Texas Woman Sentenced to Life for Murders of Husband and Step-Daughter

[krispos42]

161. But the murders were a crime that she committed, right?

Would the insurance company have paid, or would there have been a rider saying that they don't pay out for damages done during the commission of a crime?

Here's my example: I have long-term disability insurance that I bought a couple of years ago. If I get disabled, I get a certain amount per month guaranteed by Mutual of Omaha. But there's a rider (if that's the correct term) stating that if I get disabled during the commission of a crime, they don't have to pay out. So if I decide to mug somebody and in the process he/she fights back, beaths the tar out of me, and disables me permanently, Mutual of Omaha doesn't have to pay because the injuries occurred while I was committing a crime.

So, if I had gun insurance and one day decided I needed to rob a 7-Eleven, if I wind up shooting somebody will the insurance company pay out for my victims? If I flip out and shoot a cheating girlfriend?

You see what I'm saying? I'm not really seeing how this is anything but free money for the insurance industry.

If I legitimately defend myself with my gun, then in some (many?) states pretty much all punishment falls on the attacker(s), not on me. For example, say I'm in line at the 7-Eleven when a guy bursts in waving a gun and demanding money. I see a chance, draw my gun, and shoot the guy. In the process, one of my bullets hits and kills a bystander. The attacker that I just shot gets the blame for the bystander's death, not me.

This is what the NYPD used in the recent shooting outside of the Empire State Building; the victim was charged with injuries to bystanders resulting from the officers' bullets missing the target and sailing into the crowd.

I think they sell insurance for people that use their guns legally for self-defense, to pay for legal fees. But liability insurance is different, right?