Atticus Finch
Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
GEORGIA:
This is a hypothetical, not a real case, but I want to know what the legal community thinks of how this scenario would play out.
Let's say a woman is confronted by an intoxicated man in a dark parking lot and, reasonably believing that he is about to attack her in a serious violent felony, she pulls her legally-carried pistol (she has a weapons carry license) and shoots him, wounding him seriously. But he lives, and he tells the authorities that it was just a misunderstanding and a stupid joke or prank on his part, and it was never a real attack.
The police don't arrest either one of them. The police and DA's office accept the woman's side of the story, but they think the poor stupid drunk has suffered enough already, due to his injuries, so they aren't interested in prosecuting him either.
(THEREFORE, the woman never needed to invoke her self-defense claim in a criminal context. There was never a hearing on the issue of criminal immunity from prosecution as contemplated by O.C.G.A. 16-3-24.2.)
However, the wounded drunk wants his day in court. He wants to sue her in a civil action in tort, for an intentional tort. He will allege that her conduct was unlawful and consisted of the crimes of aggravated assault and aggravated battery. He rejects any idea that she was justified under Georgia's self-defense laws, O.C.G.A. code sections 16-3-21 and 16-3-23.1.
He thinks the opinion of the police officers and detectives that investigated the case is irrelevant. He has a different opinion about the legality of the woman's actions. He doesn't care that the District Attorney won't prosecute the woman criminally. He thinks he can win in a civil action. And he doesn't think the DA has, or should have, the power to cut-off his right of action against her simply because the DA doesn't think this is a good case to prosecute criminally. The burden of proof is lower in civil actions, and the rules of evidence are different. He wants his bite at the apple, and the fact that the DA declined to bite the apple doesn't matter to him.
The woman who defended herself thinks that this man should not even be allowed to file a lawsuit at all. As far as she's concerned, the police did investigate the matter and they found that she acted in lawful self-defense. Therefore, she say she has immunity from any civil lawsuit. She points to O.C.G.A. 51-11-9, and says that since she was legally carrying the weapon, and legally shot him (in other words, she didn't break any criminal law by shooting him, and she did have legal justification to do so), that's the end of the matter. She thinks she can immediately get his lawsuit dismissed without even having to answer each of his allegations or go through any discovery or produce any evidence, other than maybe the testimony of the lead detective who investigated the shooting and declined to seek an arrest warrant.
THE QUESTION: How far would the wounded man's lawsuit go? At what point would it be dismissed?
Would the court bypass the usual rules of civil procedure and hold an immunity hearing-- basically a bench trial? At that trial what is the legal threshold for the judge's decision on immunity? Any reasonable doubt in the woman's favor means she wins? Preponderance of the evidence in her favor? What if there is "probable cause" to believe that she acted outside of the self-defense laws?
Instead of an early hearing, would there instead be normal civil procedures about discovery and depositions, and later a defense motion for summary judgment? If the man tells a story that has any different material facts from the woman's story, would that automatically mean it must be submitted to a jury? If it had to go to the jury, would it be fair to say that the only way the self-defense immunity law would help the woman would be that the judge reads the criminal justification statutes to them and instructs them that if the shooting meets the legal standards for self-defense in Title 16, then they cannot find liability under the tort law of Title 51? (in other words, the plaintiff's attorney can't argue that even if she committed no crime, she still committed a tort against him for which she should be held accountable).
What do y'all think?
GEORGIA:
This is a hypothetical, not a real case, but I want to know what the legal community thinks of how this scenario would play out.
Let's say a woman is confronted by an intoxicated man in a dark parking lot and, reasonably believing that he is about to attack her in a serious violent felony, she pulls her legally-carried pistol (she has a weapons carry license) and shoots him, wounding him seriously. But he lives, and he tells the authorities that it was just a misunderstanding and a stupid joke or prank on his part, and it was never a real attack.
The police don't arrest either one of them. The police and DA's office accept the woman's side of the story, but they think the poor stupid drunk has suffered enough already, due to his injuries, so they aren't interested in prosecuting him either.
(THEREFORE, the woman never needed to invoke her self-defense claim in a criminal context. There was never a hearing on the issue of criminal immunity from prosecution as contemplated by O.C.G.A. 16-3-24.2.)
However, the wounded drunk wants his day in court. He wants to sue her in a civil action in tort, for an intentional tort. He will allege that her conduct was unlawful and consisted of the crimes of aggravated assault and aggravated battery. He rejects any idea that she was justified under Georgia's self-defense laws, O.C.G.A. code sections 16-3-21 and 16-3-23.1.
He thinks the opinion of the police officers and detectives that investigated the case is irrelevant. He has a different opinion about the legality of the woman's actions. He doesn't care that the District Attorney won't prosecute the woman criminally. He thinks he can win in a civil action. And he doesn't think the DA has, or should have, the power to cut-off his right of action against her simply because the DA doesn't think this is a good case to prosecute criminally. The burden of proof is lower in civil actions, and the rules of evidence are different. He wants his bite at the apple, and the fact that the DA declined to bite the apple doesn't matter to him.
The woman who defended herself thinks that this man should not even be allowed to file a lawsuit at all. As far as she's concerned, the police did investigate the matter and they found that she acted in lawful self-defense. Therefore, she say she has immunity from any civil lawsuit. She points to O.C.G.A. 51-11-9, and says that since she was legally carrying the weapon, and legally shot him (in other words, she didn't break any criminal law by shooting him, and she did have legal justification to do so), that's the end of the matter. She thinks she can immediately get his lawsuit dismissed without even having to answer each of his allegations or go through any discovery or produce any evidence, other than maybe the testimony of the lead detective who investigated the shooting and declined to seek an arrest warrant.
THE QUESTION: How far would the wounded man's lawsuit go? At what point would it be dismissed?
Would the court bypass the usual rules of civil procedure and hold an immunity hearing-- basically a bench trial? At that trial what is the legal threshold for the judge's decision on immunity? Any reasonable doubt in the woman's favor means she wins? Preponderance of the evidence in her favor? What if there is "probable cause" to believe that she acted outside of the self-defense laws?
Instead of an early hearing, would there instead be normal civil procedures about discovery and depositions, and later a defense motion for summary judgment? If the man tells a story that has any different material facts from the woman's story, would that automatically mean it must be submitted to a jury? If it had to go to the jury, would it be fair to say that the only way the self-defense immunity law would help the woman would be that the judge reads the criminal justification statutes to them and instructs them that if the shooting meets the legal standards for self-defense in Title 16, then they cannot find liability under the tort law of Title 51? (in other words, the plaintiff's attorney can't argue that even if she committed no crime, she still committed a tort against him for which she should be held accountable).
What do y'all think?
Last edited:
