Are you prepared after the defense incident to interact with the police?

[ZX9RCAM]

>

A few years back, I earned the very HARD WAY that if you give a "Hacker" or "Scammer" ANY of your account info, even through their subterfuge, your LifeLock will immediately abandon you.

leVieux
.

Thanks.

I was asking about the "self defense shooting" insurance, but that is good to know as well.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Just thinking, will your insurance cover you if you come to the aid of a non family member?
Getting involved and shooting someone, just to help another?


ETA: This question is for anybody.

 

[rp-]

Just thinking, will your insurance cover you if you come to the aid of a non family member?
Getting involved and shooting someone, just to help another?


ETA: This question is for anybody.

I think it says it'll cover any lawful shooting so I don't see why not.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

 

[HawkeyeSATX]

In Texas, there is a Good Samaritan Law.

That law states that if someone is in mortal danger, it is a regular persons responsibility to render aid, and not be held responsible for adverse effects from rendering aid.

E.g., If you see someone having a heart attack, it is your obligation to call 911, and if you know CPR, you have to do CPR.

Now, also an example, if you have a CHL, and see someone being shot at, or shot, you have the obligation of stopping that threat, and you aren’t supposed to have any litigation brought against you for legally rendering aid.

Several years ago, a State Trooper here in Texas, did a routine traffic stop, until the perp resisted arrest, and was pummeling the snot out of said Trooper, and a good samaritan came up behind the perp, and shot him to death.
The person didn’t stick around, but he called 911, and medical professionals were on the spot within minutes to save the Trooper. The incident was caught on the Troopers dash cam.

Because of the Good Samaritan Law, the civilian who killed the perp, was sought, but never found. That person wasn’t brought up on charges. The law worked exactly as it should have.

Now, if there is a self righteous, leftist leaning DA in your area, things will be a lot different, because they will bend, and twist the law, and facts to fit whatever their narrative as to what needs to be done.

Hawk

 

[Axxe55]

Just thinking, will your insurance cover you if you come to the aid of a non family member?
Getting involved and shooting someone, just to help another?


ETA: This question is for anybody.

I think it says it'll cover any lawful shooting so I don't see why not.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

I have to agree with @rp- . If the shooting is lawful or justified, I can't see where there would be a problem. But you never know.

 

[rp-]

In Texas, there is a Good Samaritan Law.

That law states that if someone is in mortal danger, it is a regular persons responsibility to render aid, and not be held responsible for adverse effects from rendering aid.

E.g., If you see someone having a heart attack, it is your obligation to call 911, and if you know CPR, you have to do CPR.

Now, also an example, if you have a CHL, and see someone being shot at, or shot, you have the obligation of stopping that threat, and you aren’t supposed to have any litigation brought against you for legally rendering aid.

Several years ago, a State Trooper here in Texas, did a routine traffic stop, until the perp resisted arrest, and was pummeling the snot out of said Trooper, and a good samaritan came up behind the perp, and shot him to death.
The person didn’t stick around, but he called 911, and medical professionals were on the spot within minutes to save the Trooper. The incident was caught on the Troopers dash cam.

Because of the Good Samaritan Law, the civilian who killed the perp, was sought, but never found. That person wasn’t brought up on charges. The law worked exactly as it should have.

Now, if there is a self righteous, leftist leaning DA in your area, things will be a lot different, because they will bend, and twist the law, and facts to fit whatever their narrative as to what needs to be done.

Hawk

That's all well and good and all, but it still doesn't mean I have to get involved. First sign of trouble and I'm gonna nope the hell out of there. We have a code word for the kids that says let's gtfo right now and don't ask questions. I'm not a sheep dog. I'm looking out for myself and my family. I'm not trying to save everybody else.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

 

[rotor]

In Texas, there is a Good Samaritan Law.

That law states that if someone is in mortal danger, it is a regular persons responsibility to render aid, and not be held responsible for adverse effects from rendering aid.

E.g., If you see someone having a heart attack, it is your obligation to call 911, and if you know CPR, you have to do CPR.

Now, also an example, if you have a CHL, and see someone being shot at, or shot, you have the obligation of stopping that threat, and you aren’t supposed to have any litigation brought against you for legally rendering aid.

Several years ago, a State Trooper here in Texas, did a routine traffic stop, until the perp resisted arrest, and was pummeling the snot out of said Trooper, and a good samaritan came up behind the perp, and shot him to death.
The person didn’t stick around, but he called 911, and medical professionals were on the spot within minutes to save the Trooper. The incident was caught on the Troopers dash cam.

Because of the Good Samaritan Law, the civilian who killed the perp, was sought, but never found. That person wasn’t brought up on charges. The law worked exactly as it should have.

Now, if there is a self righteous, leftist leaning DA in your area, things will be a lot different, because they will bend, and twist the law, and facts to fit whatever their narrative as to what needs to be done.

Hawk

I don’t think good samaritan laws require anyone to interact. It partially protects those that do. Partially protects.

 

[Axxe55]

That's all well and good and all, but it still doesn't mean I have to get involved. First sign of trouble and I'm gonna nope the hell out of there. We have a code word for the kids that says let's gtfo right now and don't ask questions. I'm not a sheep dog. I'm looking out for myself and my family. I'm not trying to save everybody else.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

I don't necessarily agree, or disagree with what you're saying, but I understand and respect your position. Every situation is going to be different, and only you can evaluate if your involvement would help, or hinder that situation. And your first priority should be your loved ones first and foremost.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I thought the "good samaritan" laws covered providing aid to injured parties?

That same law covers you shooting someone to help another?

 

[Axxe55]

I thought the "good samaritan" laws covered providing aid to injured parties?

That same law covers you shooting someone to help another?

Honestly, I don't know, but if you saw a woman being raped in a dark alley , and you intervened and shot the rapist to defend her, I would think a "Good Samaritan" law would apply.

Personally, whether any good samaritan law protected me or not, there is no way I could just keep walking and pretend I didn't see it happening, and not intervene in some way.

 

[rp-]

I don't necessarily agree, or disagree with what you're saying, but I understand and respect your position. Every situation is going to be different, and only you can evaluate if your involvement would help, or hinder that situation. And your first priority should be your loved ones first and foremost.

I guess there's situations where I might be able to step in. Im no fighter though so I'm not going to step in the middle of a bar fight or anything. The way I see it pulling a gun is a last resort. I'm not trying to be a bitch about it but at the same time I have no delusion of grandeur.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Honestly, I don't know, but if you saw a woman being raped in a dark alley , and you intervened and shot the rapist to defend her, I would think a "Good Samaritan" law would apply.

Personally, whether any good samaritan law protected me or not, there is no way I could just keep walking and pretend I didn't see it happening, and not intervene in some way.

Sure, it's legal to defend someone, I just didn't think it was the same "good samaritan" law that defended individuals providing medical aid in an emergency, such as a car wreck.

 

[HawkeyeSATX]

I guess there's situations where I might be able to step in. Im no fighter though so I'm not going to step in the middle of a bar fight or anything. The way I see it pulling a gun is a last resort. I'm not trying to be a bitch about it but at the same time I have no delusion of grandeur.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

That’s part of the problem society has as a whole.

“It’s not my concern, so why get involved?” Kinda mentality.

How do we change a society’s mind in helping your fellow human being?

We change it by helping and showing compassion.

I served my country, my city by being a public servant. It wasn’t about having power, but the simple feeling of wanting to help my fellow human being. In whatever means I could.

Also, there is never any moral wrong by doing the right thing towards your fellow human being.

Haven’t you heard the old saying?
“God made man, but Colonel Colt made ‘em equal!”

It’s a given you’re going to protect you, and your loved ones.
But also think too, those who are doing wrong, are hurting someone. Someone’s father, mother, brother, sister, son, and daughter.

Hawk

 

[Texasjack]

I was involved in a minor incident a few years ago where some kids backed a car into my truck in a parking lot. The kids did it intentionally, and they tried to turn it into a fight. What surprised me was that several people came along and offered to tell the cops it was my fault. From this we learn not to trust witnesses. (An experienced cop was doing security and figured out what happened. In his words, "It's too late now, but the parents should have beat those kids a lot more often.")

Every situation is different, and if the politics of the moment demand it, you could be 100% justified but still get prosecuted. (I refer you to Kyle Rittenhouse.) Even if you didn't pull the trigger, if you are in any way involved, you could be prosecuted. (See the Arbery case.)

I've worked with many attorneys over the years, and I can tell you it's extremely hard to sit silently while your lawyer does all the talking. It can also be incredibly boring as they spend an hour discussing ONE WORD, but that one word may mean all the difference in how the case winds up. Now all of my experience was with corporate stuff and not criminal stuff, but in court they're pretty much the same. For these reasons, I think the safest path is the advice of the attorney in the video that says to STFU.

 

[Tenncvol]

Other good resources are the USCCA and CCW Safe web sites and videos.
You do not have to be a member to access a lot of their information. They very much do not want their members to get in legal trouble because they will have to pay for the defense efforts.

They recommend sharing only basic information with police in the aftermath because most people will be hyped up and may say things that incriminate.

Unfortunately, the process can be the punishment if the DA uses government resources to attack you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

TPC 9.33 very clearly covers deadly force in defense of another person.

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

The civil practice code covers liability immunity.


CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT

CHAPTER 83. USE OF FORCE OR DEADLY FORCE

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.

Having said that, just because you can’t be held liable doesn’t mean someone can’t attempt to sue you.

 

[rotor]

Not long ago watched a YouTube video of a guy who shot a bad guy that had just shot a cop, new cop came and shot and killed the hero good guy. Hero goes home in a coffin.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Honestly, I don't know, but if you saw a woman being raped in a dark alley , and you intervened and shot the rapist to defend her, I would think a "Good Samaritan" law would apply.

Personally, whether any good samaritan law protected me or not, there is no way I could just keep walking and pretend I didn't see it happening, and not intervene in some way.

You are already covered by TXPC 9.33 if you used deadly force against a person committing sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault on a third person if the intervention was reasonably believed to be immediately necessary to protect the third person.

The "Good Samaritan Law" is about emergency first aid/medical care it has absolutely zero to do with a bona fide act to protect a third party from acts of violence. It was written to protect someone who tries CPR or uses a defribulator or throws on a TQ from liability.

Please feel free to read it below:

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code - CIV PRAC & REM § 74.151. Liability for Emergency Care

(a) A person who in good faith administers emergency care is not liable in civil damages for an act performed during the emergency unless the act is wilfully or wantonly negligent, including a person who:

(1) administers emergency care using an automated external defibrillator;  or

(2) administers emergency care as a volunteer who is a first responder as the term is defined under Section 421.095, Government Code .

(b) This section does not apply to care administered:

(1) for or in expectation of remuneration, provided that being legally entitled to receive remuneration for the emergency care rendered shall not determine whether or not the care was administered for or in anticipation of remuneration;  or

(2) by a person who was at the scene of the emergency because he or a person he represents as an agent was soliciting business or seeking to perform a service for remuneration.

(c), (d) Deleted by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 204, § 10.01.

(e) Except as provided by this subsection, this section does not apply to a person whose negligent act or omission was a producing cause of the emergency for which care is being administered.  This subsection does not apply to liability of a school district or district school officer or employee arising from an act or omission under a program or practice or procedure developed under Subchapter G, Chapter 38, Education Code, other than liability arising from wilful or intentional misconduct.



Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[Tnhawk]

...... I think the safest path is the advice of the attorney in the video that says to STFU.

A former law professor began a class on self defense by asking how many of us knew any deaf mutes in prison. He then stated the reason - they didn't give evidence that could used against themselves. As recent court actions have shown, the DA will use everything available to get a conviction.

 

[Lonesome Dove]

Worrying baout this shit can get you killed if ever in the situation. Second thoughts aren't always a blessing. And then there's that.