Knightdale shooting

RetiredUSNChief said:
I'm not so sure about that.

If I recall correctly, civil immunity applies AFTER a criminal trial in which a not guilty verdict is the outcome. At least, in the states I was reading about.

If you're not criminally charged and tried, then it doesn't apply.

Someone correct me here, if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think the question of how civil immunity is invoked has been fully resolved in North Carolina.

I think you were correct with respect to Florida at one point in time, but the Florida courts have developed the process bit by bit over the years. The last time I checked, a person in Florida can ask the court for civil immunity even if there was no criminal trial or charges and even if a civil lawsuit has not been filed.
 
Last edited:
If the fool wouldn't have been stealin........ he wouldn't have been runnin........ he wouldn't have broke into the shop...... he wouldn't have got shot.....

This is his own fault.

The fact that she might faces charges is beyond stupid.
 
Last edited:
RetiredUSNChief said:
I'm not so sure about that.

If I recall correctly, civil immunity applies AFTER a criminal trial in which a not guilty verdict is the outcome. At least, in the states I was reading about.

If you're not criminally charged and tried, then it doesn't apply.

Someone correct me here, if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
The way the castle law reads

A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force
and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force...
 
roadwarrior19 said:
I'm wondering if her biggest concern will be from a lawsuit rather than being charged by the DA. Paralysis seems like a strong motivation for the family to sue to pay the medical costs, especially since it appears she owns an accounting firm. It seems to me that a lot of the jury pool might see self defense which would make a conviction difficult to obtain. The facts aren't all known yet making this early speculation so we'll see if additonal information is released to shed more light on what transpired.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment as well. It should be illegal for family members of a criminal to sue a victim(s) that injured or killed said criminal(s) while in the act of defending themselves.
 
Ikarus1 said:
The way the castle law reads

A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force
and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force...
Click to expand...

The law does not name who makes the determination (bolded above), so that role has been assumed by the courts on an ad hoc basis.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
I'm not so sure about that.

If I recall correctly, civil immunity applies AFTER a criminal trial in which a not guilty verdict is the outcome. At least, in the states I was reading about.

If you're not criminally charged and tried, then it doesn't apply.

Someone correct me here, if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

The law, as written, seems pretty clear. The problem is that it's still fairly new (ish) and hasn't really been clarified or further defined one way or the other via case law as a result from courts in NC (to my knowledge, anyway).

Any fairly competent lawyer lacking scruples would probably try to take this particular case to civil court and get what they can to try and establish precident via trial results.
 
Last edited:
gc70 said:
The law does not name who makes the determination (bolded above), so that role has been assumed by the courts on an ad hoc basis.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

A decision by the DA not to prosecute is not a binding court decision on a legal case. The DA's job is to prosecute cases (i.e. obtain convictions). Therefore, the DA makes the decision on whether to prosecute based on whether they have enough evidence to show that a criminal act did take place and whether they have enough evidence to warrant charging a person with having committed that crime. Many cases do not go to court for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

For criminal or civil immunity to legally apply, the case MUST go before a court.

For those who don't understand this, think of it this way...going to court is a challenge to the QUALIFICATIONS of a particular case for criminal or civil immunity under the applicable statutes. If the court judges that the case DOES qualify for immunity, then it applies. If not, then it does not apply.

Personally, I would think that the preference would be to go to a criminal court first, because the conviction standard is MUCH higher in a criminal court (beyond a reasonable doubt), as opposed to a civil court where the conviction standard is very low (preponderance of evidence).
 
Ikarus1 said:
Civil courts?
Click to expand...

Good question. Since the castle law addresses both civil and criminal liability, either a civil court or a criminal court might be able to issue a ruling, or there may be some order of priority between the courts. Whichever court received the immunity request would have to be able to rule on immunity in both situations - civil and criminal. Given that, I would guess that the ruling would have to come from a criminal court.
 
Last edited:
What's the street value of a D-cup bra?

Asking for a friend.
 
Ikarus1 said:
Civil courts?
Click to expand...

gc70 said:
Good question. Since the castle law addresses both civil and criminal liability, either a civil court or a criminal court might be able to issue a ruling, or there may be some order of priority between the courts. Whichever court received the immunity request would have to be able to rule on immunity in both situations - civil and criminal. Given that, I would guess that the ruling would have to come from a criminal court.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, a ruling by a criminal court on the matter would establish both criminal and civil immunity.

Someone who is an actual attorney, feel free to correct me here. But it is the responsibility of the state for the prosecution of criminal matters, whereas civil matters are the responsibility of the citizens who bring forth the civil suits. Also, the burden of proof is different between the two courts, as I stated in my earlier posting.

If you go to a civil court, I'm not sure how the issue of immunity would be brought up. This is because whereas criminal courts are there for the state prosecution of cases concerning the breaking of the law, civil courts are there to handle civil matters between two or more people.

So a determination of whether immunity applies would seem to me to be something that would be done in a criminal court, as it's a matter of determining if the immunity LAW actually applies.

Any attorneys out there who can chime in on this?
 
I don't see anything in the statute that says it is required to have held a criminal trial:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.2.pdf

(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(e) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.

(f) A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
Click to expand...
The way it reads to me is that by virtue of the fact that he forcibly entered the workplace that it created the automatic assumption that they were there to commit harm and this in turn would justify a deadly force response and therefore the shooter is immune from prosecution and civil liability. In other words, it precludes holding a criminal trial.
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
I don't see anything in the statute that says it is required to have held a criminal trial:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.2.pdf

The way it reads to me is that by virtue of the fact that he forcibly entered the workplace that it created the automatic assumption that they were there to commit harm and this in turn would justify a deadly force response and therefore the shooter is immune from prosecution and civil liability. In other words, it precludes holding a criminal trial.
Click to expand...

Who decides that "he forcibly entered the workplace" or that he was "there to commit harm"? Is it enough for the shooter to just say so, or does somebody in law enforcement have to reach that conclusion? And what if the prosecutor has a different opinion or a judge wants to look at evidence and does not feel bound by the decisions of people outside the judicial branch? In short, the law is not written to be self-executing; somebody has to request immunity and somebody has to grant immunity.

Without a specific process spelled out in the law, the only player that can absolutely preclude a criminal trial is probably a criminal court judge.
 
gc70 said:
Who decides that "he forcibly entered the workplace" or that he was "there to commit harm"? Is it enough for the shooter to just say so, or does somebody in law enforcement have to reach that conclusion? And what if the prosecutor has a different opinion or a judge wants to look at evidence and does not feel bound by the decisions of people outside the judicial branch? In short, the law is not written to be self-executing; somebody has to request immunity and somebody has to grant immunity.

Without a specific process spelled out in the law, the only player that can absolutely preclude a criminal trial is probably a criminal court judge.
Click to expand...

By the letter of the law, no one has to decide if a person is there to commit a crime or cause bodily injury. It's already the legal assumption under NC castle doctrine.

The law assumes the notion, thereby easing the legal burden of the victim(s). The only real trouble is that it hasn't been challenged or confirmed via case law in the state yet, that I'm aware of. Right now, the law stands as written without further definition or confirmation which would be the result of precident via court cases.

Just my opinion, of course. I am not a lawyer.
 
rotorhead said:
By the letter of the law, no one has to decide if a person is there to commit a crime or cause bodily injury. It's already the legal assumption under NC castle doctrine.

The law assumes the notion, thereby easing the legal burden of the victim(s). The only real trouble is that it hasn't been challenged or confirmed via case law in the state yet, that I'm aware of. Right now, the law stands as written without further definition or confirmation which would be the result of precident via court cases.

Just my opinion, of course. I am not a lawyer.
Click to expand...
And based on castle doctrine, and assumption of affirmative use of deadly force in a workplace where the lawful occupant has no duty to retreat, the DA would be facing a long uphill battle to prove anything other than justifiable use.
 
Ikarus1 said:
And based on castle doctrine, and assumption of affirmative use of deadly force in a workplace where the lawful occupant has no duty to retreat, the DA would be facing a long uphill battle to prove anything other than justifiable use.
Click to expand...
Correct, they would have to have a compelling case to prove that it wasn't justified self defense. I assume here that the intruder somehow forced his way in.
 
How many of you are bonafide lieyers? Uh, I mean lawyers? o_O
 
Ikarus1 said:
And based on castle doctrine, and assumption of affirmative use of deadly force in a workplace where the lawful occupant has no duty to retreat, the DA would be facing a long uphill battle to prove anything other than justifiable use.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That element was a huge shift of burden when passed.
 
roadwarrior19 said:
I'm wondering if her biggest concern will be from a lawsuit rather than being charged by the DA. Paralysis seems like a strong motivation for the family to sue to pay the medical costs, especially since it appears she owns an accounting firm. It seems to me that a lot of the jury pool might see self defense which would make a conviction difficult to obtain. The facts aren't all known yet making this early speculation so we'll see if additonal information is released to shed more light on what transpired.
Click to expand...

I have heard that family is discussing suing her. I hope she counter sues for emotional distress.
 
ES44AC said:
The only problem I see is if she shot him in the behind, that means he was retreating. You shouldn't fire on a retreating person, because the threat is not a threat when retreating. I really hope she is not charged.

A local person went to prison for stabbing a attacker that turned to get away and he stabbed the attacker in the back.
I don't agree with what happened in the court system,believe he was defending himself.(in the local case).
Click to expand...

She got him from the front. He has a nice scar on the right front of his neck.
 
Dorilynn said:
She got him from the front. He has a nice scar on the right front of his neck.
Click to expand...

It's possible to end up justifiably shooting and hitting someone in the back. Massad Ayoob discusses this scenario and some other seriously interesting issues involved in SD shootings. The book is "Deadly Force, Understanding Your Right To Self Defense". I highly recommend reading it. It's not a substitute for hands on training and seminars, but very enlightening none the less. To me anyway.

Those that know all there is to know or think Ayoob is overrated should of course disregard the recommendation.
 
If a bad guy is armed, moves to take cover, he could get shot in the back before he takes cover and can return fire.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom