The Stand your Ground rules: What do you think that they should change so the home owner cannot get sued?

SrA Jeff Campbell — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 10:04:38 -0400

The Stand your ground rules are supposed to make it so you can defend your family, property etc. The one thing that probably makes all CWP permit holders CRAZY is the fact that if we execute these rules, the person who gets the justice of the bullet, if they do not die, can turn around and hire some FAT cat Lawyer to Sue YOU! How can we eliminate this from happening to LAW ABIDING CITIZENS? RIDICULOUS LAWS that FAVOR the idiots who lose respect and break into our homes.....I am curious if anyone has any stories where they had to defend their home? Defend their property and whether or not they were sued? Stories with lots of DETAILS will result in getting voted UP for more Rally Point points!!!

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 1:51 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:51:16 -0400

Rule 1. When defending one's home - shoot to eliminate the threat. If the threat continues to move, continue to fire until the threat no longer moves.

Rule 2. For any other conditions defending one's home, refer to Rule 1.

Nuff said.

Response by Cpl Matthew Wall made Sep 15 at 2014 1:54 PM

Cpl Matthew Wall — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:54:40 -0400

I have to agree with people here. If you are going to defend yourself you had better shoot to kill. You have seen it on the news time after time of some robber coming in and getting shot and then suing the homeowner for injury. Eliminate the threat and future problem.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 2:08 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:08:19 -0400

Perhaps a JAG here can add to this. However, from the stories I have read, stating that you "shoot to kill" could imply that you wanted to murder the individual. I know from a security/ LE point of view, we're trained to "shoot to stop." The reason we are discharging our firearm is because there is a threat. We have an inherent right to self-defense. As long as that threat is still actively moving to cause kill or seriously injure me or someone else, I have a responsibility to stop said threat.
I think we could all agree that shooting to maim is, legally, an unstable argument.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Sep 16 at 2014 11:13 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:13:11 -0400

Here is the issue with Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws: They have been used by shady lawyers to get folks off the hook for bad behavior.

Response by SrA Jeff Campbell made Sep 16 at 2014 11:21 AM

SrA Jeff Campbell — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:21:39 -0400

Not sure who the author of this statement was....but..."Dead Men Tell no Tales!"

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 11:22 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:22:47 -0400

I have a good friend who is my county sheriff in my home state. He told me once I turned 21 and i had bought my first hand gun that anytime I had to use it in defense that the only statement that a court would need to know is "I was in fear for my life and the life of (others) around me". I have not had to use this thankfully, But I do have a friend who has and the courts ruled in his favor for "justified force to protect life and property".

Response by SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham made Sep 16 at 2014 12:47 PM

SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:47:00 -0400

No. They should enforce and support the Spirit of the Law, so that each case builds precedents under those codes so the Letter of the Law becomes clearer with each case, rather than muddier.
The goal is to allow you to protect what the law has defined as yours and an intruder/ assailant is threatening what is rightfully yours. They (or their surviving family) can always file a suit (it's also a law), but that is why the CWP holder NEEDS to know what is LEGAL.

Response by SPC Darin Taylor made Sep 16 at 2014 1:59 PM

SPC Darin Taylor — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:59:05 -0400

Guns are designed for one purpose "To Kill". If a person who legally owns and carries a gun is not willing to end a life, then he or she shouldn't own a gun. You should still only attempt to "Stop the threat", but if the threat persist be willing end that life.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Sep 16 at 2014 2:02 PM

PO3 John Jeter — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:02:33 -0400

There is no such thing as immunity from a lawsuit. Never has been. The best thing you can do act according to your training and as prudence dictates. Then SHUT YOUR MOUTH! Allow your attorney to speak for you! Identify yourself to authority and after that the only words you should utter are "I decline to speak without my attorney present". That's unless you are injured and need medical assistance. In that case do not discuss HOW you got injured, just what hurts. This can make the difference between being a victim once or twice.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 11:17 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:17:53 -0400

I don't care what or where the crime is, I think that it's BS that a victim can be sued by someone that was injured while perpetrating a crime.

As far as stand your ground, the homeowner should absolutely have protection from being sued. A criminal suing a homeowner for shooting them is like a rapist raping someone with HIV and then getting it and suing the victim.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Sep 17 at 2014 10:53 PM

PO3 John Jeter — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:53:01 -0400

http://texaschlforum.com/ has a wealth of information and links along with experience stories from the average citizen. The specifics are geared towards Texas laws, but there are many links and comparisons to other states laws. The general principles and considerations are similar across the board. Fair warning about the site, They're sticklers for clean language and respect of others. Enjoy!

Response by SFC Zohn Tennyson made Sep 20 at 2014 3:10 PM

SFC Zohn Tennyson — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:10:22 -0400

This might be the easiest question you've asked. If someone threatens my wife or children, they'll die. End of story. Dealing with it later is a non-issue, so long as they are safe.