If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
It's nice to know that there is actually a few decent freedom loving people in government.
Awesome! What are the chances of HB125 becoming law?
Are there any bills pending that make it so that you are immune to any and all civil suits if you are proven to have been justified in using lethal force as outlined in Chapter 627?
As we MA residents know there's a notable difference between something be a defense and immunity from prosecution and lawsuit. The first, which is what NH law appears to provide now, may require that one go to trial to present that defense, with the associated costs, pain and suffering, whereas immunity prevents the trial from even happening.?? The law already says:
627:1 General Rule. – Conduct which is justifiable under this chapter constitutes a defense to any offense. The fact that such conduct is justifiable shall constitute a complete defense to any civil action based on such conduct.
As we MA residents know there's a notable difference between something be a defense and immunity from prosecution and lawsuit. The first, which is what NH law appears to provide now, may require that one go to trial to present that defense, with the associated costs, pain and suffering, whereas immunity prevents the trial from even happening.
Via the criminal justice system either by trial or if charges were not brought or charges where dropped.Uh, huh. And in what magical place other than court would justification be determined?
Via the criminal justice system either by trial or if charges were not brought or charges where dropped.
The difference is that the "defense" approach means one can still be sued in civil court and have to go through some or all of the trial process to provide this defense even if the conduct was determined to be justified via the criminal justice system. That's the trial cost, pain and suffering I was referring to. On the other hand "immunity" means that civil proceedings cannot even start if the actions were shown to be justified via the criminal justice system.
Well, you're kind of barking up the wrong tree, too. You're right that the new bill makes things better, but you are off as to why.A defense is rebuttable during trial, while immunity means the first time it comes before a judge it gets tossed without delay.
?? The law already says:
627:1 General Rule. – Conduct which is justifiable under this chapter constitutes a defense to any offense. The fact that such conduct is justifiable shall constitute a complete defense to any civil action based on such conduct.
I think we're both trying to say much the same thing, but using different terms. Violent agreement, gotta love it.Well, you're kind of barking up the wrong tree, too. You're right that the new bill makes things better, but you are off as to why.
1) What we have today under limited circumstances -- a "complete defense" to civil liability -- is grounds for summary judgment, by definition. That's civil only, but it's quite a decent barrier to any suit getting far.
2) What the new bills will give us is an immunity to suit or prosecution that is dependent on a finding of fact - so "immunity" is not really the core positive item; rather it is the other part that reverses the burden of proof. A criminal action or civil suit can still occur, but the state (or plaintiff) will have to start off with evidence rebutting the presumption that the person acted with justification. That's a real sea change.