LogFAQs > #888856429

mooreandrew58 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

OmegaM posted...

The first ad says it's for when you shoot someone in lawful self defense. So as long as the people at the insurance company pay out money only when they actually believe someone acted within the law, I don't see a problem with it.

Lawful self-defense is something determined by a court of law.
The insurance is to help pay someone's legal defense fees in the court case to determine if it actually was lawful self-defense.

So unless they only pay out after the verdict and the insurance holder is on his own paying the legal fees until that point, they have no legal grounds to withhold the money from a defendant w/ the insurance to be used in his defense.

So yes, it's "murder insurance"

that is just a stupid way of looking at it. the insurance is there so people who killed someone in self defense don't get thrown under the bus because all they could afford was a shitty lawyer

"murder insurance" would be more akin to a get out of jail free card, which this isn't

Whether it was self-defense or not isn't even determined until after the court case that this insurance is applying the money towards. And if the guy still goes to jail in the end, fat chance he'll be able to pay back the money, so regardless of outcome, it's going to fund actual murderers.