Why in the fuck would you bring my name into that opening sentence? I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, HurricaneDitka, but the sun rises in the east, the English alphabet starts with the letter “A” and snakes aren’t mammals.
Because you started this thread. I wanted to make sure that you (and others) are aware that what we’re discussing is related to less than 1% of the “gun deaths” in this country.
And what about the OP led you to believe that my inclusion in that was, or even might be, necessary?
Once again, because you wrote the OP. Presumably you think this is a “Great Debate”, since that’s where you started this thread. I thought it possible (likely even, given the general level of ignorance on all things gun-related on the SDMB) that perhaps you and others participating in the discussion had some exaggerated view of how frequently this problem occurs. I wanted to make sure we were all clear, including you since you wrote the OP, that this is a relatively minuscule fraction of America’s ‘gun problem’. That’s why I mentioned your name in the sentence “I’m not sure if Snowboarder Bo or iiandyiiii or others are aware …”. Does that, at least, make sense to you?
Perhaps you’re one of the ones that’s well-versed in firearm-related statistics and knew full well all along that justifiable self-defense shootings by private citizens are responsible for less than 1% of gun deaths. Was that the case?
It’s wildly inaccurate. Homicide, in certain circumstances, is entirely legal. Having a lawyer to represent you while the legal system is determining if those circumstances apply is really useful. Answering questions without a defense lawyer can introduce issues that can be used to impugn the rest of your testimony. Something like misremembering a peripheral detail that evidence later shows isn’t true can be used to make it look like you were lying instead of merely human. When you are facing potential criminal charges with life altering consequences and are answering questions right after an emotionally traumatic event, it’s a damned good idea to have a lawyer present.
Societally we already have a more limited form of insurance for all crimes -the public defender system. Is a public defender only murder, rape, assault, burglary, etc insurance? I’d say no. It does provide that to those who genuinely committed those crimes. It also provides legal representation to those who are innocent to protect them from miscarriages fo justice. You can’t really separate out those who are innocent from those who are guilty beforehand to decide if a lawyer is appropriate. (“Congratulations. Now that you’ve been convicted you rate a lawyer.”)
It’s a way for a group of people facing a specific legal risk to pool the financial risks while exercising their Sixth Amendment rights to an attorney. I’d have serious concerns about attempts to make it illegal.
So, this is not really new – except that maybe the NRA’s inferior product will end up sucking up the market on account of brand recognition, that may end up being suboptimal for the customer. Really, I don’t mind having those using firearms insure themselves with regards to the consequences of their use.
Even if it reduces disincentives to their use? Meaning people get killed who wouldn’t have otherwise?
I don’t see the problem either. It’s a specialized type of insurance not that different from umbrella insurance to cover above standard maximum coverage or legal insurance. If someone shot a home invader and used legal insurance to help cover the legal costs, is that really any different than using a very specialized insurance instead? I don’t see the difference.
There are something like 16,000 murders in an average year and ~250 fatal self-defense shootings. From my perspective, the problem is not nearly enough people getting killed in self-defense shootings.
So, you’re saying that this insurance is unnecessary?
Are you under impression that lawsuits and criminal trails are fun? It wouldn’t make those go away, nor would it remove the chance of jail after an unlawful killing.
I was going to ask if you think that this insurance would increase or decrease that number.
But I see what you have your hopes for.
From what some have said here, it seemed as though the insurance also covered the victim’s medical costs, but I’m not seeing that explicitly. Is that actually the case there, or does it only cover the shooter’s legal costs and possible settlement?
The way I read it, it means the insurance is a good business move ** for the insurer**. Most insurance going uncollected is the business model anyway.
Does not make it “unnecessary” or its existence unjustified.
No, I’m saying I wouldn’t mind seeing additional things that ‘reduce disincentives to their use’ (in lawful self defense).
Presumably any settlement would be based, at least in part, on the medical expenses of the shootee (I don’t think “victim” is the right word for the person that gets shot in most cases of lawful self defense). So yes, at least indirectly, it could end up covering the shootee’s medical costs.
Victim is the word to be used for anyone who has undergone trauma, which is something that a shootee would have.
So, does this insurance not cover cases of accidental self defense? Say you shoot your kid because you thought he was an intruder, or you shoot a stranger because you thought he was going to mug you?
Not self defense, as they intended no harm, and had you not shot them, no one would have been injured in any way, but in your mind, it was justified, as you feared for your life, due to your incorrect assumptions and perceptions of someone else.
I’ll use an example to illustrate the point: IMHO the North Hollywood bank robbers were not, in a normal use of the word, “victims” even though they certainly ‘underwent trauma’ at the hands of the LAPD.
Not trying to get into a nitpick with you, just saying, if they survive to get to the hospital, the doctors will call them “gun shot victims”, not shootees.
Anyway, back to the actual question in my post, would the insurance cover a situation where the victim was not in any way presenting a threat, but you perceived a threat and shot?
If the victim sued you and you were not criminally convicted, yes.
In the same way I don’t think that people reconsider their choice to murder people due to a lack of this insurance, I’m damn near certain that if you’re packing and genuinely feel that your life is threatened then you don’t pause to consider your court costs while deciding to pull the trigger.