• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Burglar sues homeowner who shot him

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

reinoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
16,824
Reaction score
7,183
Location
Out West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,800
Reaction score
43,008
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Private individuals are not authorized by law to use deadly force against fleeing felons. Thus the homeowner's actions are criminal and tortious.
I agree with you here.

No one is judge and executioner.

And nice use of the word, 'tortious'!
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
21,289
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Indiana burglar David Bailey sues homeowner after he was shot in the arm | Daily Mail Online

What are your thoughts? An interesting note is that the homeowner was convicted for the shooting since it took pace in an alley not on his property.

Thought's don't matter. What matters is the self-defense deadly force law which covers home invasion in the State of Indiana.

"To employ self-defense a defendant must satisfy both an objective and subjective standard; he must actually have believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself, and his belief must be one that a reasonable person would have held under the circumstances.” Littler v. State (2007) Supreme Court of Indiana.

According to the story, the burglar was running away when the homeowner left his house, entered an alley, and began shooting. There was no issue of self-defense allowing for the use of deadly force at that time which is what led to the homeowner's conviction for criminal recklessness in September 2014.

I think, despite all animus, the burglar has a civil case. Whether it will succeed or not depends on a jury. :shrug:
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,557
Reaction score
50,161
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Private individuals are not authorized by law to use deadly force against fleeing felons. Thus the homeowner's actions are criminal and tortious.



Actually in some states under certain conditions they are.


But holy hannah, you'd better be right if you do.
 

Grand Mal

bas air son Eachin
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
38,625
Reaction score
20,527
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's an ongoing statement among my housemates: if we catch someone breaking into the house, make sure they don't survive.

Our legal system is a joke and it's precisely because of these types of situations.

What's the joke? What's wrong here, that the shooter was charged and convicted?
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Actually in some states under certain conditions they are.


But holy hannah, you'd better be right if you do.

Correct, but given that the homeowner was convicted, that's not likely the case here.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,489
Reaction score
21,443
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Once the burglar left the property it was foolish to continue firing, as absurd as it sounds the homeowner may have to pay here.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,800
Reaction score
43,008
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Thought's don't matter. What matters is the self-defense deadly force law which covers home invasion in the State of Indiana.

"To employ self-defense a defendant must satisfy both an objective and subjective standard; he must actually have believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself, and his belief must be one that a reasonable person would have held under the circumstances.” Littler v. State (2007) Supreme Court of Indiana.

According to the story, the burglar was running away when the homeowner left his house, entered an alley, and began shooting. There was no issue of self-defense allowing for the use of deadly force at that time which is what led to the homeowner's conviction for criminal recklessness in September 2014.

I think, despite all animus, the burglar has a civil case. Whether it will succeed or not depends on a jury. :shrug:
The homeowner was found guilty by jury trial of criminal recklessness, and subsequently sentenced to 60 days in jail and 4 months home confinement.

Consequent to the homeowners criminal recklessness, the burger suffered serious injury to his body.

To this non-lawyer, it sure looks like an open & shut case, no?
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
21,289
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The homeowner was found guilty by jury trial of criminal recklessness, and subsequently sentenced to 60 days in jail and 4 months home confinement.

Consequent to the homeowners criminal recklessness, the burger suffered serious injury to his body.

To this non-lawyer, it sure looks like an open & shut case, no?

In a civil case?

It depends on whether the jurors are sympathetic to his case.

As you see here in this microcosm of forum members, such sympathy (including my own) may be sorely lacking. He might "win" and the award might be $1.00. :shrug:
 

Fearandloathing

Just watchin'
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
22,176
Reaction score
18,807
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Once the burglar left the property it was foolish to continue firing, as absurd as it sounds the homeowner may have to pay here.



Unless he can prove the circumstances warranted shooting at all. It does not appear he was in any immediate danger, if there was potential harm is had passed. I'd say this guy is SOL
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,801
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The homeowner was found guilty by jury trial of criminal recklessness, and subsequently sentenced to 60 days in jail and 4 months home confinement.

Consequent to the homeowners criminal recklessness, the burger suffered serious injury to his body.

To this non-lawyer, it sure looks like an open & shut case, no?

i dunno, i'm no lawyer either... but a counter argument might be that the commission of a felony led to those injuries, so the burglar might hold a portion of the liability.

it ain't worth guessing at.. .the law is so convoluted and messy that none of us non-lawyers can decipher it with any degree of accuracy.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,800
Reaction score
43,008
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In a civil case?

It depends on whether the jurors are sympathetic to his case.

As you see here in this microcosm of forum members, such sympathy (including my own) may be sorely lacking. He might "win" and the award might be $1.00. :shrug:
My thoughts were along the lines of: "crimminal = beyond doubt, civil = preponderance of evidence".

But yes, I suppose one can never underestimate the fickleness of a jury!
 

Grand Mal

bas air son Eachin
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
38,625
Reaction score
20,527
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
i dunno, i'm no lawyer either... but a counter argument might be that the commission of a felony led to those injuries, so the burglar might hold a portion of the liability.

it ain't worth guessing at.. .the law is so convoluted and messy that none of us non-lawyers can decipher it with any degree of accuracy.

Was the buglar found guilty of the burglary? If not, commission of a felony might not be a contributing factor.
 

Van Basten

Black Is Smart
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
4,661
Reaction score
3,252
Location
The New New Frontier
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,251
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Self defense carries a burden. You shoot them once unless you can argue he was still armed and dangerous and the other five shots were necessary to preserve your life.

And center of mass is almost always a kill shot. Keep your eye on them when you call 911.

Open the door, be unarmed and visible when the police show up.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Thought's don't matter. What matters is the self-defense deadly force law which covers home invasion in the State of Indiana.

"To employ self-defense a defendant must satisfy both an objective and subjective standard; he must actually have believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself, and his belief must be one that a reasonable person would have held under the circumstances.” Littler v. State (2007) Supreme Court of Indiana.

According to the story, the burglar was running away when the homeowner left his house, entered an alley, and began shooting. There was no issue of self-defense allowing for the use of deadly force at that time which is what led to the homeowner's conviction for criminal recklessness in September 2014.

I think, despite all animus, the burglar has a civil case. Whether it will succeed or not depends on a jury. :shrug:
Thoughts DO matter. It is entirely appropriate to discuss whether the law is correct and just, or not.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Even in states that allow deadly force as a defense, usually you have to demonstrate that you were in danger at the moment. If in this case the burglar had already left the home and was fleeing, the homeowner cannot claim imminent danger. I have no sympathy for the criminal, but legally it sounds like the conviction of the homeowner is appropriate... though I hope the burglar was convicted for his crime, as well.

As far as a civil trial, if I were on a jury I doubt I'd award him anything.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,735
Reaction score
11,510
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent

reinoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
16,824
Reaction score
7,183
Location
Out West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Even in states that allow deadly force as a defense, usually you have to demonstrate that you were in danger at the moment. If in this case the burglar had already left the home and was fleeing, the homeowner cannot claim imminent danger. I have no sympathy for the criminal, but legally it sounds like the conviction of the homeowner is appropriate... though I hope the burglar was convicted for his crime, as well.

As far as a civil trial, if I were on a jury I doubt I'd award him anything.

In Texas you don't have to be in danger if the burglar has your property. It reminds me of a case in Texas of that guy who shot a criminal in the back but got off. I was shocked and disgusted at the time but that's Texas. You're allowed to kill women as long as it's at night in that state.
 

HonestJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
5,630
Reaction score
2,873
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
BS and that is why one should ensure that there is only one story to hear when the cops arrive.
So you’re saying that if we see anyone we think is committing a crime, we should simply executed them on sight?
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
In Texas you don't have to be in danger if the burglar has your property. It reminds me of a case in Texas of that guy who shot a criminal in the back but got off. I was shocked and disgusted at the time but that's Texas. You're allowed to kill women as long as it's at night in that state.
According to what some who live in Texas have told me, technically even in Texas you cannot... legally... shoot someone if you are not in imminent danger. Hence your phrase "got off" would be spot on. Chances are that he had a sympathetic prosecutor and/or jury.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,448
Reaction score
7,683
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Only defense I would apply is to label the actions of the plaintiff as engaged in criminal activity, give the jury an out to award the burglar but for a negligible amount so he cant re-litigate. Make the onus about the character of the burglar, especially if he has priors or violent priors.

If the burglar weren't attempting to be a criminal towards the defendant he wouldn't have gotten shot type of thing.
 
Top Bottom