- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 27,656
- Reaction score
- 12,050
- Location
- Over the edge...
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
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.
I agree with you here.Private individuals are not authorized by law to use deadly force against fleeing felons. Thus the homeowner's actions are criminal and tortious.
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.
Private individuals are not authorized by law to use deadly force against fleeing felons. Thus the homeowner's actions are criminal and tortious.
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.
Actually in some states under certain conditions they are.
But holy hannah, you'd better be right if you do.
The homeowner was found guilty by jury trial of criminal recklessness, and subsequently sentenced to 60 days in jail and 4 months home confinement.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?
Once the burglar left the property it was foolish to continue firing, as absurd as it sounds the homeowner may have to pay here.
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?
My thoughts were along the lines of: "crimminal = beyond doubt, civil = preponderance of evidence".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:
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.
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.
Thoughts DO matter. It is entirely appropriate to discuss whether the law is correct and just, or not.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:
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.
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.
So you’re saying that if we see anyone we think is committing a crime, we should simply executed them on sight?BS and that is why one should ensure that there is only one story to hear when the cops arrive.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?