longslide10
New member
WTF! This takes big cajones. This is why you should always make sure they leave in a body bag.
Link Removed
Link Removed
Suspect in burglary sues homeowner who shot him
- Thread starter longslide10
- Start date
CharlesMorrison
Banned
DLeeHarley
New member
Is Marin County in St. Louis, MO. or in E. St. Louis, IL.? Does either state have the Castle Doc.? I used to live in K.C.MO. but that was in '72 and I don't know the laws back there anymore. Thanks,
Bill Cavalieri
New member
Missouri has a Castle Doctrine: Missouri "Castle Doctrine" Law - Online Copy of Final Bill . Unlikely that the perp will win this lawsuit.
Rhino
New member
I posted this two weeks ago.
.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/dead...used-burglary-sues-90-year-old-homeowner.html
.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/dead...used-burglary-sues-90-year-old-homeowner.html
Riverkilt
New member
Okay, the new measure in Arizona passed by a two to one margin. Jist of the law is that if you're a bad guy doing illegal stuff and someone hurts you while they defend themselves against you then you can NOT sue the good guy for whatever they did to you. Maybe one of our Arizona legal scholars can be more accurate about this new law?
DLeeHarley
New member
Thanks Bill that's what I wanted to know.
Dennis in Idaho
Keep your Powder Dry!
Rhino
New member
I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but Castle Doctrine or other civil immunities built into statutes don't completely protect you from civil liability. States such as Missouri with protections against civil liability in their statutes for the use of deadly force, only protect you so far as not having a duty to retreat and the use of deadly force itself. They don't protect you if the plaintiff claims negligence. Lawyers can and do still sue where those civil protections exist in the statutes. The burden upon them to prove negligence is tougher, but it isn't insurmountable. They usually won't attempt it unless the negligence is readily apparent and/or the potential rewards are high, such as the recent case filed against gun makers even thought the law says they supposedly can't. Some lawyers have won some very sizable court cases where the statutes said they weren't supposed to be able to sue.
does the threat of being sued count?
What do you think? I know my answer? Come to my house to steal (forcible entry) when I am home, where the State of South Carolina considers that an imminent threat to my life or the infliction of great bodily injury, and they will pin a medal on me for "stopping the threat".
DLeeHarley
New member
No truer statement has been posted in this Forum!
maine04619
New member
This is why we train to shoot to KILL and not to wound.
Precisely. This did not happen in Missouri. It happened in the People's Republic of California. California has no duty to retreat and has a convoluted form of the Castle Doctrine, which has some strange wording but I cannot believe that it wouldn't shield the man in this case. 90 year old man shot the robber through the jaw with a .357...close but not close enough. Shoot the bastard center mass with a .357 and boom, no pulse = no lawsuit. This guy tied up a 90 year old man. That's home invasion. But the suspect's dad is a lawyer and filed suit on his son's behalf because his son is a meth addict and is suing the old man for bodily injury and I just love this one, financial harm. Drug addiction is not an affirmative defense. It's a pathetic excuse. The judge who draws this case will dismiss with prejudice and tell this clown's lawyer/dad to get the hell out of his courtroom.
Ironically, this wouldn't even happen in IL. IL has some pretty strong laws regarding defense of one's abode. Basically, they break in, you own them and you're immune from a civil suit. Some guy up in a rich burb north of Chicago (Winnetka I believe) shot a fleeing suspect in his house and he couldn't even be prosecuted or sued.
Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2
Ironically, this wouldn't even happen in IL. IL has some pretty strong laws regarding defense of one's abode. Basically, they break in, you own them and you're immune from a civil suit. Some guy up in a rich burb north of Chicago (Winnetka I believe) shot a fleeing suspect in his house and he couldn't even be prosecuted or sued.
Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2
DLeeHarley
New member
I'm definitely not a Lawyer or an Attorney, but even if the gentleman had killed the intruder couldn't his dad (an Attorney) have still filed a wrongful death suit on his sons behalf? Still I would assume hopefully the Judge would still throw it out. I'm just asking.
Later
Dennis in Idaho
Keep your Powder Dry!
Correct. Which is why I stated that it's a convoluted form of the Castle Doctrine. The law states that forced entry (torn screen, broken lock, picked lock, etc.) is sufficient grounds for use of deadly force, but if your door is unlocked and they walk in then it is not forced entry. Home invasion by way of the criminal forcing their way in is also a catch because it's a ***** to prove that you answered the door. Even if you do follow the law to a "T," all it takes is some overzealous DA and an anti-gun judge or jury. The prosecution has to prove that you weren't in fear for your life which consist of four things: that you weren't in your residence, intruder is a member of your household or has a reason to be there, forced entry, and that the defendant/shooter didn't have reasonable belief that forced entry had been committed. So...yeah good luck Mr. DA since the judge will instruct the jury to acquit if the prosecution cannot prove that defendant was in fear of his/her life. That's why they don't prosecute a self defense shooting unless there's strong evidence indicating it was noy justifiable. So, that's the criminal side.
Police may find that it's self defense and justified but the law hangs the innocent person out to dry because it does not automatically remove civil liability. I wouldn't even call it the Castle Doctrine. That being said, IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but based on the whopping 9 hours of law classes I've taken and after reading the actual statute, this case will very likely go to trial. The little meth addict will lose and the man can file a motion for award of attorneys' fees. This man had no choice...at all. It was him or that little prick. Not shielding law abiding citizens from civil liability incentivizes killing intruders rather than wounding them. If this guy didn't have a lawyer for a father, you think he'd be suing? Hell no. Neither would most scumbags.
If the man were charged with homicide or manslaughter (I know same thing) and acquitted (which NEVER happens in CA), he would still be open to civil liability (look at OJ). California is so screwed up. It's one of the stated on my "I'll NEVER live there for any reason" list.
Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2
maine04619
New member
Also the DEAD guy can not testify thus it is your word against nobody unless there where others home at the time.
Which is precisely why you kill them. Some woman here shot and wounded two guys who broke into her house, she was praised, they were both arraigned for home invasion via teleconference from their hospital beds. But I digress. I would figure that a .357 at point blank would chop his head in two but sounds like the old man didn't get a clean shot off because they were wrestling for the gun. A 90 year old man vs. a meth addict less than half his age, old man's lucky to be alive.
Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2
New Threads
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
-
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4
-
Members online
No members online now.