Are civil trials allowed against lawful self defense in IN?

[Passive101]

I'm just wondering if people need to be worried about legal action in IN if someone legally defends them self.

In FL there can be no chance of a civil trial.

 

[Kingrat]

im not a lawyer but i would guess any judge worth his salt would throw the case out on reviewing it before it even goes to court, as long as reasonable force was used


IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

<cut>

 

[tskin]

im not a lawyer but i would guess any judge worth his salt would throw the case out on reviewing it before it even goes to court, as long as reasonable force was used


IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

<cut>

I'm not sure that "Legal jeopardy" is covered under a civil suit. I'd like to think as well though that a smart judge wouldn't let it get this far (but we know there are a lot of leftist judges)....

 

[shooter521]

Remember, anyone can sue anyone for anything, at any time. Even if the suit does get tossed out, it will cost you a bunch of time and money defending yourself up to that point.

 

[Passive101]

Remember, anyone can sue anyone for anything, at any time. Even if the suit does get tossed out, it will cost you a bunch of time and money defending yourself up to that point.

Is this the law in IN?

Several states have laws specifically against this in cases of self defense.

 

[rkba_net]

These laws are quite interesting... in THEORY you cannot be sued... In PRACTICE you can be sued in order to prove that your case does not come under the exemptions in the law. Example they will try to prove that the following exemption does not apply in your case. "if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle." etc etc If you win the case your opponent generally gets to pay your legal bills...

 

[jmb79]

im not a lawyer but i would guess any judge worth his salt would throw the case out on reviewing it before it even goes to court, as long as reasonable force was used


IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

<cut>

You are quite mistaken. First, the quoted section from the Indiana Code is taken from Title 35, which deals with criminal law. Second, the term "legal jeopardy" refers to criminal, not civil liability.

Black's Law Dictionary defines "jeopardy" as: "The danger of conviction and punishment which the defendant in a criminal action incurs when a valid indictment has been found, and a petit jury has been impaneled and sworn to try the case and give a verdict in a court of competent jurisdiction..."

Also, judges don't simply "throw out cases upon reviewing them." A party has to move for dismissal of the case and both sides are provided the opportunity to argue and submit written briefs on the issue. A judge cannot, on his or her own, decide that "reasonable force" was used. To allow judges such discretion would undermine the adversarial nature of our judicial systems.

So, yes, if you shoot someone in self defense, even if no criminal charges are brought against you, you can be sued in civil court and I'd venture to say that you will likely be sued in civil court by the person you shot or his/her heirs/family. Another thing to remember is that criminal conviction usually requires the jury or trier of fact find that you are guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil court, the standard of proof is only "a preponderance of the evidence". The civil court standard is much easier to acheive.

An example of how this works is that O.J. Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges related to the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. However, he was subsequently found liable in a civil court lawsuit of having commited the tort of "wrongful death."

 

[jmb79]

These laws are quite interesting... in THEORY you cannot be sued... In PRACTICE you can be sued in order to prove that your case does not come under the exemptions in the law. Example they will try to prove that the following exemption does not apply in your case. "if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle." etc etc If you win the case your opponent generally gets to pay your legal bills...

Actually, you can be sued in THEORY and in PRACTICE. The quoted code section applies only to criminal cases, not civil torts claims.

Also, in the United States, the losing party does not pay the other party's attorneys' fees. This is called the "American Rule." In Great Britain, the opposite is true. Whether your are the plaintiff or the defendant, if you loose, you pay both sides' attorneys' fees. Appropriately, this is called the "English Rule."

 

[jmb79]

Is this the law in IN?

Several states have laws specifically against this in cases of self defense.

Can you please provide a link or reference to some of these state laws?

Thanks.

 

[emclean]

Remember, anyone can sue anyone for anything, at any time. Even if the suit does get tossed out, it will cost you a bunch of time and money defending yourself up to that point.

so remember to counter sue for expances, and for your time.

 

[jmb79]

so remember to counter sue for expances, and for your time.

On what grounds would you do this?

If you have actually shot someone and the person you shoot or, if the person is dead, his/her heir/spouse/etc, sues you for wrongful death, I think the plaintiff will be able to articulate a prima facie case. Among other things, this will likely take the case out of the realm of "frivolous lawsuit." If a civil lawsuit is not frivolous, it is unlikely that you will be able to recove the "expenses" related to your defense, let alone the value of the time you spend defending yourself. You will not be succesful if yo attempt to counterclaim for "expenses and time." Moreover, even if you could convince your attorney to do so, which is unlikely, the only result is that you will pay more money to your attorney, which money you will not recoup.

 

[Passive101]

That is sad to see that IN does not have a law that protects the victims. It probably won't change what I do, but it is sad that if you do so you could lose your home, car, possessions, and be poor for a very long time.

Maybe someday they will have a law that protects people from this.

 

[Bushido Devil Dog]

You are quite mistaken. First, the quoted section from the Indiana Code is taken from Title 35, which deals with criminal law. Second, the term "legal jeopardy" refers to criminal, not civil liability.

Black's Law Dictionary defines "jeopardy" as: "The danger of conviction and punishment which the defendant in a criminal action incurs when a valid indictment has been found, and a petit jury has been impaneled and sworn to try the case and give a verdict in a court of competent jurisdiction..."

Also, judges don't simply "throw out cases upon reviewing them." A party has to move for dismissal of the case and both sides are provided the opportunity to argue and submit written briefs on the issue. A judge cannot, on his or her own, decide that "reasonable force" was used. To allow judges such discretion would undermine the adversarial nature of our judicial systems.

So, yes, if you shoot someone in self defense, even if no criminal charges are brought against you, you can be sued in civil court and I'd venture to say that you will likely be sued in civil court by the person you shot or his/her heirs/family. Another thing to remember is that criminal conviction usually requires the jury or trier of fact find that you are guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil court, the standard of proof is only "a preponderance of the evidence". The civil court standard is much easier to acheive.

Is the above information/knowledge that you have posted a result of your education, qualifications, and experience as an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Indiana?

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I have the same question. My quick review of trial law in Indiana reveals that the issue has not been decided. Furthermore, "legal jeopardy" has been defined in the context of actions brought by the state. There is very little Indiana case law on the use of "legal jeopardy" in the context of civil liability. Finally, Black's Law Dictionary may be a fine starting point, but has no authority. I was not able to find a court opinion here that has so limited the definition of "legal jeopardy" solely to criminal proceedings.

Is the above information/knowledge that you have posted a result of your education, qualifications, and experience as an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Indiana?

 

[emclean]

On what grounds would you do this?

i was responding to a comment about a frivolous lawsuit.

If you have actually shot someone and the person you shoot or, if the person is dead, his/her heir/spouse/etc, sues you for wrongful death, I think the plaintiff will be able to articulate a prima facie case.

it would depend on the exact cermstanses. a criminal who is shot in the comision of a forcible felony, you would have a good chance to get teh costs of your defence covered.

more than likly, all it would do is make the other person relise that they might loose and have to pay you.

 

[jmb79]

i was responding to a comment about a frivolous lawsuit.

Ok. I missed that. Makes sense now.


it would depend on the exact cermstanses. a criminal who is shot in the comision of a forcible felony, you would have a good chance to get teh costs of your defence covered.

more than likly, all it would do is make the other person relise that they might loose and have to pay you.

Well, of course it will depend on the exact circumstances. Everything depends on the exact circumstances.

 

[rhino]

Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, any adult should have some kind of "umbrella" liability insurance policy.

 

[jdhaines]

Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, any adult should have some kind of "umbrella" liability insurance policy.

I'm not familiar with this. Would this be something similar to a homeowner's policy that you would obtain through a "State Farm" type of business? Or is this something totally different?

 

[JosephR]

I'm not sure that "Legal jeopardy" is covered under a civil suit. I'd like to think as well though that a smart judge wouldn't let it get this far (but we know there are a lot of leftist judges)....

Yes, you can be sued civilly. It will more than likely never become "legal jeopardy" since we SHOULD have judges smart enough to say, "gtfo of my court and don't waste my time!"

It will take a little bit of time for this judge to review the case and police reports to decide but I doubt that will eat up courtroom/lawyer time.

You WILL have a lawyer ready to go so you'll already owe them for the consultation and any other time/fees incurred...

"Jeopardy" does not equal "little scare"

Jeopardy implies an unknown outcome, one being potentially "bad".

 

[jmb79]

Yes, you can be sued civilly. It will more than likely never become "legal jeopardy" since we SHOULD have judges smart enough to say, "gtfo of my court and don't waste my time!"

It will take a little bit of time for this judge to review the case and police reports to decide but I doubt that will eat up courtroom/lawyer time.

You WILL have a lawyer ready to go so you'll already owe them for the consultation and any other time/fees incurred...

"Jeopardy" does not equal "little scare"

Jeopardy implies an unknown outcome, one being potentially "bad".

Your post does not make any sense. As explained earlier in this thread (or in the related thread), the term "jeopardy" is simply not applicable to a civil suit. Jeopardy has do with criminal cases.

A judge will not, on his or her own, "review the case and police reports to decide...". Lawsuits simply do not work that way.

The judge will only review what each side files in the court. The judge does very little without being prompted to do so by one side or the other filing a motion or brief that asks the judge to do something specific (or several specific things). Most of the cost of an attorny is not related to time actually physically in court but instead, the cost relates to the time the attorney spends researching and analyzing the law, the facts, the other side's arguments, and planning and preparing your arguements.

I am not sure what you event intend to mean by the last two comments re the term "jeopardy." Neither statment is particularly coherent given the statuory context in which term is used.