Could you be sued based on an answer you provided on RallyPoint involving Your Personal Gun ROE, if you were involved in a Situation?

LTC John Shaw assuming we're talking civil, wouldn't this just be dismissed as hearsay? I can't see this fitting into an exception to the hearsay rule. Also, assuming it's allowed, don't we have a question of authentication for an electronic record? Its relevance seems so strained to me that I'd argue it's more prejudicial than probative.

Great points, winning is highly unlikely, the question asked was can a person be sued. I agree that the plaintiff is not likely to even get a day in court.

Capt Gregory Prickett - I could see both exceptions applying, but my concern was proving that the declarant was also the defendant. Namely, how do you authenticate the writing as being their own? With Rallypoint it would be easier I'd assume since accounts are verified, but even the other day I saw a verified account get suspended because it turned out to be fake. Although, I guess that really is more of an authentication issue than a hearsay issue.

Your state of mind, when you chose to use deadly force is always relevant in both a criminal investigation/and or trial and or a lawsuit for damages for someone (or their survivors) you shot and killed or severely injured. You are always going to be required and at a much higher level than a full powered peace officer, in the performance of their duties, to justify your actions before either a criminal or civil jury or both. If you have not already done so, you should buy or borrow or get from your local library, (or ask them to get the book for their collection), "After You Shoot" by Alan Korwin http://www.amazon.com/After-You-Shoot-Your-Perps/dp/ [login to see] for one perspective.

I happen to think IMHO that you should call 911 immediately to try to provide life support/medical assistance to whomever you shot, because it shows 1) you were not completely callous and you tried to render fist aid if that was possible, 2) it might be required under the law of your state that you make a positive effort at lifesaving if you caused the victim's injury by your actions, even if your actions are justified in self-defense, and 3) You are not allowed to use any more force than is what is absolutely necessary to stop the attack, and allowing someone to "bleed out" (ex-sanguinate) when you could have made attempts to stop the bleeding before the police/fire arrived, and you did nothing to aid the former attacker (assuming they no longer pose a threat due to their condition-they are down, due to their injuries/unconscious, etc- I am not suggesting you have to put yourself at risk to give aid, if they are still violent or combative.). Again you have to put yourself in the place of a police detective (and their supervisors) who is asking herself if your behavior in the totality, was a reasonable act of self-defense, or should they arrest your and build a case to submit to the District Attorney/Prosecutor's office, which has to decide if there is a reasonable basis and probability of a conviction to file charges against you.

The time to think about what you are and are not going to do and say on a 911 call or to the police immediately after you have used a firearm in self-defense, is NOW!

CSM Michael Chavaree That was the first thought that came to my mind as well, but social media on the rise, it would seem to me that any attorney could introduce it as evidence to build a civil case (remove reasonable doubt or create the necessary evidence to sway a jury of your peers). I'm definitely not the expert on this and really like to hear the additonal feedback. Thanks for sharing your thoughts