J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
LDosser wrote:

The OJ case being one of the most publicized examples.

I didn't know Nichole, and squeeze, attacked OJ in his house. I
missed that part.


No, but OJ was sued for wrongful death and lost after being found
Innocent of the killing by a Jury. If you gun down a perp, the
prosecutor may choose not to charge you with anything, but the
perp's relatives may choose to sue you for wrongful death and Win.

True, maybe. Some forms of the "Castle Doctrine" immunity from civil
suits include ANY place you have a legal right to be, not just your
home (car, shopping mall, amusement park, movie theatre, whore house,
etc.).

The thing is though for the Castle Doctrine to apply it has to be
within judicial notice that you were acting in self-defense, and
absent your being tried and acquitted on a criminal charge the only
way for that judicial notice to be established is to go through a
civil trial.

I'm not sure how things work in other states. In mine, the first thing that
happens is a finding by the Medical Examiner that the death was a homicide
(killing of one human by another). ALL homicides are referred to a Grand
Jury - with our without charges, such as murder, manslaughter, etc. If the
Grand Jury determines there was a righteous shoot, they will return a No
Bill.

A "No Bill" by a grand jury IS a judicial finding.

HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
LDosser wrote:

The OJ case being one of the most publicized examples.

I didn't know Nichole, and squeeze, attacked OJ in his house. I
missed that part.


No, but OJ was sued for wrongful death and lost after being found
Innocent of the killing by a Jury. If you gun down a perp, the
prosecutor may choose not to charge you with anything, but the
perp's relatives may choose to sue you for wrongful death and Win.

True, maybe. Some forms of the "Castle Doctrine" immunity from civil
suits include ANY place you have a legal right to be, not just your
home (car, shopping mall, amusement park, movie theatre, whore
house, etc.).

The thing is though for the Castle Doctrine to apply it has to be
within judicial notice that you were acting in self-defense, and
absent your being tried and acquitted on a criminal charge the only
way for that judicial notice to be established is to go through a
civil trial.

I'm not sure how things work in other states. In mine, the first
thing that happens is a finding by the Medical Examiner that the
death was a homicide (killing of one human by another). ALL homicides
are referred to a Grand Jury - with our without charges, such as
murder, manslaughter, etc. If the Grand Jury determines there was a
righteous shoot, they will return a No Bill.

A "No Bill" by a grand jury IS a judicial finding.

But is it a finding of self-defense?

J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
LDosser wrote:

The OJ case being one of the most publicized examples.

I didn't know Nichole, and squeeze, attacked OJ in his house. I
missed that part.


No, but OJ was sued for wrongful death and lost after being found
Innocent of the killing by a Jury. If you gun down a perp, the
prosecutor may choose not to charge you with anything, but the
perp's relatives may choose to sue you for wrongful death and Win.

True, maybe. Some forms of the "Castle Doctrine" immunity from
civil suits include ANY place you have a legal right to be, not
just your home (car, shopping mall, amusement park, movie theatre,
whore house, etc.).

The thing is though for the Castle Doctrine to apply it has to be
within judicial notice that you were acting in self-defense, and
absent your being tried and acquitted on a criminal charge the only
way for that judicial notice to be established is to go through a
civil trial.

I'm not sure how things work in other states. In mine, the first
thing that happens is a finding by the Medical Examiner that the
death was a homicide (killing of one human by another). ALL homicides
are referred to a Grand Jury - with our without charges, such as
murder, manslaughter, etc. If the Grand Jury determines there was a
righteous shoot, they will return a No Bill.

A "No Bill" by a grand jury IS a judicial finding.

But is it a finding of self-defense?

No, it's not. Still, the introduction of the No Bill is a huge hurdle for
the plaintiff to overcome.

HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
LDosser wrote:

The OJ case being one of the most publicized examples.

I didn't know Nichole, and squeeze, attacked OJ in his house. I
missed that part.


No, but OJ was sued for wrongful death and lost after being found
Innocent of the killing by a Jury. If you gun down a perp, the
prosecutor may choose not to charge you with anything, but the
perp's relatives may choose to sue you for wrongful death and
Win.

True, maybe. Some forms of the "Castle Doctrine" immunity from
civil suits include ANY place you have a legal right to be, not
just your home (car, shopping mall, amusement park, movie theatre,
whore house, etc.).

The thing is though for the Castle Doctrine to apply it has to be
within judicial notice that you were acting in self-defense, and
absent your being tried and acquitted on a criminal charge the only
way for that judicial notice to be established is to go through a
civil trial.

I'm not sure how things work in other states. In mine, the first
thing that happens is a finding by the Medical Examiner that the
death was a homicide (killing of one human by another). ALL
homicides are referred to a Grand Jury - with our without charges,
such as murder, manslaughter, etc. If the Grand Jury determines
there was a righteous shoot, they will return a No Bill.

A "No Bill" by a grand jury IS a judicial finding.

But is it a finding of self-defense?

No, it's not. Still, the introduction of the No Bill is a huge hurdle
for the plaintiff to overcome.

How so? Does it prove that the use of deadly force was justified under
Chapter 9? That is the standard that the statute you cited requires, not
that a grand jury found insufficient evidence for trial.

J. Clarke wrote:

A "No Bill" by a grand jury IS a judicial finding.

But is it a finding of self-defense?

No, it's not. Still, the introduction of the No Bill is a huge hurdle
for the plaintiff to overcome.

How so? Does it prove that the use of deadly force was justified
under Chapter 9? That is the standard that the statute you cited
requires, not that a grand jury found insufficient evidence for trial.

You're right. A No Bill means the Grand Jury did not find "Probable Cause."

The standard of finding in a civil case is "Preponderance of the Evidence."
Preponderance of the evidence (i.e., 51%) ranks below probable cause (but
not much). It's possible the evidence in a civil case could reach 51%, but
not reach the probable cause threshold.

It's a pretty small target to shoot at, though.