- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Qualified Immunity for Concealed Permit Holders?
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:49 pm to RaginCajunz
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:49 pm to RaginCajunz
Sounds like a really, really bad idea...very Louisiana these days.
0
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:52 pm to RaginCajunz
You can bet your arse there will not be “clean” concealed carry passed in this state. What a fkn joke.
This post was edited on 2/21/24 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:52 pm to Jack Bauers HnK
quote:
In comparison to the above scenario, think of qualified immunity as a presumption that the concealed carry defender was right and justified and immune from suit unless they can prove gross neligence, malicious intent, etc. It hasn’t eliminated the possibility that they can be held liable for bad actions. It’s a decision that, as a matter of public policy, we don’t want to subject defenders to that kind of civil liability if any aspect of their actions was justified. As a society, we would rather err on the side of the defenders.
Then this should be the norm legally, not a protected class for a person who sat through an instructional day. This has the same feel to me as "hate crime" laws. Just a conservative version. I had a great instructor who I know personally. Someone who takes the coursework seriously. I'm not sure people who sat through even the best 8 hours of class are more or less likely to be right or justified than most random people put in a bad situation.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:54 pm to RaginCajunz
quote:
I fail to see why it should create a class of citizen protected from BS civil lawsuits.
All you're asking is why.
Why NOT?
Lay out what's wrong with protecting me from a civil lawsuit for a "good" kill.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:59 pm to Jon A thon
quote:
This is dumb to me, and I have a license to carry. I only have the right to use my weapon if I fear death or great bodily harm to myself or another.
Yep, I think that is why it says this
"except in cases of gross negligence, intentional misconduct or the commission of a crime that results in a felony conviction."
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:00 pm to LSUbest
quote:
All you're asking is why.
Why NOT?
Lay out what's wrong with protecting me from a civil lawsuit for a "good" kill.
It should simply the universal law of the land. I don't like special carveouts for one group.
I understand it for officers of the law who are pushed into life or death scenarios by request of society. Joe Blow who sat through a class doesn't seem to rise to the level of a special protection from prosecution.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:01 pm to LSUbest
quote:
Lay out what's wrong with protecting me from a civil lawsuit for a "good" kill.
Because current law already protects you from civil liability for a “good” kill.
quote:
Why NOT?
Using this standard instead of “why” for new legislation is exactly why Louisiana’s constitution, revised statutes, and tax code, etc are such a hot mess.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:03 pm to RaginCajunz
quote:
Then this should be the norm legally, not a protected class for a person who sat through an instructional day. This has the same feel to me as "hate crime" laws. Just a conservative version. I had a great instructor who I know personally. Someone who takes the coursework seriously. I'm not sure people who sat through even the best 8 hours of class are more or less likely to be right or justified than most random people put in a bad situation.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But if i had to pick a group to which the QI might apply within the population of every person present within the borders of Louisiana, the group that presented themselves for training and demonstrated a minimum proficiency with a handgun would not be the worst group to pick.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:03 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Because current law already protects you from civil liability for a “good” kill.
Can you tell me what statute?
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:03 pm to roadGator
quote:
You won’t need to be on a list.
But you are if you have a CHL or the LTC.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:07 pm to RaginCajunz
quote:
It should simply the universal law of the land. I don't like special carveouts for one group.
While I would prefer that it apply to all that were LEGALLY carrying, I don't take other's candy if I can't have one.
I go earn mine.
You mad about veterans getting free lifetime CC permits?
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:07 pm to LSUbest
quote:
Can you tell me what statute?
RS 14:19 and 14:20 for starters. I’m sure there are more along with jurisprudence if you care to look for it.
You have the right to use force in defense of your selves or others in Louisiana.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:08 pm to Jack Bauers HnK
quote:
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But if i had to pick a group to which the QI might apply within the population of every person present within the borders of Louisiana, the group that presented themselves for training and demonstrated a minimum proficiency with a handgun would not be the worst group to pick.
Yes. If I had to pick one group to give the special reward to, CC holders would probably be a smart pick.
I just disagree with the premise that we SHOULD pick one group to give such a designation to.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:10 pm to Flats
quote:
The larger problem is that while it doesn't protect them from criminal (as they see it) acts, it does protect them from mistakes, negligence, etc etc etc.
It protects them from mistakes, yes, not negligence but only if those mistakes aren’t clearly defined in previously established rules/case law. That’s how QI works.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:12 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Because current law already protects you from civil liability for a “good” kill.
Current law does not protect you from civil liability for a “good” kill. Any argument they come up with as to anything you did that fell below the standard of absolute perfection leads to potential comparative fault. Perhaps you shot several times but that last shot fell outside of the 1.5 second time frame some random expert thinks you could have made the decision to stop shooting because the aggression or danger had ceased. That evidence of something done slightly wrong on your part means you cannot get summary judgment (outright dismissal of the claims against you) and you will have to either settle or go in front of a jury where they’ll do everything they can to make you out to be a careless hothead just itching to shoot a young scholar who needed an involuntary contribution to his midnight basketball team.
Defending yourself for a “good shot” will cost lots of money one way or the other. Of course, I’d rather be alive for my family and broke than dead. Even better if i can be both alive and not spending money to defend myself for eliminating a threat. I would support some benefit of the doubt being given to self-defenders to avoid this situation.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:13 pm to LSUbest
quote:
While I would prefer that it apply to all that were LEGALLY carrying, I don't take other's candy if I can't have one.
I go earn mine.
You mad about veterans getting free lifetime CC permits?
Nope. I think the idea of CC permits was stupid to begin with. But, if you have to sit through a dumb class to get the permit...vets have sunk more time in GOV training and firearms training than Joe Blow who paid his $150 and wasted a Saturday.
The CC permit class isn't some master class that teaches you perfect judgement in bad situations. It doesn't create a master race of shooter who is infallible.
Let everyone carry concealed as god intended. Fix the law to protect everyone from frivolous lawsuits.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:17 pm to Jack Bauers HnK
There should be plenty of examples of that happening under current law then.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:18 pm to ChanceOfRainIsNever
I am an Army vet. I was just reading your post, and 1 thing caught my attention. Aren't all Marines infantry first, MOS secondary ?
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:19 pm to RaginCajunz
I like it
Posted on 2/21/24 at 2:19 pm to RaginCajunz
quote:
Let everyone carry concealed as god intended.
I don't need his permission
quote:
frivolous lawsuits.
lawyers would go broke (which isn't a bad thing)
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News