quote:
But address the issue. You said that you would be covered by insurance. You WILL NOT be covered for intentional acts. I know you know that. Or I sure hope the hell so.

Fine, her it is. In a home invasion, which is all I'm talking about, there will be no suit. If there is this fantasy suit that won't happen, the shooter will be defended. Case is dismissed before trial. If this fantasy non-existant never going to happen suit goes to jury, the plaintiff(s) get zeroed. If this make believe group of irrational jurors award money, the shooter is covered because the plaintiff oriented judge already granted the plaintiff's summary judgment on coverage finding the exclusion vague and/that the shooter, while he intended to fire, did not intend bodily harm upon the poor home invader. If the summary judgment is not granted(ha ha) the shooter has nothing anyway, and is damn glad he offed the scum who could have killed his 4 year old while he slept.

quote:
Prosecution? Dude, if you kill someone, the DA is going to have to take a serious look at it.

No, just no.

quote:
I helped defend one here where a guy shot someone who he thought was trying to invade his home

yeah, I'm sure that's what happened.

quote:
So how many burglar shooters have you defended?

Zero, because it never happens

This post was edited on 5/18/11 at 11:20 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by JudgeHolden

Gila River

Member since Jan 2008

18566 posts

Posted on 5/18/11 at 11:24 pm to AlxTgr

quote:
AlxTgr

So let me get this straight. You expert legal opinion is "it just won't happen." Wow. Considering that it has, I am just not putting a lot of stock in that.

If it does, you say, then everything legally will have to break the shooter's way because you say so. Man. You must have tried a zillion cases to be so confident. Oh, right, if you had tried many cases at all you would know that that never happens.

And if not, well, hell, you'll be broke anyway so why worry?

You haven't handled one, you don't seem to understand how homeowner's coverage works, and your defense is denial. Thank you Perry Mason.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Rocketvapor

Covington

Member since May 2011

42 posts

Posted on 5/18/11 at 11:59 pm to AlxTgr

I am not a lawyer. I am not a LEO. I am familiar with firearms and have had formal training in the past. As much as I would like to believe that the DA, law enforcement, Judge and jury would function as advertised, I would not be comfortable putting my finances and freedom on the line for possessions. The safely of my family, any day of the week, but not material items.

The rural south is a scary place to exercise your rights. Imagine plugging some local politician's drunk ash unemployed 2nd cousin in law. How about a relative of the investigating officer? How about your neighbors? "was gonna happen sooner or later, bubba was just itchin to shoot someone stealing gas from his tractor".
and, I sure wouldn't go posting rash ideas on a forum.
Those thinking of getting a home protection weapon think this out at length. I'm in favor of it. But get the training, not just how to shoot straight but how to think straight. Practice both shooting and even "what if" drills so you don't have to read the manual at the last minute. If you own a gun, become an expert on how that gun operates. Be able to load a magazine in the dark. Why do you need to be looking at the mag anyway?

This started out discussing the legality of deadly force and drifted around to how to get away with it. I don't trust our legal system with my life and relying on "a jury of my peers" would scare the life out of me anyway. But when necessary I will stand up to protect my family from harm.

This post was edited on 5/19/11 at 12:04 am

0 ...

Report Post

Flood Board - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board