|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
IN: Self-Defense Shooters Would Be Protected From Lengthy Civil Lawsuits With New Bill
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A house bill that's been introduced in the state legislature would protect Hoosiers who shoot someone in self defense and cleared of criminal wrongdoing from lengthy civil lawsuits. State Rep. Jim Lucas (R-Seymour) has introduced HB 1284, which would require a judge to decide early during the pre-trial process to decide whether a civil lawsuit brought on by an individual or family of someone who has died from the result of a shooting where the defendant was found justified in using deadly force. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/9/2019)
|
"If I use force that's justified under the statute, [and] I'm not ever prosecuted much less convicted of a crime, why should I get sued over that?" says Relford.
Liberal response: "Butbutbut....!!!???" |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|