LDosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.

The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said
law suit, though.


Only if you kill all the relatives and maybe even his livestock.

Absolutely not true for all states. In some states the version of
"Castle Doctrine" in place prohibits civil suits for wrongful death
or injury. If you would provide your home state (instead of posting via
an
anonymizer), I can tell you whether immunity from civil liability is
active where you live.


Didn't realize I was anonomyzed - Oregon.

Okay. Oregon has a Castle law (ORS 161.209-229). It permits the use of
deadly force in a number of situations. While the law doesn't say so, the
Oregon Supreme Court has found that there is no duty to retreat. That said,
Oregon does not apparently have an exemption from liability for a righteous
shoot.

An example of exemption from liability is the Texas law:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A defendant who uses
force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32],
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.

Many other states have something similar.

HeyBub wrote:
LDosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.

The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said
law suit, though.


Only if you kill all the relatives and maybe even his livestock.

Absolutely not true for all states. In some states the version of
"Castle Doctrine" in place prohibits civil suits for wrongful death
or injury. If you would provide your home state (instead of posting
via an
anonymizer), I can tell you whether immunity from civil liability is
active where you live.


Didn't realize I was anonomyzed - Oregon.

Okay. Oregon has a Castle law (ORS 161.209-229). It permits the use of
deadly force in a number of situations. While the law doesn't say so,
the Oregon Supreme Court has found that there is no duty to retreat.
That said, Oregon does not apparently have an exemption from
liability for a righteous shoot.

An example of exemption from liability is the Texas law:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A defendant who
uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section
9.32], 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.

Note those words: "Affirmative defense". It doesn't mean that you can't be
sued. It means that if you can prove self-defense you will be absolved of
liability--you'll still be out legal fees and court costs and lost time.

J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
LDosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many
localities.

The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said
law suit, though.


Only if you kill all the relatives and maybe even his livestock.

Absolutely not true for all states. In some states the version of
"Castle Doctrine" in place prohibits civil suits for wrongful death
or injury. If you would provide your home state (instead of posting
via an
anonymizer), I can tell you whether immunity from civil liability
is active where you live.


Didn't realize I was anonomyzed - Oregon.

Okay. Oregon has a Castle law (ORS 161.209-229). It permits the use
of deadly force in a number of situations. While the law doesn't say
so, the Oregon Supreme Court has found that there is no duty to
retreat. That said, Oregon does not apparently have an exemption from
liability for a righteous shoot.

An example of exemption from liability is the Texas law:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A defendant who
uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section
9.32], 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.

Note those words: "Affirmative defense". It doesn't mean that you
can't be sued. It means that if you can prove self-defense you will
be absolved of liability--you'll still be out legal fees and court
costs and lost time.

No. Our courts have held that "Titles" are not law, only the text of the
statute counts.

But, arguendo, assuming "affirmative defense" was part of the law, no
plaintiff attorney would take the case, knowing he would lose simply by the
filing of a motion to dismiss.

But, you're right. Anybody can be sued for almost anything, assuming the
plaintiff meets several thresholds (venue, standing, dollar amount of
damages, etc.).

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
LDosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.

The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said
law suit, though.


Only if you kill all the relatives and maybe even his livestock.

Absolutely not true for all states. In some states the version of
"Castle Doctrine" in place prohibits civil suits for wrongful death
or injury. If you would provide your home state (instead of posting via
an
anonymizer), I can tell you whether immunity from civil liability is
active where you live.


Didn't realize I was anonomyzed - Oregon.

Okay. Oregon has a Castle law (ORS 161.209-229). It permits the use of
deadly force in a number of situations. While the law doesn't say so, the
Oregon Supreme Court has found that there is no duty to retreat. That
said, Oregon does not apparently have an exemption from liability for a
righteous shoot.

An example of exemption from liability is the Texas law:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A defendant who uses
force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32],
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.

Many other states have something similar.


And Oregon should ...

HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
LDosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many
localities.

The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said
law suit, though.


Only if you kill all the relatives and maybe even his livestock.

Absolutely not true for all states. In some states the version of
"Castle Doctrine" in place prohibits civil suits for wrongful
death or injury. If you would provide your home state (instead of
posting via an
anonymizer), I can tell you whether immunity from civil liability
is active where you live.


Didn't realize I was anonomyzed - Oregon.

Okay. Oregon has a Castle law (ORS 161.209-229). It permits the use
of deadly force in a number of situations. While the law doesn't say
so, the Oregon Supreme Court has found that there is no duty to
retreat. That said, Oregon does not apparently have an exemption
from liability for a righteous shoot.

An example of exemption from liability is the Texas law:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A defendant who
uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9
[Section
9.32], 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.

Note those words: "Affirmative defense". It doesn't mean that you
can't be sued. It means that if you can prove self-defense you will
be absolved of liability--you'll still be out legal fees and court
costs and lost time.

No. Our courts have held that "Titles" are not law, only the text of
the statute counts.

Believe what you want to. An affirmative defense requires a trial.

But, arguendo, assuming "affirmative defense" was part of the law, no
plaintiff attorney would take the case, knowing he would lose simply
by the filing of a motion to dismiss.

Why would he lose by the filing of a motion to dismiss? A motion to dismiss
does not convince the court that the use of deadly force was justified under
Chapter 9 of the Penal Code. That's what trials are for.

But, you're right. Anybody can be sued for almost anything, assuming
the plaintiff meets several thresholds (venue, standing, dollar
amount of damages, etc.).

And they can lose.