Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Mar 28, 2006.
Link passed on without comment from me: http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/s ... force.html
Another: http://www.wdef.com/servlet/Satellite?p ... 3185&path=
Looks like Benfield was partially correct, the media can't be trusted to tell the truth about what the law actually does.
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. It could be the difference between just surviving and having a real life after defending yourself.
Is it just me or has the paper in this town lost touch with reality?
no matter how many letters we write or how many conversations we have when meeting a journalist face to face. They are all two sided. In the end all they are looking for is a story even if it means adding an accelerant to achieve a response that will get their story and name into a paper.
I remember when the paper actually had a hint of truth, now just about any paper on any given day is as credible as the inquirer, or some other trash that people pay for.
I have never met a journalist I liked.
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? By the way, how do you use a law "wrongfully"?
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)?
A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, shall not be held liable in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force.
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.
the top half I have little problem with, other than "free to shoot".
It is more the 4 lines given to Franklin and NRA and 12 lines for the Antis.
Well Rep Benfield gave an example of using the law "wrongfully".
Seems a tow truck driver in Florida, who had a history of towing legally parked vehicles to unauthorized storage lots (charging towing and storage fees), towed a legally parked car to a lot. When the vehicle owner found out where his car was towed, he went to retrieve it. An argument broke out and the tow truck driver shot the car owner and claimed the new "stand your ground" defense. The court threw out the stand your ground claim.
The tow truck driver used the law wrongfully and a person died.
OR my take
The theif shot the victim and was denied the "stand your ground" defense, showing that you cannot shoot some just because of an argument, as some have said it does.
Fludd did not know what he was talking about.
Not only was he proved wrong when he spoke on the floor, but Benfield right after contradicted everything that he said.
Tons of time and print is devoted to saying people will not understand/be confused... instead of repeating that 3 times, explain situations that it would and would not cover.
Seems to me you either follow that law or you don't. If you do something because you believe you are within your rights and later find out you were not, you are still in violation of the law. Ignorance is not innocence (desipe how blissful it may be ).
If you are within your rights and someone doesn't agree with what you have done, you have not used the law "wrongfully"; you have simply used the law. If the law is screwed up, then we look at it to see how we should fix it. IMHO, these nebulous and subjective charges are just to easy to throw around (then again that's why politicians love them).
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?
The story about the tow truck driver was what I remember Rep. Benfield saying on the House floor during debate.
The law itself covers both criminal charges and civil suits.
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?
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.
I think it is called standing.
The parents/loved ones before could sue for Wrongful death. The burden of proof is lower, think of the 2nd OJ trial where he had to sell his highsman trophy to pay Nichole's parents. He won the first trial but lost the second.
Or to a lesser extent, you cannot be sued for medical bills if the person did not die.
BER950 gets the award. It is not standing (the standing will be in the next of kin), but it is a derivative action.
"A suit for wrongful death by the representative of the estate or by the next of kin authorized to bring suit is derivative to the decedent's right of action." Smith v. Rowell, 176 Ga.App. 100, 335 S.E.2d 461 (1985). See Jones v. Swett, 244 Ga. 715, 261 S.E.2d 610 (1979).
"A survivor cannot recover for the decedent's wrongful death if the decedent could not have recovered in his or her own right. As we have found:
[a]lthough it is true that the action created by the wrongful death statute is different from the cause of action which the decedent would have possessed had he lived, any defense which would have been good against the decedent is good against his representatives in a wrongful death action. Thus, no recovery could be had unless the deceased in his lifetime could have maintained an action for damages for the injury to him, and ... any defenses good as against the deceased would be good as against the action brought by the beneficiaries."
Mowell v. Marks, 269 Ga.App. 147, 603 S.E.2d 702 (2004) (footnotes and citations removed).
The key wording is "wrongful death". If the attacker threathens you with great bodily harm or death you have the right to defend yourself (or soon will have) even to the point of death to the attacker. So, that can not be construed as a "wrongful death" and be taken to civil court by relatives of the deceased. Isn't that correct?
Basically, you can assert the same bar against the next of kin that you could assert against the decedent. The family does not acquire any rights that the attacker did not have. That is why the immunity statute needs to assert immunity from liability in a lawsuit by an attacker only and needs not mention his family (such as the momma that raised the little monster).
That all sounds very reasonable. I still worry that there might be some other statute that could be used to cause trouble; the language just sounds too narrow now. What about 3rd parties that are anti-gun engaging in some silly litigation? Some firearm-phobic, soccer mom bank rolled by the Brady folks says: "My child is scarred for life because he witnessed the shooting."
When I am dictator of Georgia, any damages due will come from the surviving perpetrators, if any. I might also jail any surviving perpetrators for materially contributing to the death of any non-surviving accomplices.