Burglar sues homeowner who shot him

[Captain Adverse]

Thoughts DO matter. It is entirely appropriate to discuss whether the law is correct and just, or not.

The only thoughts that matter in a legal case are those held by the judge or jury handling the case. Those thoughts are molded by application of the law.

You point out a civil case based on a tort of reckless endangerment leading to injury during the commission of a non-violent crime (Burglary).

The evidence in this case shows that the "victim" was running away and off the homeowner's property when he was being shot at. The law of self-defense does not apply, as was evidenced by the homeowners conviction of reckless endangerment. There is a valid civl case arguable on behalf of the plaintiff.

My "thoughts" were that if I were on the jury I might vote per the facts in favor of the plaintiff, but would argue for a "token" award of $1.00.

 

[radcen]

The only thoughts that matter in a legal case are those held by the judge or jury handling the case. Those thoughts are molded by application of the law.

You point out a civil case based on a tort of reckless endangerment leading to injury during the commission of a non-violent crime (Burglary).

The evidence in this case shows that the "victim" was running away and off the homeowner's property when he was being shot at. The law of self-defense does not apply, as was evidenced by the homeowners conviction of reckless endangerment. There is a valid civl case arguable on behalf of the plaintiff.

My "thoughts" were that if I were on the jury I might vote per the facts in favor of the plaintiff, but would argue for a "token" award of $1.00.

Why can't otherwise uninvolved people discuss the appropriateness of the law and/or its application?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Here is my take. Shooting a FLEEING burgler should be illegal. Prosecute the shooter. But the burgler shouldn't be allowed to profit from any crimes that resulted from his initial crime, including his getting shot. Prosecute the shooter but the burgler shouldn't get a dime.

 

[Casper]

So you’re saying that if we see anyone we think is committing a crime, we should simply executed them on sight?

Did I say that, or did you? But since you asked, if I am armed (usually) and I see a criminal attempting to murder someone, yes, I would shoot them down on the spot. Same goes for someone I find in my home in the middle of the night, but then again the dogs do like their chewies so maybe I will let them have their fun first. Hey, you want to stand by and let crap go down, then that is probably best for your safety, not everyone is cut from the same cloth and one should know ones capabilities.

 

[HonestJoe]

Did I say that, or did you?

You implied it which is why I asked for clarification. The rest of you reply addressed an entirely different angle.

The statement I was responding to was you stating that we should go out of our way to kill suspects so they don’t get a voice in determining what actually happened. It was in the direct context of the OP case involving a (suspected at the time) burglar fleeing the area. Your proposal goes well beyond protecting your anyone’s safety or property, it clearly suggested that once the suspect has been stopped, fallen to the ground incapacitated or unconscious, posing zero threat to anyone, we should then execute them.

 

[Casper]

You implied it which is why I asked for clarification. The rest of you reply addressed an entirely different angle.

The statement I was responding to was you stating that we should go out of our way to kill suspects so they don’t get a voice in determining what actually happened. It was in the direct context of the OP case involving a (suspected at the time) burglar fleeing the area. Your proposal goes well beyond protecting your anyone’s safety or property, it clearly suggested that once the suspect has been stopped, fallen to the ground incapacitated or unconscious, posing zero threat to anyone, we should then execute them.

Did I say I would shoot the guy in the back, nope. But to answer to overall question, yes, I do believe in deadly force when appropriate.

 

[HonestJoe]

Did I say I would shoot the guy in the back, nope.

No, and again, that is a different point. Your statement was; “one should ensure that there is only one story to hear when the cops arrive.”

I’m taking that to mean that one should ensure the suspect is killed, even if that level of force isn’t necessary to remove any threat. In the context of the case in question, I take it to mean that you believe the homeowner should have killed the fleeing burglar to try to avoid any criminal or civil action for shooting him in the first place. Am I wrong in my assessment?

 

[Casper]

No, and again, that is a different point. Your statement was; “one should ensure that there is only one story to hear when the cops arrive.”

I’m taking that to mean that one should ensure the suspect is killed, even if that level of force isn’t necessary to remove any threat. In the context of the case in question, I take it to mean that you believe the homeowner should have killed the fleeing burglar to try to avoid any criminal or civil action for shooting him in the first place. Am I wrong in my assessment?

Yes, in a shooting event that is always the best policy these days.

I teach people that if they are involved in a defensive situation where deadly force is required to fire until they are completely satisfied that there is no further threat or to continue shooting until they run out of bullets, better safe than sorry. Nope, as I said I would not have shot the guy in the back as they were fleeing, that said in the dark out where I live there are no alleys so the situation is different, a fleeing perp would still be on my property and as such it is up to me to decide the level of the threat.

 

[ludin]

the jury is a bunch of idiots if they give this guy 1 red cent and he should have to pay the homeowner for his lawyer fee's.

you cannot commit a crime and file a grievance of monetary gain out of it.

 

[CrabCake]

BS and that is why one should ensure that there is only one story to hear when the cops arrive.

If you find yourself in a situation where silencing witnesses is in your best interest...maybe that's a sign you shouldn't have done what you are now trying to conceal.

 

[Casper]

If you find yourself in a situation where silencing witnesses is in your best interest...maybe that's a sign you shouldn't have done what you are now trying to conceal.

Wrong guess again, Buckaroo. If someone breaks into my home and I only wound them I could very well end up in a legal mess, if they are no longer there to dispute the facts then the odds are based on the evidence that it was a righteous shooting and that is that. Keep swinging away, you might actually get close to one eventually.

 

[CrabCake]

Wrong guess again, Buckaroo. If someone breaks into my home and I only wound them I could very well end up in a legal mess, if they are no longer there to dispute the facts then the odds are based on the evidence that it was a righteous shooting and that is that. Keep swinging away, you might actually get close to one eventually.

How does this change anything I said? You simply described exactly what I was talking about in greater detail.

If you need to silence witnesses...maybe you shouldn't have done it.

 

[Paleocon]

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.

Nope. Texas law expressly allows one to use deadly force if necessary to prevent escape immediately after the fact of a burglar, robber, or nighttime thief who is in possession of your property.

Reinoe's comment about killing women is just him being dishonest.

 

[reinoe]

Reinoe's comment about killing women is just him being dishonest.

No, there's also a case in Texas where a man claimed that a prostitute didn't provide the "services" he paid for and so he shot her to get his money back. However not only is prostitution illegal so he couldn't have used that excuse in any other state, when it comes to prostitutes, you're often only paying for their time and she definitely gave him her time. There was no proof she actually took his money or was a prostitute, he just claimed that.

So yes, you can kill women in Texas as long as it's at night. No time to present a link but it's a true story that you or anyone can look up at your convenience and I'll provide a link when I can.

 

[Casper]

How does this change anything I said? You simply described exactly what I was talking about in greater detail.

If you need to silence witnesses...maybe you shouldn't have done it.

I do not need a witness at all. And Wrong again, we are not saying the same thing. Strike 3.

 

[roughdraft274]

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 think the homeowner ****ed up and shot a guy that clearly wasn't out to do him bodily harm. If this guy lunged at the homeowner, or acted like he was going to grab a weapon, or did anything even remotely aggressive in nature while in your home then I think anything required to stop him is completely fair game, even shooting to kill. But when the guy is running away and not even on your property anymore, and posed absolutely no threat, it's clearly a case where the homeowner went outside of what a rational person would do.

 

[eohrnberger]

I think the homeowner ****ed up and shot a guy that clearly wasn't out to do him bodily harm. If this guy lunged at the homeowner, or acted like he was going to grab a weapon, or did anything even remotely aggressive in nature while in your home then I think anything required to stop him is completely fair game, even shooting to kill. But when the guy is running away and not even on your property anymore, and posed absolutely no threat, it's clearly a case where the homeowner went outside of what a rational person would do.

The old adage goes, if you shoot a burglar, make sure you drag him back into the house where he was when you shot him before the cops come, Castle doctrine and all.

 

[radcen]

The old adage goes, if you shoot a burglar, make sure you drag him back into the house where he was when you shot him before the cops come, Castle doctrine and all.

I suspect that old adage was from an old tv show where people didn't bleed when shot.

 

[Casper]

The old adage goes, if you shoot a burglar, make sure you drag him back into the house where he was when you shot him before the cops come, Castle doctrine and all.

Actually that has changed if they fall out the door or window it is not an issue.

 

[eohrnberger]

I suspect that old adage was from an old tv show where people didn't bleed when shot.

Who knows? Could be. Most recently revived when I was in my CPL class by the NRA instructor no less.

Actually that has changed if they fall out the door or window it is not an issue.

Probably a good thing.

I'm not really all that worried of the house, really. I've got a big dog that's always listening and making noise when appropriate, so potential burglars skip my house, not that happening much in my neighborhood (as far as I know).

 

[Paleocon]

No, there's also a case in Texas . . .

Which does not support your assertion that it's legal to kill women at night in Texas.

 

[VanceMack]

First...lets get the part about being a political asshole out of the way...

Can you prosecute the guy for following Joe Bidens recommendations????

OK...now that thats done...

Yes...he should have been charged and yeah...he probably should be open for lawsuit. If I were sitting on the civil trial jury it would be unlikely he would collect anything.

 

[roughdraft274]

The old adage goes, if you shoot a burglar, make sure you drag him back into the house where he was when you shot him before the cops come, Castle doctrine and all.

That might work if you shoot the guy right outside your front door.

I don't think it will work when you shoot the bastard in an alley and drag him all the way back to your house.

There should also be another adage. Don't shoot your gun wildly in a dark alley in a residential area like a ****ing moron for no reason. Because that's what this guy did.

 

[Northern Light]

If the homeowner was convicted then legally speaking the burglar is a victim and can take it to a civil case. Happens all the time.

If the homeowner wasn't on his property when he fired the gun then castle law doesn't apply.

 

[eohrnberger]

That might work if you shoot the guy right outside your front door.

I don't think it will work when you shoot the bastard in an alley and drag him all the way back to your house.

There should also be another adage. Don't shoot your gun wildly in a dark alley in a residential area like a ****ing moron for no reason. Because that's what this guy did.

No, dragging him back a 1/2 block isn't going to cut it. Should always be responsible with firearms, and not shoot wildly, ever.

If the homeowner was convicted then legally speaking the burglar is a victim and can take it to a civil case. Happens all the time.

If the homeowner wasn't on his property when he fired the gun then castle law doesn't apply.

Agreed.