Joined
·
72,134 Posts
Link passed on without comment from me: http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/s ... force.html
Ok, Benfield. Which is it? A "feel-good law" or a law that can actually be used? :roll: By the way, how do you use a law "wrongfully"? :?"This is an election-year, feel-good law if you want to appeal to the gun owners of this state," Benfield said. "If the law is used wrongfully, the consequences can be fatal."
I become more concerned everytime I look at this part. I guess it will save you a fortune in respect to your attackers. Won't stop the soccer mom next door from suing you for inflicting emotional distress through the use of your evil gun. And what about the attacker's family bringing a wrongful death suit or somethign of that nature (see language about not liable to attacker or accomplice)? :?ber950 said:No reporting on the civil protections. Wich to me is the most significant part of the bill.
Addiing stand your ground to law just reinforces case law but the civil protections could save you a fortune.
the top half I have little problem with, other than "free to shoot".geaux_tigers said:Actually, I think the AJC article was fairly good. It did present both sides and gave a fairly accurate description of what the bill does. Maybe my expectations are just too low, but I figured it would have been more of a one-sided kind of article. I did notice that there were quotes from two "champions" and three "critics".
To me the must troubling thing about the article is not the reporting at all. It is the silly positions taken by opponents like Benfield.
Ok, Benfield. Which is it? A "feel-good law" or a law that can actually be used? :roll: By the way, how do you use a law "wrongfully"? :?"This is an election-year, feel-good law if you want to appeal to the gun owners of this state," Benfield said. "If the law is used wrongfully, the consequences can be fatal."
The story about the tow truck driver was what I remember Rep. Benfield saying on the House floor during debate.GeorgiaGlocker said:Perhaps I have missed something. From what I have read I was under the impression that the attackers family was unable to sue in civil court if the attacker was killed. Am I wrong?
I'm not an attorney nor have I been to law school, but I don't see anthing about the attacker's family. In a wrongful death suit, isn't the suit brought alleging wrong doing against the survirors rather than the deceased?geaux_tigers said:SB396
51-11-9.
A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat from the use of such force and shall not be held liable to the person against whom the use of force was justified or to any person acting as an accomplice or assistant to such person in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force.
BER950 gets the award. It is not standing (the standing will be in the next of kin), but it is a derivative action.ber950 said:I don't think so. The family is a proxy in a wrongful death suit. You did't wrongfully kill them but the person you are accused of killing can't sue you because they are dead.
If you injure a child the parents will sue you for the child because he can't.
:ianal:
I think it is called standing.