Civil Suit in IN?

[romad7]

Hi All,

I am living in TN now and moved here from CA a few years ago and now we may end up moving to IN for work.

I know that some states don't allow civil suits after against someone who is cleared after a self defense shooting. Does IN have this protection?

If this has been asked before, please post a link to the thread.

Thanks

 

[eldirector]

Indiana's code on the matter:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.pdf

No person in this state shall beplaced in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the
person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

In practice, it appears that "legal jeopardy" only covers criminal suits, and not civil suits. People and businesses are routinely sued after self-defense shootings.

 

[romad7]

Well that sucks.

Thanks for the info!

 

[TheSpark]

Hi All,

I am living in TN now and moved here from CA a few years ago and now we may end up moving to IN for work.

I know that some states don't allow civil suits after against someone who is cleared after a self defense shooting. Does IN have this protection?

If this has been asked before, please post a link to the thread.

Thanks

Keep in mind though that anyone can sue you for almost anything. That does not mean they will win though. My guess is any attorney would know if it was true self defense that there is no case and at most would try to pressure you into agreeing to pay a sum out of court to settle the affair. If you declined and after they try two, three, or fifty times they would just drop the case.

 

[eldirector]

Well that sucks.

Thanks for the info!

Very welcome.

Don't forget, you can also sue THEM just as easily. I'm not advocating it, but you can sue for about anything (with a squirrely enough lawyer).

 

[24Carat]

Indiana's code on the matter:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.pdf


In practice, it appears that "legal jeopardy" only covers criminal suits, and not civil suits. People and businesses are routinely sued after self-defense shootings.

I know this has been beat to death in previous threads for as long as I have been a member here and I have yet to see any of our legal lords comment.

"In practice" would mean to me there has been a civil case where this contention of "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever " has been denied by a judge. If it has I would really appreciate a link..

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I know this has been beat to death in previous threads for as long as I have been a member here and I have yet to see any of our legal lords comment.

"In practice" would mean to me there has been a civil case where this contention of "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever " has been denied by a judge. If it has I would really appreciate a link..

So would I. But I would think if there has been, we'd seen it on here.

 

[Bunnykid68]

 

[24Carat]

I just emailed the author of the code. We will see what he says.

 

[dusterboy49]

I am so poor, that if anyone sued me and won they would have to take care of me for the rest of my life.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

My sources say civil suits are a no-go when it is ruled as a justified homocide. They can file it all they want but it will not be heard in court.

Otherwise what is the point of the verbage "no legal jeopardy whatsoever?"

 

[eldirector]

My sources say civil suits are a no-go when it is ruled as a justified homocide. They can file it all they want but it will not be heard in court.

Otherwise what is the point of the verbage "no legal jeopardy whatsoever?"

I had proposed that very thing a while back in another thread. Some folks much more versed in law pointed out that "legal jeopardy" is a criminal thing, and does not apply to civil suits.

 

[24Carat]

My sources say civil suits are a no-go when it is ruled as a justified homocide. They can file it all they want but it will not be heard in court.

Otherwise what is the point of the verbage "no legal jeopardy whatsoever?"

I agree TF, there would be so many ways to word the code if it was to be specific to criminal charges. Taken that the legislation was drafted to allow licensed individuals free movement and additional protections in the legal arena, it just doesn't seem plausible that they would leave the gorilla in the room unaddressed.

I had proposed that very thing a while back in another thread. Some folks much more versed in law pointed out that "legal jeopardy" is a criminal thing, and does not apply to civil suits.

I would love to read what you refer to eldirector. Link?

Present company excluded, I have wondered if there is a sect on INGO that consciously choose to keep clarification on this point muddied. By keeping the potential for a financially devastating Civil Action in the back of everyone's minds, one could argue it would impart a chill on some uses of firearms. My contention is that the micro-second delay to contemplate "ifs, ands or buts" could get one killed.

 

[eldirector]

I would love to read what you refer to eldirector. Link?

The search works the same for both of us.

I think it was this thread:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-kroger-robbery-now-suing-kroger-rescuer.html

 

[24Carat]

It may work the same but I have yet to find any message board search feature that is worth a damn. Thanks !

 

[eldirector]

It may work the same but I have yet to find any message board search feature that is worth a damn. Thanks !

google "site:ingunowners.com your.search.terms"

But, yeah, most forum searches are pretty basic.

 

[24Carat]

The search works the same for both of us.

I think it was this thread:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-kroger-robbery-now-suing-kroger-rescuer.html

I don't think that was the thread you were thinking about. There was only one comment connected to the ICC:

"The statute you cited applies to criminal and civil matters."

Thestatute you cited applies to criminal and civil matters.

I wonder what happened with the Christine Nelson Civil case? Anyone know?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I agree TF, there would be so many ways to word the code if it was to be specific to criminal charges. Taken that the legislation was drafted to allow licensed individuals free movement and additional protections in the legal arena, it just doesn't seem plausible that they would leave the gorilla in the room unaddressed.



I would love to read what you refer to eldirector. Link?

Present company excluded, I have wondered if there is a sect on INGO that consciously choose to keep clarification on this point muddied. By keeping the potential for a financially devastating Civil Action in the back of everyone's minds, one could argue it would impart a chill on some uses of firearms. My contention is that the micro-second delay to contemplate "ifs, ands or buts" could get one killed.

As I remember the previous discussions on this is the reason it's not as cut and dried as we'd like is that it has yet to be tested. Never underestimate the powers of a lawyer to find meaning in a plainly written sentence where none exists.

 

[jbombelli]

It appears this topic is an ongoing debate around here. Here are some interesting posts on this:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._defense_and_lawsuit_question.html#post341276

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._defense_and_lawsuit_question.html#post341315

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nst_lawful_self_defense_in_in.html#post360057

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...e/177386-are_you_liable_if-2.html#post2357385

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...se-deadly-force-self-defense.html#post2497584





Don't get me wrong. I'm all up for believing the language in the IC protects me from civil suit. I just know that I've been told by more than one attorney that anyone can be sued for anything at any time. When in doubt, refer back to that.[/QUOTE]

 

[24Carat]

From your last link:

"There are no cases on this point, but I've always said that the term "no legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever" is so broad that has to include civil liability. There's simply no question that civil liability is a form of "legal jeopardy" - so why else would the legislature have used such broad language?

But by the way, this doesn't mean that the civil case simply gets dismissed - instead, it provides a defense that has to be proven by the defendant at trial (or potentially disproven by the plaintiff - that is still an open question as well)."

Thanks, Bill

Guy

I'm going to hang my hat on this, for now, until it is tested at least !