Shooting at Hardshell Tactical

[Rem700]

He shouldnt have gotten involved but stray bullets can kill anyone including him so it is reasonable to say his life was in danger

[guncrank1]

IMO with the evidence released to us he has a 50/50 shot at beating this charge

Up to the jury , Albrights best bet is to go to trail .

[rustynuts]

IMO with the evidence released to us he has a 50/50 shot at beating this charge

But he'll probably lose everything in a wrongful death suit filed by the family.

[Rem700]

IMO with the evidence released to us he has a 50/50 shot at beating this charge

But he'll probably lose everything in a wrongful death suit filed by the family.

Agreed

[ChopperDoc]

IMO with the evidence released to us he has a 50/50 shot at beating this charge

But he'll probably lose everything in a wrongful death suit filed by the family.

If he beats the criminal charge he should be individually immune to any civil suits. I do not think the business will have that immunity, but only a lawyer would know for sure.

[rustynuts]

Should be, but I bet he's not.

[jackalo626]

Do the people who thought he did wrong still feel the same after the new update with video?

[WLJ]

IMO with the evidence released to us he has a 50/50 shot at beating this charge

But he'll probably lose everything in a wrongful death suit filed by the family.

If he beats the criminal charge he should be individually immune to any civil suits. I do not think the business will have that immunity, but only a lawyer would know for sure.

I know it was in California but OJ got hit with a civil wrongful death suit after beating the criminal charges and he lost that one.

[Gunsmokin]

I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express. Pretty sure a not guilty verdict in a criminal proceeding does nothing to insulate that person from a civil lawsuit.

[justang1997]

I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express. Pretty sure a not guilty verdict in a criminal proceeding does nothing to insulate that person from a civil lawsuit.

In KY it does. 503.085 provides criminal and civil immunity if you are justified in use of force.

[PDM]

I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express. Pretty sure a not guilty verdict in a criminal proceeding does nothing to insulate that person from a civil lawsuit.

In KY it does. 503.085 provides criminal and civil immunity if you are justified in use of force.

That is pretty common. I just wonder how it works if they want to go after his business.

[shaggy1392]

Do the people who thought he did wrong still feel the same after the new update with video?

I still think he should have stayed inside. If it's true that one raised the gun at him then yes I think he was justified to shoot. The only problem is that he shot both of them and only one appears to have been the bad guy. That's what I think will be hard to justify in court.

[guncrank1]

Do the people who thought he did wrong still feel the same after the new update with video?

Yes

[jackalo626]

Thanks for responding.

[Rem700]

Agreed with shaggy.

[Dave1965]

I can't say that I would have done any differently except maybe sheltered behind a car in case they decided to start shooting up more stuff. Its hard to know what will run thru your mind or what was running thru this guys in this case. I don't know why he shot both but I would say I could not convict him in a court of law if I was on the jury.

[Gunsmokin]

I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express. Pretty sure a not guilty verdict in a criminal proceeding does nothing to insulate that person from a civil lawsuit.

In KY it does. 503.085 provides criminal and civil immunity if you are justified in use of force.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

[Tomahawk]

If they shot at him, I think its justified. He was told people werte fighting eith guns outside, its a moral dilemna.

[jackalo626]

If they shot at him, I think its justified. He was told people werte fighting eith guns outside, its a moral dilemna.

I see all sides of it. I am saying though that he at least tried to do something helpful vs staying inside and letting them shoot the other or others in the lot without doing anything and feeling like a coward for the rest of his life and blood on his hands. I air on the side of caution though and wouldn't have likely got involved.

[ChopperDoc]

I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express. Pretty sure a not guilty verdict in a criminal proceeding does nothing to insulate that person from a civil lawsuit.

In KY it does. 503.085 provides criminal and civil immunity if you are justified in use of force.

That is pretty common. I just wonder how it works if they want to go after his business.

Not sure either. The HOA where Zimmerman lived settled with Martin's family out of court long before the trial even started. Not sure why any lawyer would tell them too, and we will probably never know, but if the courts allowed the suit to happen in the first place I would say that the law (Florida's is similar to ours) then even though Zimmerman was not personally able to be hit with a civil suit the business associated had no such immunity.

I imagine he had his personal stuff all tied up in the business. Not gonna be much left if they can go after the business on the civil side even with a not guilty verdict.

[Eireguy]

If his lawyer is suprised by an indictment i would suggest getting a new one .

[Frailer]

What I said at the beginning of this still applies: Believe the "sheepdog" hype at your peril.

Or, if you want to keep that label because it makes you feel all manly inside, remember: the sheepdog takes care of *his* sheep...not *all* the sheep.

ETA: I wasn't in this guy's shoes, so I can't make a definitive judgement about how good/bad/smart/idiotic this guy's actions were, but as someone else already said, if he could go back in time I'll bet he'd do one or two things differently.

[jackalo626]

What I said at the beginning of this still applies: Believe the "sheepdog" hype at your peril.

Or, if you want to keep that label because it makes you feel all manly inside, remember: the sheepdog takes care of *his* sheep...not *all* the sheep.

ETA: I wasn't in this guy's shoes, so I can't make a definitive judgement about how good/bad/smart/idiotic this guy's actions were, but as someone else already said, if he could go back in time I'll bet he'd do one or two things differently.

No retry in life. You make the best decision you can at the time.

[Frailer]

What I said at the beginning of this still applies: Believe the "sheepdog" hype at your peril.

Or, if you want to keep that label because it makes you feel all manly inside, remember: the sheepdog takes care of *his* sheep...not *all* the sheep.

ETA: I wasn't in this guy's shoes, so I can't make a definitive judgement about how good/bad/smart/idiotic this guy's actions were, but as someone else already said, if he could go back in time I'll bet he'd do one or two things differently.

No retry in life. You make the best decision you can at the time.

We're saying the same thing.

[jackalo626]

What I said at the beginning of this still applies: Believe the "sheepdog" hype at your peril.

Or, if you want to keep that label because it makes you feel all manly inside, remember: the sheepdog takes care of *his* sheep...not *all* the sheep.

ETA: I wasn't in this guy's shoes, so I can't make a definitive judgement about how good/bad/smart/idiotic this guy's actions were, but as someone else already said, if he could go back in time I'll bet he'd do one or two things differently.

No retry in life. You make the best decision you can at the time.

We're saying the same thing.

I know. I wasn't correcting, I was agreeing.