Friday, April 20, 2018

Woman helps cop, kills bad guy - then gets sued


Last year a woman in Indiana courageously assisted a police officer who was being beaten down by a criminal, who was trying to grab his gun.  She shot the perpetrator, who subsequently died of his injuries.  She was cleared of any wrongdoing by the authorities - but now she's being sued by the family of the deceased criminal.  An original news report about the incident may be found here.  A PoliceOne report about the impending lawsuit may be found here.

A fundraiser has been started to help this courageous woman pay the legal expenses incurred in defending herself.  From its description:

On February 20, 2017 a suspicious person prompted a call to 911 in Ohio County, Indiana. The suspicious person was parked in a elderly persons yard for an extended period of time, blocking her driveway, and creating a road hazard. Shortly after a Police Officer arrived in response to the call. The man began resisting and both the Officer and man went to the ground. A young woman (Kystie) standing nearby on her property ran to help the Officer. Kystie could see the Officer was loosing the fight as this man reached for the Officers gun. Fortunately for the Officer, Kystie was armed and shot the man one time which ended the fight.

Indiana State Police conducted the investigation, which was reviewed by the Dearborn County, Indiana Prosecutors Office, and the findings were that Kystie’s actions were deemed justified and no criminal charges were filed.

However, On April 6, 2018, Kystie received a summons ... regarding a wrongful death lawsuit for the assailant, J. Holland. Ohio County Superior Court Case No.:58C01-1802-CT-00001. The Officer involved was also named in the suit.

I am asking our community of citizens and law enforcement Officers to help in this legal battle.  Attorney fees are an expense well beyond Kystie’s income and this will not be a quick process. The legal fees and emotional stress may drain every resource she has.

. . .

This case is about more than the right or wrong of one party suing another.  Imagine not being able to come to the aid of another person for fear of being sued, possibly to the point of bankruptcy.  The case is about a person having the basic God-given right and the 2nd Amendment right to defend both yourself and others and without the fear of civil retribution.

There's more at the link, including the names of the lawyers involved and links to several more news articles about the incident.  Please click over there and follow them for yourself.

Folks, this is a very worthy cause.  Miss D. and I will be contributing, and I'd like to ask all my readers to please give what you can afford.  If private citizens mus be afraid to help those who defend their safety and security against criminals, due to the risk of lawsuits, then soon we won't have public protectors at all - because they won't defend those who won't support them.  Want proof of that?  Just look at the impact the 'Ferguson Effect' is having on law enforcement all over the country.

Please circulate the news of this fund-raiser to your friends, and via your blogs or social media accounts if you have them.

Thank you.

Peter

22 comments:

Gorges Smythe said...

Linked on my blog and Fascistbook.

DaveS said...

Donated. Thanks for the heads-up.
Seems like we need to start pushing state legislatures to create laws supporting an affirmative defense against civil lawsuits in cases like these. Should be common sense, but the law abandoned common sense a long time ago.

BFR said...

You will accomplish nothing by contacting politicians. No one will buck the trial attorneys to carve out protections for law abiding firearm-carrying citizens. The opposite is true; every murder, mass or otherwise is now the fault of the firearm. Every justified killing is now the fault of the victim or LEO. Get with the program; this is the reality. Want to see how it works; read about the U.K. right now. Own a knife or firearm go to jail. Fight back against a burglar in your own house, go to jail. Those who intervene on the side of good will be intentionally crushed. Get used to it.

My priority is to my wife and children. I will keep them safe first, and secondarily I will engage in no actions that could deprive them of my protection or the livelihood that I produce.
Harsh, maybe. Reality? Yes. I will mind my own business and observe my priorities.

DaveS said...

Didn't intend to start an argument. Wasn't that long ago that those same state legislatures passed laws supporting Castle Doctrine and Concealed Carry. And established affirmative defenses for instances of self-defense.
If we don't act - we will be acted upon.

B said...

Thanks for boosting the signal!

Stan_qaz said...

Pushing for laws to improve things is a great idea and I'd recommend that to anyone with access to a politician that is looking for conservative issues to run on.

I like BFR above have looked at the current legal situation and decided my duties and responsibilities are primarily to my wife, my kids and my parents and I can no more shirk providing for them by getting involved in someone else's fight than I could by blowing everything on a Vegas binge.

That was not an easy decision and I expect to have second thoughts and regrets if I am faced with a situation like this but I will not risk leaving my wife destitute and homeless because I chose to get involved in a fight that was not my business and then some scum got a better lawyer (for free) than I could afford.

Jon said...

And this is why you need good self-defense legal coverage. I have experience of two, I think they are both worthy organizations. CCWSAFE and ACLDN. I've been going with ACLDN for two years now. If I had been in this ladies shoes I would have legal assistance available.

Will said...

The reality is that some states are too far gone on the socialist hellhole slope to bother wasting effort on chasing what is essentially a lost cause. For instance, here in CA, the law-writers have no interest in supporting good citizenship such as this. Quite the opposite, I think. Reserve your efforts for those states that have not gone stupid yet.

It's been more than twenty years since a former deputy sheriff told me he would not get involved in that exact sort of situation, due to the expected legal ramifications of using a firearm without benefit of a badge. I found that reluctant admission to be a staggering indictment of this state.

nono said...

She just lives in the wrong state:
The State of Georgia
O.C.G.A. � 51-11-9

Immunity from civil liability for threat or use of force in defense of habitation

A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat from the use of such force and shall not be held liable to the person against whom the use of force was justified or to any person acting as an accomplice or assistant to such person in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force.

Passed back in 1986 if memory serves.

Pwl47 said...

The legal system is run solely for the benefit of lawyers. Truth, justice, or the American Way are not really involved. In any decent world the case would have been thrown out of court.

Henry Hansen said...

Go to opensecrets.org and find out how much money trial lawyers donate to Democrats.
If your rep is a Democrat you won't get any help from him/her in legislation that will help people like Kystie.

California (of all places) has the Good Samaritan Law that relieves people of responsibility in the event someone dies after being helped by a civilian. I don't know if that law would apply in a case such as this one.

BFR said...

"And this is why you need good self-defense legal coverage. I have experience of two, I think they are both worthy organizations. CCWSAFE and ACLDN. I've been going with ACLDN for two years now. If I had been in this ladies shoes I would have legal assistance available."

Legal plan or not, going to trial is still a crap shoot. All the legal plans in the world will not stop you if found guilty or at fault.

Those who advocate taking action in these circumstances are forgetting a prime principle: "They hate you". Get used to it.

Avoiding trouble is always better than getting out of trouble.

My life is not my own; it belongs to God, my wife and my children. I have no right to risk it on behalf of others in a fashion that puts their welfare in jeopardy, legal plan or not.

Jim said...

I'm disgusted by this suit and am kicking in.

SDN said...

BFR, we have a 20 year record here in TX of contacting politicians and getting something done.... which is why this case could not happen in Texas today. We got a lw passed that prevents it.

BFR said...

SDN,

"Those who enjoy the law or sausages should not watch either being made".

The law in a guaranteed republican form of government (as required under our Constitution) is potent.

Our current law, which is nothing more than consensus, is not. It is akin to 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding the lunch menu.
Up until last week, everyone thought that attorney-client privilege was a protected civil right. How silly.

You can continue with similar silly assumptions, but when it happens (and it will), you will be wondering what happened.

Texas is rapidly undergoing the same change of demographics that the rest of the country is experiencing: The intentional creation of polezniye duraki, energetically and willfully subsidized by parents sending their children to the government to be indoctrinated. The decrease of an existing demographic by a refusal to multiply, and instead having an average of 1.2 children per family because "career, fun and recreation". The rapid multiplication of illegal alien invaders and welfare prostitutes, producing multiples far in excess of any cross-section of conservative demographics.

You are being, and will be outnumbered. Austin and Houston politics will overtake the entire state, and then watch what happens to your "law".

You keep thinking that we live in a country whereby there is something called "the rule of law". That is the past. The past is another country; they do things differently there.

Michael Maslow said...

Lawyers who encourage the family to sue in civil court in matters like these don't charge the family a retainer or fee and share in the potential proceeds (avg. 30%-40% of total plus). It's a no-brainer for the family or the perp if he/she survives.

I was taught that it is important to instigate a civil suit against the survivor or their estate once you have been cleared of criminal charges. This way, the perp or the family has to pay out of pocket if they want to counter-sue and that one fact makes it likely you will not have to deal with these bottom feeders.

NITZAKHON said...

Donated. Posted on my blog.

http://redpilljew.blogspot.com/2018/04/woman-helps-cop-drops-bad-guy-being.html

AeroPundit said...

Done

TimovK said...

Hunh. Getting rid of the plaintiff's scumbag lawyers would be a good start...

askeptic said...

It's unfortunate that EXILE has fallen out-of-fashion, the family certainly qualifies.

.45ACP+P said...

Is there a means to financially ruin the attorneys involved in bringing this suit? I get the family being angry but the attorneys need to tarred and feathered either financially or in person.

FALPhil said...

The lawsuit is predicated on the concept that the government possesses a monopoly on the use of force. What should happen is that the judge should throw the lawsuit out as frivolous, as that concept that the government has a monopoly on the use of force is a legal fiction.

OTOH, if the suit is conducted successfully by the plaintiffs, then the 'correct' course of action is to stand by, watch someone get murdered, and refrain from action until the threat is directed at you, at which point, self-defense comes into play.

The Indiana legislature has an opportunity here, but since trial lawyers are over represented in most legislatures, I am not holding my breath.