Cannot win or survive these beliefs

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by firecop19, Feb 22, 2010.

  1. firecop19

    firecop19 New Member

    Feb 11, 2010
    Lansdowne PA
    Help me understand this

    I have been swimming in the shallow end of the pool for a while now, watching, reading trying to understand all of the statements and experiences here. I even believe this statement I have seen repeated, and repeated ( attached to every bullet is a LAWYER ) I understand if I ever have to use my revolver I will get SCREWED in court EVEN IF THE GRAND JURY FINDS ME INNOCENT OF WRONGDOING.

    I DON'T SEEM TO WIN OR SURVIVE EITHER OF THESE BELIEFS. Some GETTO RAT CRACK HEAD wins in the end no matter what! I watched a u tube video clip of some drug addict hood rat going to town on someones car in CALIF somewhere, obvious intention to do grave harm . Shoot in self defense and then what, give him a star on the holly wood side walk !
  2. muddober

    muddober Active Member

    Sep 19, 2008
    Carson City Nevada
    I am not real sure what your question is but none the less I will give it a try by sharing a bit of what I know on the subject. A grand jury doesn't find anyone innocent or guilty of anything, it merely can only find if there is probable cause that one; a crime was committed and two;that the person or person held to the grand jury were the ones who most likely committed the crime. If the grand jury hands down an indictment (called a true bill) against that person or persons, the case then goes to trial in front of a judge or jury as the case may be.

    I can tell you that even though you may have a concealed weapons permit and you are 100% percent justified in the use of your gun, there is a bad thing that has creped into our jurisprudence system over the years called "public policy" and if a court chooses to use "public policy" and NOT the law to judge you, you are screwed because there is no guideline or law book that defines "public policy" making it impossible to defend against it. Without going into a lot of detail "public policy" could mean that only law enforcement may use deadly force and as such deadly force is not available to a private person. Trust me, you will not find any law or statute which supports that "public policy", that notwithstanding it is alive and well. I state these remarks from my own experience and as such I would never ever pull my gun unless it was to protect me or someone that I cared about. If I saw a robbery in progress I would not just walk away, I would RUN away before I would engage with my gun.

    Last edited: Feb 22, 2010

  3. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Sep 25, 2007
    A lot of this depends on state law and state culture. In Indiana, the law says that no person in this State shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself or his family by reasonable means necessary. That's a huge protection for us. States like California, New Jersey, etc. are drastically different. I don't know where Pennsylvania comes down on this issue, but I hope it's along the lines of Indiana.
  4. wpage

    wpage Active Member

    Aug 25, 2009
    It might be best to rephrase your question. It sounds like you have concerns of our legal system. Many of us do. But its still one of the best in the world and your peers are generally decent folks.
  5. Slabsides

    Slabsides Member

    Jul 22, 2009
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    I think I see where you are going with this. Some states have no tort reform. This means you can be sued for anything by anyone at any time.

    Lets say your state allows you to possess a firearm and use it in defense of yourself and you do so. You prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you felt your life was in imminent danger and you had no other choice than to use deadly force to protect your life as prescribed by law. You would be declared lawful in your actions and free of any CRIMINAL penalties, but you could still be sued for a CIVIL penalty. If you have any money or property, you should almost expect this.

    You would have to hire a lawyer and once again, defend your actions but in a different light. This is why it is very important to chose your carry weapon carefully. If you shoot someone with a modified gun (ex: light trigger), it will be argued that you were negligent to point a gun at someone with a trigger that would release lighter than what the manufacturer designed. They would even argue that the gun went off by accident. Using an un-modified gun takes the liability off of you.

    They can then only go after your actions. Having been cleared in a criminal court or by police investigation is the defense for that arguement.

    The lack of tort reform is a double-edged sword though. This means that you could sue the plaintiff(s) for loss of wages, mental anguish, reasonable attorney fees (and a whole list of other things your lawer can come up with) for having to be dragged through a trial for something that the criminal justice system has already cleared you of.
  6. mncarpenter

    mncarpenter Member

    Nov 14, 2009
    Although this may be possible, counter-suing the "Plaintiff" is unlikely to result in any recovery of damages,unless it happens to be a well-heeled attacker.:rolleyes: And unless you feel like spending a lot of money to prove a point, you are without recourse, in practical terms. Don't pull your weapon unless you mean to pull the trigger. Don't pull the weapon unless there is no other option-I think you'll know when that is, if you have the chance to see it coming.
  7. Slabsides

    Slabsides Member

    Jul 22, 2009
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    It could make them see that what they are doing is frivolous and could cost them dearly.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum “I Cannot Wait to Get the Order to Kick Your Door In” Mar 9, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum We cannot let this stand! Jul 27, 2004
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Obamacare Survives Jun 28, 2012