Author Topic: AZ Proposition 114 (Read 3127 times)

AZ-Crazy · « **on:** October 08, 2012, 07:39:54 AM »

The AZ Proposition 114 is a state legislation to prevent felony perpetrators (or their families) that have been hurt or killed during the performance or while escaping a criminal act from suing the felony victim for damages. This piece of legislation will be in the November election here in AZ. If it gets approved, you do not have to think that to protect yourself or your family that you will expose yourself to a costly civil case brought for by whoever you have to defend against. Read more about it.

VOTE FOR PROPOSITION 114 like your life depend on it!

tknoll · « **Reply #1 on:** October 08, 2012, 07:57:36 AM »

Finally, a piece of legislation that actually makes sense

SurpShot · « **Reply #2 on:** October 08, 2012, 08:03:34 AM »

It's hard to believe that this is even a proposition. To think that a crime victim would be liable for damages incurred by a person who has harmed while attempting, engaging in or fleeing from conduct that is classified as a felony offense is absolutely ridiculous. It should be without question that the criminal be liable for everything. But, since 114 will be on my ballot.............YES YES YES YES

misfire51 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 08, 2012, 08:09:13 AM »

Its about time !

Black_water · « **Reply #4 on:** October 08, 2012, 09:12:49 AM »

Quote from: SurpriseShooter on October 08, 2012, 08:03:34 AM

It's hard to believe that this is even a proposition. To think that a crime victim would be liable for damages incurred by a person who has harmed while attempting, engaging in or fleeing from conduct that is classified as a felony offense is absolutely ridiculous. It should be without question that the criminal be liable for everything. But, since 114 will be on my ballot.............YES YES YES YES

I have been saying that since I was a kid. I never understood how a bad guy can sue the people he is trying to hurt when his crime goes awry. I figured getting shot, beat up or injured was an occupational hazard for criminals.

I thought our stand your ground law prevented this sort of thing too.

freeman1685 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 08, 2012, 09:29:32 AM »

Prop 114 is a back up to ARS 13-413: No civil liability for justified conduct

Quote

No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

Like "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws that strengthen the "No Duty to Retreat" law. I'm still waiting for the AZ version of lawful resistance, to unlawful acts by LEOs.

I love living in AZ

SurpShot · « **Reply #6 on:** October 08, 2012, 09:32:25 AM »

Quote from: Black_water on October 08, 2012, 09:12:49 AM

I figured getting shot, beat up or injured was an occupational hazard for criminals.

Hahaha Exactly!!

Black Wolf CCW · « **Reply #7 on:** October 08, 2012, 10:15:10 AM »

Quote from: tknoll on October 08, 2012, 07:57:36 AM

Finally, a piece of legislation that actually makes sense

And worth voting on. I am pretty sure it will pass, stuff like this usually does.

Black Wolf CCW · « **Reply #8 on:** October 08, 2012, 10:17:09 AM »

Quote from: SurpriseShooter on October 08, 2012, 08:03:34 AM

It's hard to believe that this is even a proposition. To think that a crime victim would be liable for damages incurred by a person who has harmed while attempting, engaging in or fleeing from conduct that is classified as a felony offense is absolutely ridiculous. It should be without question that the criminal be liable for everything. But, since 114 will be on my ballot.............YES YES YES YES

I have seen this done as an intimidation factor. It sometimes works too, meaning getting a victim to back off charges).

fluticus · « **Reply #9 on:** October 08, 2012, 10:17:27 AM »

Long Live AZ!!

brandyspaw · « **Reply #10 on:** October 08, 2012, 10:28:52 AM »

Yes, it is nice to able to live in the Great State of Arizona!

conchshot · « **Reply #11 on:** October 08, 2012, 11:13:03 AM »

It keeps the lawyers busy.

RetroG · « **Reply #12 on:** October 08, 2012, 11:56:14 AM »

Definitely voting for this, added to my list of what to vote for.

Thernlund · « **Reply #13 on:** October 08, 2012, 12:30:12 PM »

I've had this one as a Yes on my ballot cheat sheet for some time.

-T.

martian · « **Reply #14 on:** October 08, 2012, 12:51:36 PM »

It's about dang time. I thought that this was covered under the ARS for getting a CCW, then found out I was wrong. If a person is found not guilty in a criminal case, it doesn't make any sense to me how a family member of the suspect could sue civily against the victim. Hopefully this will pasas, it's got my vote

capcyclone · « **Reply #15 on:** October 08, 2012, 12:54:59 PM »

I too am glad I live in a state that seems to "get it". I hope Arizona can continue to be a model for reasonable and prudent legislation.

martian · « **Reply #16 on:** October 08, 2012, 12:56:51 PM »

As of 9/22/2012

In November 2012 voters in Arizona will address Proposition 114, entitled Crime Victim Protection From Liability For Damages. It arises from the Senate (SCR 1020) as a proposed Constitutional Amendment. If passed Proposition 114 would protect crime victims from liability for damages by a person who was injured while committing a felony against the victim.

Proposition 114 (2012): How Will You Vote?

Current Results
A synopsis of the pros and cons and more information about this ballot measure follows.

Advocates of Proposition 114 say that:

•Today a constitutional "right to sue" exists, which permits criminals to sue people that they victimize. That means that a property owner who defends his family, or his property from violent criminals (home invasion, burglary, arson, etc.) can be sued by that criminal if he is hurt. A constitutional amendment is needed to stop this.

•We have the opportunity to protect the rights of crime victims by voting for Proposition 114, the Crime Victims Protection Act, which would limit the ability of criminals to sue their victims. Help ensure that victims of crime aren't victimized twice.

Opponents of Proposition 114 say that:

No arguments have been filed against Proposition 114.

Guy1az · « **Reply #17 on:** October 08, 2012, 01:01:01 PM »

Great!

ItWasntMe · « **Reply #18 on:** October 08, 2012, 04:59:18 PM »

Got my vote.

That's just insane common sense that never used to be necessary to be written in law. These days you can never be too careful. These guys sue for absolutely everything. After all, it's your God given right to sue for ungodly sums of money for shit you should have already known. You're entitled, don't you know!

capcyclone · « **Reply #19 on:** October 08, 2012, 05:03:11 PM »

Quote from: martian on October 08, 2012, 12:56:51 PM

As of 9/22/2012

In November 2012 voters in Arizona will address Proposition 114, entitled Crime Victim Protection From Liability For Damages. It arises from the Senate (SCR 1020) as a proposed Constitutional Amendment. If passed Proposition 114 would protect crime victims from liability for damages by a person who was injured while committing a felony against the victim.

Proposition 114 (2012): How Will You Vote?

Current Results
A synopsis of the pros and cons and more information about this ballot measure follows.

Advocates of Proposition 114 say that:

•Today a constitutional "right to sue" exists, which permits criminals to sue people that they victimize. That means that a property owner who defends his family, or his property from violent criminals (home invasion, burglary, arson, etc.) can be sued by that criminal if he is hurt. A constitutional amendment is needed to stop this.

•We have the opportunity to protect the rights of crime victims by voting for Proposition 114, the Crime Victims Protection Act, which would limit the ability of criminals to sue their victims. Help ensure that victims of crime aren't victimized twice.

Opponents of Proposition 114 say that:

No arguments have been filed against Proposition 114.

Oh, just wait. Our "friends" at the ACLU are preparing their arguments I'm sure.

ItWasntMe · « **Reply #20 on:** October 08, 2012, 05:36:07 PM »

Quote from: capcyclone on October 08, 2012, 05:03:11 PM

Quote from: martian on October 08, 2012, 12:56:51 PM
[...]
Opponents of Proposition 114 say that: No arguments have been filed against Proposition 114.
Oh, just wait. Our "friends" at the ACLU are preparing their arguments I'm sure.

Count on it.
It'll be called racist since we're a border state or something.

428CJ · « **Reply #21 on:** October 08, 2012, 06:51:04 PM »

I well vote yes to this in a heart beat. What's sad, is we have to put this in place.

AzCharlie · « **Reply #22 on:** October 08, 2012, 07:40:26 PM »

Glad to see this discussion. This is a proposition put in place by the lobbyists from AzCDL. We tried this thru legislation, but those who gain from the litigation process are a formidable foe with alot of money. I have never been one to suggest an amendment to the great constitution of Az should be
taken lightly, but this proposition is worthy. We are asking concerned citizens to help spread the word about 114, and for those willing, show up to the polling locations on the day of election with a sign and help encourage voters who generally undervote. I will be attempting to place bumper stickers
in local gun shops around the valley this week. Help in any direction before election would be appreciated. Tell all your neighbors and friends.

ItWasntMe · « **Reply #23 on:** October 08, 2012, 09:47:28 PM »

Quote from: AzCharlie on October 08, 2012, 07:40:26 PM

[...]
This is a proposition put in place by the lobbyists from AzCDL.
[...]

Things like this are precisely why I joined as a life member.

Flash · « **Reply #24 on:** October 09, 2012, 05:34:06 AM »

Quote from: ItWasntMe on October 08, 2012, 09:47:28 PM

Quote from: AzCharlie on October 08, 2012, 07:40:26 PM
[...]
This is a proposition put in place by the lobbyists from AzCDL.
[...]
Things like this are precisely why I joined as a life member.

And why Mrs. Flash and I are members also.