• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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 said:
Private individuals are not authorized by law to use deadly force against fleeing felons. Thus the homeowner's actions are criminal and tortious.
Click to expand...
I agree with you here.

No one is judge and executioner.

And nice use of the word, 'tortious'!
 
prometeus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
Paleocon said:
Private individuals are not authorized by law to use deadly force against fleeing felons. Thus the homeowner's actions are criminal and tortious.
Click to expand...



Actually in some states under certain conditions they are.


But holy hannah, you'd better be right if you do.
 
reinoe said:
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.
Click to expand...

What's the joke? What's wrong here, that the shooter was charged and convicted?
 
Goshin said:
Actually in some states under certain conditions they are.


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

Correct, but given that the homeowner was convicted, that's not likely the case here.
 
Once the burglar left the property it was foolish to continue firing, as absurd as it sounds the homeowner may have to pay here.
 
Captain Adverse said:
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:
Click to expand...
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?
 
Chomsky said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:
 
OrphanSlug said:
Once the burglar left the property it was foolish to continue firing, as absurd as it sounds the homeowner may have to pay here.
Click to expand...



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
 
Chomsky said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Captain Adverse said:
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:
Click to expand...
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!
 
Thrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Was the buglar found guilty of the burglary? If not, commission of a felony might not be a contributing factor.
 
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.
 
Captain Adverse said:
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:
Click to expand...
Thoughts DO matter. It is entirely appropriate to discuss whether the law is correct and just, or not.
 
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.
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Casper said:
BS and that is why one should ensure that there is only one story to hear when the cops arrive.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying that if we see anyone we think is committing a crime, we should simply executed them on sight?
 
reinoe said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom