• 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

radcen said:
I suspect that old adage was from an old tv show where people didn't bleed when shot.
Click to expand...

Probably true and that show was not CSI.
 
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...
The homeowner might still be able to claim imminent danger. All he has to do is to concoct a story about the guy suddenly turns around and put his hand into his pocket as if to retrieve a weapon. Then strongly insists he fears for his life and started shooting. It would serve him well if he can remember to hammer home the point that he didn't "follow" the burglar out into the alley. Merely to keep an eye on him to report to authority. It would be his word against the burglar's. Of course it would work out much better if he shot that guy dead. In any event, not only the police will let him go without a charge but also the masses will support him with huge donations for his defense if he ever got charged for the crime.
 
Chomsky said:
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!
Click to expand...

I'd rule for the home owner as a juror simply because I hate thieves and want to stick it to them.

by the way being completely honest I'm never stuck with jury duty, as an unrelated note.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom