Reimbursement For Use Of Gun?

[Lursa]

Chew on this: you go to court it WILL cost you money if you hire a lawyer. That isn't an unreasonable thing to state. Even if the cost was $1 you should be reimbursed. That was the point. Should you pay legal fees for something you are found innocent on?

Are you reimbursed for any other crime you are accused of, tried, and not found guilty?

 

[BretJ]

Are you reimbursed for any other crime you are accused of, tried, and not found guilty?

This is one of the primary reasons behind the adoption of castle doctrine and one of the things stand your ground was supposed to avoid. If you defend the lives of your family or yourself, the state should be obligated to pay your defense fees if the shooting is found to have been a justifiable use of force. Otherwise you are protecting yourself From a criminal only to then be legally raped by the justice system.

And I believe in some states, your legal fees are reimbursed in some instances if found innocent. I seem to remember a case here that revolved around someone trying to recover defense fees over and above what the state had paid.

 

[Lursa]

This is one of the primary reasons behind the adoption of castle doctrine and one of the things stand your ground was supposed to avoid. If you defend the lives of your family or yourself, the state should be obligated to pay your defense fees if the shooting is found to have been a justifiable use of force. Otherwise you are protecting yourself From a criminal only to then be legally raped by the justice system.

And I believe in some states, your legal fees are reimbursed in some instances if found innocent. I seem to remember a case here that revolved around someone trying to recover defense fees over and above what the state had paid.

Castle Law is not carte blanche to kill anyone that comes into your house uninvited. It will be investigated. People can CLAIM someone broke in when it was actually someone they invited over and then had an argument with. That's just one example of why it's at least investigated.

And I dont know of any criminal charges having defense fees reimbursed, altho maybe somewhere. What you are probably referring to are statutes that many states have adopted (but not all) that enable the defendant to recoup legal fees in CIVIL cases. Or to be exempt from any civil litigation at all if found innocent or not charged criminally on the case initially. It differs from state to state.

 

[Jerry]

I agree. If you are not in grizzly country a 12 ga pump gun is the best home defense there is. But you will encounter some healthy arguments around here. Some with merit, some not.

It drives me nuts when someone buys a 308cal/7.62mm rifle "for home defense" and when I challenge them saying "that will go through you're whole house and into mine" they say "to bad it's my right". It may be your right but it's also going to be your grave if anything happens to my family.

Home defense = shotgun, handgun, or a rifle 5.56mm/223cal or smaller.

 

[BretJ]

Castle Law is not carte blanche to kill anyone that comes into your house uninvited. It will be investigated. People can CLAIM someone broke in when it was actually someone they invited over and then had an argument with. That's just one example of why it's at least investigated.

And I dont know of any criminal charges having defense fees reimbursed, altho maybe somewhere. What you are probably referring to are statutes that many states have adopted (but not all) that enable the defendant to recoup legal fees in CIVIL cases. Or to be exempt from any civil litigation at all if found innocent or not charged criminally on the case initially. It differs from state to state.

Understood. It was (Castle Doctrine) adopted here in Florida after a homeowner was basically left financially ruined after paying the legal fees to defend himself. He was easily found innocent but was basically raped by the justice system for legitimately defending his families life. The question was one of reimbursement. Not whether or not it should be investigated. I absolutely have no problem with the investigation. If someone is found to have used the statute to murder someone then hang them. Otherwise, the justice system should not be in the business of re-victimizing an innocent victim.
Here is an interesting link. Acquitted Floridians, even George Zimmerman, may recoup defense costs | The Wilbur Smith Law Firm | Fort Myers Florida

Just occurred to me, if someone is found innocent of a crime and does not receive compensation for the costs incurred, then people found innocent of a crime years after their incarceration, loss of job, house, family, should expect no compensation either. Other than, here are your clothes, sucks to be you, have a nice day.

 

[MichaelJR]

No, if it was a good shooting you usually wont because there are never any charges filed.

Not the case in MA. You could shoot someone that broke in and brandished a knife in your own home, and the DA would try and find a way to charge you.

 

[American]

I agree. If you are not in grizzly country a 12 ga pump gun is the best home defense there is. But you will encounter some healthy arguments around here. Some with merit, some not.

Use self defense ammo that flattens out.

 

[SMTA]

Chew on this: you go to court it WILL cost you money if you hire a lawyer. That isn't an unreasonable thing to state. Even if the cost was $1 you should be reimbursed. That was the point. Should you pay legal fees for something you are found innocent on?

Yup, it happens every day in courts a cross the country.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Self-defense is a viable legal defense, but there are many viable legal defenses. With all of the others, you put the facts before a jury and let them decide. With a self-defense case, you know that that this person shot the other person causing a death. That fact isn't in question. The question is was it justified given the facts of the case. In almost every other case, it goes to a jury. Why should self-defense be treated differently than the other viable legal defenses?

The thing you have to understand is, in every field of the law, the biggest and most important job of every lawyer is to keep the case out of court. Court costs money and takes time and is rarely in their clients' best interests. That's why plea bargains exist, and also why prosecutors have "prosecutorial discretion" to decide whether to press charges or not.

A prosecutor who takes a case he doesn't think he can win is wasting taxpayer money and not doing his job.

 

[TurtleDude]

The thing you have to understand is, in every field of the law, the biggest and most important job of every lawyer is to keep the case out of court. Court costs money and takes time and is rarely in their clients' best interests. That's why plea bargains exist, and also why prosecutors have "prosecutorial discretion" to decide whether to press charges or not.

A prosecutor who takes a case he doesn't think he can win is wasting taxpayer money and not doing his job.

and might well provide ammo to his opponent in the next election