5, 2008, 07:37 AM

On OK the family of the deceased perp is not allowed to sue in justified shootings.

KMO · April 5, 2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

...the family of the deceased perp is not allowed to sue...

Well, good luck with that. A person can file a lawsuit anywhere, anytime, for anything in the USA. They may not win because of some law on the books, but they can still sick their attorney on whomever they wish.

As for the original post here, I think I'd start with the NRA. If they don't have exactly what you need, they can probably point you in the right direction...

PT111 · April 5, 2008, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Well, good luck with that. A person can file a lawsuit anywhere, anytime, for anything in the USA. They may not win because of some law on the books, but they can still sick their attorney on whomever they wish.

As for the original post here, I think I'd start with the NRA. If they don't have exactly what you need, they can probably point you in the right direction...

Used to be that you had to have $15 to file a lawsuit and that was pretty much the only requirement. It probably varies by state and jurisdction and with inflation. Filing a lawsuit and winning are two totally different things but both can be extremely expensive to both parties before it is over with nothing accomplished. As far as the Castle Doctrine goes the family can sue and then it will be up to you to prove that you were covered by it. You also have to remember that just because you weren't charge by the DA in a shooting due to CD doesn't mean that you are automatically off the hook in a civil court.

DesertDawg · April 5, 2008, 09:11 AM

I'll bet that the ACLU has exactly what you're looking for, or at least would be able to steer you in the right direction. The NRA might have some info, but it's probably only gun-related usage of deadly force.

EastSideRich · April 5, 2008, 10:21 AM

If you find any stats you should post them up here.
Two things that "will happen" to you in the event of a legitimate self defense shooting that seem to get mentioned here frequently are:
1) A civil suit from the perpetrator's family
2) Computers confiscated by the police

My gut feel is these don't occur as often as people think. I would love to see some numbers on these.

Alleykat · April 5, 2008, 10:54 AM

It's important for us gun-toters to live in fear of civil litigation, or certain seminar-givers/gunrag-writers would be out of business.

My state also precludes civil suits in legitimate cases of s.d. Any lawsuit filed will be summarily dismissed by the judge, with no expense incurred by the "defendant".

**Frank Ettin** · April 5, 2008, 11:00 AM

Thousands of civil suits are filed each day all across the county. A state suit is filed in a county and federal suits are filed in a Federal District Court, of which there's at least one, and in some cases several, in each state. There is no central data base. So keeping track of suits filed on a particular subject would require monitoring every county court and every Federal Judicial District in the United States and identifying, out of all the suits on other topics, the suits dealing with whatever you're interested in -- a daunting job indeed.

Occasionally, one may hit someone's radar screen and make the news. Once in a while there may be an appellate court decision relating to one, and it would be possible to search the various state-by-state data bases of appellate court decisions for those involving cases in which self defense is an issue. But otherwise, it's like finding a needle in a haystack.

EastSideRich · April 5, 2008, 11:04 AM

Although,
wouldn't it be possible to find instances of shootings, and then find out if a civil suit was filed in that particular case?
I would imagine the number of justifiable shootings is fairly small, so I bet someone somewhere has the stats.

AirForceShooter · April 5, 2008, 11:08 AM

in Florida law suits are prohibited in "good" shoots.

AFS

**Frank Ettin** · April 5, 2008, 11:34 AM

[1] Of course if a self defense shooting hits the news and is recognized by someone who wants to then track whether a civil suit follows, that could be done. Of course, that will only pick up those self defense shootings that do hit the news or are otherwise identified, and that someone bothers to track. A civil suit in most jurisdictions can be filed for up to a year (or sometimes longer) after the event.

[2] It's true that some states preclude a civil suit following justified self defense. But that doesn't necessarily preclude litigating the question of whether it was a "good shoot." Remember that no one has to take your word that it was a good shoot; and depending on the details of the particular state's laws, a failure to prosecute, or a failure of a grand jury to indict, might not necessarily establish that it was a justified use of lethal force for the purposes of that immunity (it might or might not).

brickeyee · April 5, 2008, 01:03 PM

Most of the 'castle laws' provide that the complainant in the civil suite will pay for dependent's attorney of they loose.

A law that precluded even filing the suit would likely be thrown out.

thallub · April 5, 2008, 02:42 PM

"Well, good luck with that. A person can file a lawsuit anywhere, anytime, for anything in the USA. They may not win because of some law on the books, but they can still sick their attorney on whomever they wish."

OK prosecutors usually do not take righteous shooting cases to the grand jury.

"3. F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant."

Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 53 - Manufacture, Sale, and Wearing of Weapons
Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971
Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:

1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.

G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.

I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1290.1 through 1290.26 of this title, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.

Garand Illusion · April 5, 2008, 03:26 PM

Anybody can file a suit, it's true, but since from what I've seen the majority of suits are filed where the lawyer takes a cut of the winnings (can't remember the legal term) and gets nothing in a loss ... you won't find a lawyer to accept your case unless s/he feels you can win.

In Colorado, Castle doctrine gives you total protection in your home. And other laws give you pretty good protection anywhere in the state (basically, a person commiting a crime against someone can't sue that person for something that happens as a result of that criminal action -- a good protection, but not perfect).

Of course ... fill out the paper work and pay the small legal fee and anyone can file the papers, but it's unlikely to go far.

In the highly unlikely event that I have to use a weapon in self defense, though, having a lawsuit against me is the least of my problems. From the fact that I am being sued, I am still alive ... and from the fact I had to use a firearm on someone, I faced a situation where there was a good chance I would be killed.

Alleykat · April 5, 2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

It's true that some states preclude a civil suit following justified self defense. But that doesn't necessarily preclude litigating the question of whether it was a "good shoot." Remember that no one has to take your word that it was a good shoot; and depending on the details of the particular state's laws, a failure to prosecute, or a failure of a grand jury to indict, might not necessarily establish that it was a justified use of lethal force for the purposes of that immunity (it might or might not).

What law school did you attend? I'd like to know, to make sure that none of my progeny nor their offspring attend the same school!

Whattacrockacrap!!

**Frank Ettin** · April 5, 2008, 05:12 PM

And Alleykat, what law school did you attend and on what basis do you characterize my comments as "Whattacrockacrap"? I don't think that you have a clue.

As if it's your business, I practiced law for over 30 years and retired last year. For the 15 years prior to my retirement, I was a senior lawyer and vice president of a Fortune 200 company. I was sufficiently successful at my profession to be able to retire before I turned 60.

besafe2 · April 5, 2008, 06:52 PM

I don't have a link but if my life or the life of a family member is in danger being taken to court is of 0 concern to me.

HoraceHogsnort · April 5, 2008, 10:34 PM

We need laws that limit the liability of the shooter to $100 if the DA does not press charges.

brickeyee · April 6, 2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

We need laws that limit the liability of the shooter to $100 if the DA does not press charges.

As already occurred in Florida, it is still up to a DA to decide.
If he is not sympathetic and convinced he is liable to bring charge.
His next election may depend on it.

Quote:

We need laws that limit the liability of the shooter to $100 if the DA does not press charges.

Some of the laws go one better and make the complainant completely responsible for costs if they sue and loose.
The question is STILL going to come up (even if a DA thinks he cannot win a criminal case of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’) if a complainant can win a civil case (‘preponderance of the evidence).

OJ won his criminal case.
He lost the civil case.

Laws that strictly forbid the filing of suites are often struck down.

**Bud Helms** · April 6, 2008, 03:31 PM

Moving to Legal and Political Forum.

CraigJS · April 6, 2008, 04:46 PM

In Minnesota here's the statute covering this. (also applies to their families, I'v been told by a lawyer) 611A.08

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/...ection=611A.08

We are lucky on this one here in Minn.
Be safe, CraigJS

**Frank Ettin** · April 6, 2008, 06:25 PM

Of course one cigar butt in the onion dip is that a law making the unsuccessful plaintiff liable for your attorney fees and costs helps only if that unsuccessful plaintiff has money.

Say the unsuccessful plaintiff is a drug addicted welfare mother who was married to the burglar you iced. You very well could wind up with a judgment against her for your attorney fees and costs (which could easily amount to $15,000 to $30,000 in a fairly simple case). However, she most likely would not have enough money to pay the bill. You still owe, and will have to pay, your attorney and costs. And you will be left with a worthless piece of paper that says the unsuccessful plaintiff owes you a bunch of money.

Also, there's a difference between the loser having to pay the winner's "costs" and the loser having to pay the winner's "costs and attorney fees." When the word "costs" is used, the statute refers to only certain administrative costs like filing fees, copying expenses, witness fees, etc. The magic words you want are "costs and attorney fees."

Alleykat · April 8, 2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

As if it's your business, I practiced law for over 30 years and retired last year. For the 15 years prior to my retirement, I was a senior lawyer and vice president of a Fortune 200 company. I was sufficiently successful at my profession to be able to retire before I turned 60.

Hard to believe that a real lawyer could make a statement like the one that I previously questioned. If a civil suit is precluded, it's precluded. If a civil suit were filed, what the heck do you think it'd be about, other than questioning whether the shoot was justifiable? Please, oh, please, tell us what law school you attended. Maybe it's just that you practiced "cushy" law for so long, you forgot most of what you learned in law school?

Or maybe you're only a lawyer at the keyboard?

FireMax · April 8, 2008, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Quote:
As if it's your business, I practiced law for over 30 years and retired last year. For the 15 years prior to my retirement, I was a senior lawyer and vice president of a Fortune 200 company. I was sufficiently successful at my profession to be able to retire before I turned 60.

Quote: Alleykat
Hard to believe that a real lawyer could make a statement like the one that I previously questioned. If a civil suit is precluded, it's precluded. If a civil suit were filed, what the heck do you think it'd be about, other than questioning whether the shoot was justifiable? Please, oh, please, tell us what law school you attended. Maybe it's just that you practiced "cushy" law for so long, you forgot most of what you learned in law school?

Or maybe you're only a lawyer at the keyboard?

AlleyKat, I have rarely witnessed so much arrogance from one person at one time in a forum in my 10 years of posting on web forums.

**Frank Ettin** · April 8, 2008, 12:39 PM

AlleyKat, it's too bad that you don't seem to understand how the law works in the real world.

Under the usual "castle doctrine" law, a civil suit is precluded only if use of lethal force is justified as described in the particular statute or statutes providing for immunity. Usually, the statute or statutes will set out specific criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for the use of lethal force to be justified for the purposes of the law and for immunity to therefore attach (see for example thallub's post, above).

So if there is any dispute as to the facts of a particular event and any reason to challenge whether or not every statutorily required element of justification has been satisfied, that dispute or challenge can be subject to litigation. That is what litigation is all about.

A castle doctrine law is a wonderful thing for a law abiding citizen, but it's not a get out of jail free card or a hunting license. In order to come within the protections offered by such a law, a defender must satisfy the elements of justification, and in a given situation that can be a matter of disagreement. And such disagreements can become the subject matter of a law suit.

April 5, 2008, 06:29 AM	#1
River Rat Member Join Date: February 1, 2008 Posts: 24	Use of deadly force and civil litigation Does anyone have a link to a website or organization that keeps track of civil suits brought as a result of the use of deadly force? I frequently read/hear of situations in which a person was found to be justified in the use of deadly force, but then faces civil litigation. I'm interested in doing some research on that issue. Thanks.

April 5, 2008, 03:26 PM	#14
Garand Illusion Senior Member Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,278	Anybody can file a suit, it's true, but since from what I've seen the majority of suits are filed where the lawyer takes a cut of the winnings (can't remember the legal term) and gets nothing in a loss ... you won't find a lawyer to accept your case unless s/he feels you can win. In Colorado, Castle doctrine gives you total protection in your home. And other laws give you pretty good protection anywhere in the state (basically, a person commiting a crime against someone can't sue that person for something that happens as a result of that criminal action -- a good protection, but not perfect). Of course ... fill out the paper work and pay the small legal fee and anyone can file the papers, but it's unlikely to go far. In the highly unlikely event that I have to use a weapon in self defense, though, having a lawsuit against me is the least of my problems. From the fact that I am being sued, I am still alive ... and from the fact I had to use a firearm on someone, I faced a situation where there was a good chance I would be killed. __________________ Lots of idiots in this forum. I think they must breed here. Enjoy!

April 5, 2008, 06:52 PM	#17
besafe2 Senior Member Join Date: March 29, 2008 Location: NC Posts: 117	I don't have a link but if my life or the life of a family member is in danger being taken to court is of 0 concern to me. __________________ "Blessed be the Lord my strength,which teacheth my hands to war and my fingers to fight". Psalm 144:1 KJV Be safe: Paul

April 5, 2008, 07:37 AM	#2
thallub Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2007 Location: South Western OK Posts: 3,112	On OK the family of the deceased perp is not allowed to sue in justified shootings.

April 5, 2008, 09:11 AM	#5
DesertDawg Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2007 Location: So Cal Posts: 158	I'll bet that the ACLU has exactly what you're looking for, or at least would be able to steer you in the right direction. The NRA might have some info, but it's probably only gun-related usage of deadly force.

April 5, 2008, 10:21 AM	#6
EastSideRich Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2007 Location: St Paul, Minnesota Posts: 369	If you find any stats you should post them up here. Two things that "will happen" to you in the event of a legitimate self defense shooting that seem to get mentioned here frequently are: 1) A civil suit from the perpetrator's family 2) Computers confiscated by the police My gut feel is these don't occur as often as people think. I would love to see some numbers on these.

April 5, 2008, 10:54 AM	#7
Alleykat Junior member Join Date: July 26, 2007 Posts: 3,668	It's important for us gun-toters to live in fear of civil litigation, or certain seminar-givers/gunrag-writers would be out of business. My state also precludes civil suits in legitimate cases of s.d. Any lawsuit filed will be summarily dismissed by the judge, with no expense incurred by the "defendant".

April 5, 2008, 11:00 AM	#8
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,473	Thousands of civil suits are filed each day all across the county. A state suit is filed in a county and federal suits are filed in a Federal District Court, of which there's at least one, and in some cases several, in each state. There is no central data base. So keeping track of suits filed on a particular subject would require monitoring every county court and every Federal Judicial District in the United States and identifying, out of all the suits on other topics, the suits dealing with whatever you're interested in -- a daunting job indeed. Occasionally, one may hit someone's radar screen and make the news. Once in a while there may be an appellate court decision relating to one, and it would be possible to search the various state-by-state data bases of appellate court decisions for those involving cases in which self defense is an issue. But otherwise, it's like finding a needle in a haystack.

April 5, 2008, 11:04 AM	#9
EastSideRich Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2007 Location: St Paul, Minnesota Posts: 369	Although, wouldn't it be possible to find instances of shootings, and then find out if a civil suit was filed in that particular case? I would imagine the number of justifiable shootings is fairly small, so I bet someone somewhere has the stats.

April 5, 2008, 11:08 AM	#10
AirForceShooter Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2005 Location: Sarasota (sort of) Florida Posts: 1,296	in Florida law suits are prohibited in "good" shoots. AFS

April 5, 2008, 11:34 AM	#11
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,473	[1] Of course if a self defense shooting hits the news and is recognized by someone who wants to then track whether a civil suit follows, that could be done. Of course, that will only pick up those self defense shootings that do hit the news or are otherwise identified, and that someone bothers to track. A civil suit in most jurisdictions can be filed for up to a year (or sometimes longer) after the event. [2] It's true that some states preclude a civil suit following justified self defense. But that doesn't necessarily preclude litigating the question of whether it was a "good shoot." Remember that no one has to take your word that it was a good shoot; and depending on the details of the particular state's laws, a failure to prosecute, or a failure of a grand jury to indict, might not necessarily establish that it was a justified use of lethal force for the purposes of that immunity (it might or might not).

April 5, 2008, 01:03 PM	#12
brickeyee Senior Member Join Date: December 29, 2004 Posts: 3,351	Most of the 'castle laws' provide that the complainant in the civil suite will pay for dependent's attorney of they loose. A law that precluded even filing the suit would likely be thrown out.

April 5, 2008, 02:42 PM	#13
thallub Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2007 Location: South Western OK Posts: 3,112	"Well, good luck with that. A person can file a lawsuit anywhere, anytime, for anything in the USA. They may not win because of some law on the books, but they can still sick their attorney on whomever they wish." OK prosecutors usually do not take righteous shooting cases to the grand jury. "3. F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant." Oklahoma Statutes Citationized Title 21. Crimes and Punishments Chapter 53 - Manufacture, Sale, and Wearing of Weapons Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971 Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder Cite as: O.S. §, __ __ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: 1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and 2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if: 1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; 2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or 3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity. D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant. G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section. I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1290.1 through 1290.26 of this title, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.

April 5, 2008, 05:12 PM	#16
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,473	And Alleykat, what law school did you attend and on what basis do you characterize my comments as "Whattacrockacrap"? I don't think that you have a clue. As if it's your business, I practiced law for over 30 years and retired last year. For the 15 years prior to my retirement, I was a senior lawyer and vice president of a Fortune 200 company. I was sufficiently successful at my profession to be able to retire before I turned 60.

April 5, 2008, 10:34 PM	#18
HoraceHogsnort Senior Member Join Date: February 28, 2008 Location: Stanislaus Co., Mexifornia Posts: 615	We need laws that limit the liability of the shooter to $100 if the DA does not press charges.

April 6, 2008, 03:31 PM	#20
Bud Helms Senior Member Join Date: December 31, 1999 Location: Middle Georgia, USA Posts: 13,198	Moving to Legal and Political Forum.

April 6, 2008, 04:46 PM	#21
CraigJS Senior Member Join Date: July 31, 2005 Posts: 372	In Minnesota here's the statute covering this. (also applies to their families, I'v been told by a lawyer) 611A.08 https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/...ection=611A.08 We are lucky on this one here in Minn. Be safe, CraigJS

April 6, 2008, 06:25 PM	#22
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,473	Of course one cigar butt in the onion dip is that a law making the unsuccessful plaintiff liable for your attorney fees and costs helps only if that unsuccessful plaintiff has money. Say the unsuccessful plaintiff is a drug addicted welfare mother who was married to the burglar you iced. You very well could wind up with a judgment against her for your attorney fees and costs (which could easily amount to $15,000 to $30,000 in a fairly simple case). However, she most likely would not have enough money to pay the bill. You still owe, and will have to pay, your attorney and costs. And you will be left with a worthless piece of paper that says the unsuccessful plaintiff owes you a bunch of money. Also, there's a difference between the loser having to pay the winner's "costs" and the loser having to pay the winner's "costs and attorney fees." When the word "costs" is used, the statute refers to only certain administrative costs like filing fees, copying expenses, witness fees, etc. The magic words you want are "costs and attorney fees."

April 8, 2008, 12:39 PM	#25
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,473	AlleyKat, it's too bad that you don't seem to understand how the law works in the real world. Under the usual "castle doctrine" law, a civil suit is precluded only if use of lethal force is justified as described in the particular statute or statutes providing for immunity. Usually, the statute or statutes will set out specific criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for the use of lethal force to be justified for the purposes of the law and for immunity to therefore attach (see for example thallub's post, above). So if there is any dispute as to the facts of a particular event and any reason to challenge whether or not every statutorily required element of justification has been satisfied, that dispute or challenge can be subject to litigation. That is what litigation is all about. A castle doctrine law is a wonderful thing for a law abiding citizen, but it's not a get out of jail free card or a hunting license. In order to come within the protections offered by such a law, a defender must satisfy the elements of justification, and in a given situation that can be a matter of disagreement. And such disagreements can become the subject matter of a law suit.