|
|
除了criminal lawsuit，用枪自卫还应该考虑civil lawsuit。
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/the-flip-side-of-self-defense/
The gun magazines today are filled with articles relating to self-defense with firearms. Stories about testing various guns, holsters and ammunition are standard fare in every publication. Often, there are short examples of recent incidents showing how armed citizens were able to use a firearm to protect them-selves or their family when confronted by a criminal. It has been estimated that a couple of hundred thousand of these self-defense cases take place every year in the United States. The vast majority of these incidents end with only a warning being needed to convince the attacker to disengage. However, in a growing percentage of these cases, the potential victim finds it necessary to actually shoot the aggressor. Unfortunately, these magazine articles rarely tell the whole story. There is often another side to these cases of self-defense.
You don’t have to be wrong to be sued.
Lesson #1: You don’t have to be wrong to be sued. In a recent California case, the severely mentally handicapped 15-year-old who play-fully pointed this non-functional (broken) Daisy air rifle in a shopping mall parking lot was hit with two 9mm rounds, suffering non-life threatening injuries. The shooter thought lives were in danger. The mother’s lawsuit against the shooter was settled out of court for $80,000.00.
I have been teaching firearms and use of force for law enforcement, private security and civilians for 25 years. While I am not an attorney or a psychologist, I have been involved in the aftermath of scores of these shooting incidents. The thoughts and theories outlined here are based on my personal experiences, interviews with the parties involved in shootings, discussions with law enforcement investigators and working with attorneys who litigate shooting cases. Before we continue, please allow me to say that the purpose of this article is not to discourage the use of firearms by honest citizens for self protection. That is a fundamental right and sometimes a very necessary thing to do. However, these incidents rarely actually end when the gunsmoke clears from the air.
There are three major areas of concern here. First, there is the possibility of criminal charges being filed against the citizen because the shooting did not meet the state’s legal standard for the justifiable use of deadly force. Then there is the probability of a civil lawsuit from the criminal or his family to gain monetary compensation for his injuries. The third potential problem area is the mental and moral anguish many individuals suffer after taking a human life, no matter how justified.
A great deal of what civilians “know” about the legal use of deadly force is incorrect. The problem is that most publicized shootings of criminals are by law enforcement. That causes many citizens to believe that they can do the same thing. That belief is often incorrect. Police insert themselves into violent or suspicious situations because they are required to; they cannot ignore a cry for help. Unlike law enforcement officers, private citizens have no legal duty to protect anyone from anything.
If you are wrong, you get sued for even more.
Lesson #2: If you are wrong, you get sued for even more. A 2003 Texas case confirms that. In this late night encounter, a neighbor wrongly perceived a loud family argument as home invasion in progress. He responded to the area with his Glock Model 27 in hand. The homeowner, who spoke little English, failed to obey the armed man’s commands and resisted what he apparently thought was an attack on his family by throwing a board. He was then shot and killed by the neighbor. The lawsuits against the shooter, the apartment owners and the contracted Security Company were all settled in favor of the deceased victim’s widow and two children.
Because law enforcement officers are required to intervene in dangerous situations, they carry in the law a protection called qualified immunity. That legal principle says that if they acted reasonably, based on whatever information they knew (or should have known) at the time of the shooting, they cannot be held to answer in court. That principle applies even in cases when additional information discovered after the fact shows that the police were wrong. The law recognizes that law enforcement officers sometimes must make quick decisions that are based on incomplete information. The typical instance is the, “Later we discovered it was a toy gun,” type of case. Civilians carry no such immunity, as they are acting because they choose to, not because the law requires it. Civilians can run away from dangerous situations; police cannot. A law enforcement officer’s rules of engagement are very different from those that apply to a private citizen. In most instances, civilians simply cannot legally take the same actions that we expect of police officers.
With that being said, let’s look at what the post shooting dangers are to civilians. First, consider the possibility of criminal liability. What if it turns out that the use of gunfire was actually illegal? State laws vary quite a bit in what is considered justifiable use of deadly force. Some require exhausting all other options, including retreat, while others allow you to stand your ground. If you really had no other way out, the District Attorney or a criminal jury are likely to be understanding.
While it is quite impossible to outline here all of the laws of the various states and their local court interpretations, in most jurisdictions you may use deadly force only when it is necessary to protect a human being who is in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury. In general terms, there must be surrounding circumstances indicating that the situation was so dangerous that gunfire was actually a reasonable solution and used in order to save yourself or another person. I encourage readers to educate themselves on the specific laws and regulations regarding use of deadly force within their state. Remember, nothing in any law allows the shooting of people who deserve to be shot, but rather, only those that need to be shot.
The force applied in self-defense must be reasonable for the danger presented.
Lesson #3: The force applied in self-defense must be reasonable for the danger presented. An east coast case clearly makes that point. During an agreed visit to her ex-husband’s home, an argument erupted and the woman apparently tried to strike her ex with her open hand. His response was seven 9mm rounds from his Ruger pistol, killing her instantly. Criminal charges were brought and a jury, ignoring his self-defense claim, convicted the shooter of first degree murder. (His conviction was recently upheld by an Appeals Court).
In my 25 years of teaching firearms to 20,000 students, I have only two who were charged under criminal statutes for wrongfully killing a claimed “attacker.” One is currently doing life without the possibility of parole for what was pretty clearly a murder with no self-defense issues involved. The second was recently convicted of manslaughter for an unnecessary shooting involving a road rage incident. He was in his van and the drunken, unarmed attacker was on foot. I am quite sure that he now realizes that he should have chosen to drive away instead of shoot. Another student was charged with assault with a deadly weapon for striking an opponent with his handgun (an action that is not recommended for safety reasons) after he was punched in the head by another patron in a bar. He did not fire his gun, but rather, used it as an impact tool to ward off the attack. It took the jury only 31 minutes to return a verdict of not guilty. The jury correctly saw that his chosen force level was reasonable self-defense. Could he have legally fired his gun? Possibly so, but he wisely chose a less intrusive defense that was more appropriate for the danger presented.
Much more common addendums to self-defense shootings are civil lawsuits. The fact that there were no criminal charges in a shooting does little to prevent lawsuits. In a criminal case the jury’s question is, “Could you legally shoot?” That is the easy question. In a civil case the jury’s question is, “should you have shot?” This is the difficult question. There have been several high profile cases recently where a criminal jury found the shooter “not guilty,” but a civil jury still awarded substantial monetary damages.
Basically, the criminal jury looks at what action you took. Was it legal or not? The civil jury looks at what action you took and what else you could have done instead. Civil court is where you are asked, “Why didn’t you just run away or point your gun to warn him off?” Was there a safe solution you chose to ignore? It is those types of cases where you see the criminal case dismissed and the civil case take your home and your savings.
A separate word here about court cases: If you get involved in a shooting, hire an attorney and follow his advice. When you speak to investigators or testify in court, tell the truth about what happened. Juries understand fear and panic, but they don’t understand lying about the incident. Your memory of the event will be poor at best. People acting quickly in stressful situations rarely remember the events clearly and in the right sequence. Don’t add to the facts or testify as to what you think may have happened. If you don’t remember, you don’t remember. If you guess and are wrong, you will appear to be a liar. If the jury thinks you are lying, you will lose.
The third problem is post traumatic stress. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to interview more than 80 individuals that have shot and killed someone in a self-defense situation. These included police and security officers who shot suspects, merchants who shot robbers, homeowners who shot burglars and potential victims who shot rapists and muggers.
All in all, I would guess that about 20% of the shooters are mentally fine with the incident and go on with their lives as before. Another 40% have some emotional problems over it and take a few months or more to get themselves back together. The remaining 40% have serious life changes because of the experience. They commonly become alcoholics, addicted to pain killers, end up divorced, lose their jobs, or in extreme cases, commit suicide.
A great deal of what civilians “know” about the legal use of deadly force is incorrect.
Taking the life of another human is not an easy thing for most of us. You were taught from childhood that killing is wrong. That lesson was correct. Killing is wrong. Unfortunately, life sometimes presents scenarios where you have no other option. Should you or a loved one become involved in one of these traumatic incidents, even if you think you’re okay, get some professional counseling as soon as possible.
The ability of Americans to possess firearms in their homes and businesses has saved countless lives. Almost all states are now allowing for the fairly simple issue of concealed firearm permits. Nationally, in the last few years, the addition of these armed citizens has caused at least part of a statistical drop in the rate of street crime. We can expect these types of crimes to continue to decline as rape and robbery become more risky professions. With that being said, the use of deadly force in self-defense is rarely a completely winning situation. I would suggest that even if your state law allows you to stand your ground, you evade the attack instead. If you are able to escape, then you are safe from the attacker, safe from criminal charges and safe from civil lawsuits, and you probably don’t need the psychiatrist. The best way to really win a gunfight is not to play!
|
|
发表于 2016-1-23 07:29
收藏
提升卡
变色卡
千斤顶
楼主
