Burglar's Family Wins Wrongful Death Suit

[gunman41mag]

Read the story. The car lot owners sure appear to be wrong in what they did. Not saying the criminal was not a criminal. He was a criminal. No doubt there. But the car lot owners shot first, shot blindly.

I don't blame the car lot owners, they've had multiple break ins/thefts. But they handled it wrong. Should have dialed 911 before heading out with guns blazing. It appears (again this is a newspaper report, take it with a grain of salt) they were waiting in ambush hoping to kill some criminals?




Yes you do get higher velocities from the longer barrel. Not so much that it rivals rifle ballistics. Handgun caliber carbines are an answer to a question that nobody asked.

How could the owner have shot blindly when he hit the CRACK HEAD

 

[AF Gunner]

So let me get this right. someone protects his business from a low life drug user and then ends up loosing it anyway to the family of the "victim". You know it was not his fault that he got high and broke into the guys car lot, most likely not the first time and got himself shot. Like Jim carry said in Lier lier. I could have got him more. this is bull **** it's time to take our country back from low life's and lawyers. This case should not have ever made it to court.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

No immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm? No justification for use of deadly force.
Its pretty straight forward and simple and would likely go down the same way in Indiana....

If the guy had been visible or brandishing the knife (knives) different story. Shooting through a door... not exactly immediate threat... A predictable result.... although I cant see that a single rifle would be considered to be "Heavily armed".

If youre going to carry, you better know when you can or can not use deadly force... Or it can end up costing you as well.
just my two cents...

 

[gunman41mag]

No immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm? No justification for use of deadly force.
Its pretty straight forward and simple and would likely go down the same way in Indiana....

If the guy had been visible or brandishing the knife (knives) different story. Shooting through a door... not exactly immediate threat... A predictable result.... although I cant see that a single rifle would be considered to be "Heavily armed".

If youre going to carry, you better know when you can or can not use deadly force... Or it can end up costing you as well.
just my two cents...

I have a very good insurance + also have a 1 MILLION dollar umbrella to cover my property

 

[Blackhawk2001]

While I hate thieves as much as the next guy, I think most people on this board (apparently with the exception of a couple that already posted in this thread) know that you can not open fire on someone outside that is posing no physical threat to you.

I once watched six policemen attempt to arrest a guy high on PCP after he threw a console television set into a pool. Do not tell me that two "meth-heads with knives" were not a threat.

 

[littletommy]

While I hate thieves as much as the next guy, I think most people on this board (apparently with the exception of a couple that already posted in this thread) know that you can not open fire on someone outside that is posing no physical threat to you.

The fact that this thief is dead, or that the property owner shot him, doesn't really matter to me. The fact that someone defended their property and were sued and lost is what bugs me. The fact that a jury would rule in favor of a dope head who was on someone elses property, trying to steal from that person, is beyond me. I don't know the facts surrounding this case, but anything short of this property owner ordering the thief to the ground and then popping him in the head, I really don't have much problem with. The fact remains that if the thief wasn't out thieving that night, thief would not be dead.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The fact that this thief is dead, or that the property owner shot him, doesn't really matter to me. The fact that someone defended their property and were sued and lost is what bugs me. The fact that a jury would rule in favor of a dope head who was on someone elses property, trying to steal from that person, is beyond me. I don't know the facts surrounding this case, but anything short of this property owner ordering the thief to the ground and then popping him in the head, I really don't have much problem with. The fact remains that if the thief wasn't out thieving that night, thief would not be dead.

Here's the problem, the "theives" hadn't stolen anything. They were not obviously armed. They were not obviously "dope heads." The only info the property owner had at the time, was that the men were trespassing. Trespassing ISNT a capital offense. Intent, after the fact, ISNT a capital offense... unless your there's is an articulable concern for an individual's safety OR you believe in pre-crime. It's BAD, very bad shoot. They're lucky theyre only having to pay $300k.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

I once watched six policemen attempt to arrest a guy high on PCP after he threw a console television set into a pool. Do not tell me that two "meth-heads with knives" were not a threat.

Nobody is arguing that they were not a threat, but according to the newspaper report, one was shot at while jumping back over the fence and the other was shot through a door while in a shed.

Without knowing more information, it would seem that they both were trying to flee. Either the owners of that car lot shot blindly into that shed and killed him by accident, or they knew he was there and decided to kill him. Either way, neither situation demonstrates a clear self defense.

It was clear they were waiting for some criminals to break in; i have no problem with that, they were trying to protect their property. As soon as they noticed to the two men on their property, they should have called the police and, if they felt the desire, to detain them. When they had the guy cornered in the shed they should have waited either for the police to show up or, if the guy came running out with a purpose, wait until they were threatened to shoot the guy.

 

[IndianaGTI]

Here's the problem, the "theives" hadn't stolen anything. They were not obviously armed. They were not obviously "dope heads." The only info the property owner had at the time, was that the men were trespassing. Trespassing ISNT a capital offense. Intent, after the fact, ISNT a capital offense... unless your there's is an articulable concern for an individual's safety OR you believe in pre-crime. It's BAD, very bad shoot. They're lucky theyre only having to pay $300k.

Well said.

 

[88GT]

Here's the problem, the "theives" hadn't stolen anything. They were not obviously armed. They were not obviously "dope heads." The only info the property owner had at the time, was that the men were trespassing. Trespassing ISNT a capital offense. Intent, after the fact, ISNT a capital offense... unless your there's is an articulable concern for an individual's safety OR you believe in pre-crime. It's BAD, very bad shoot. They're lucky theyre only having to pay $300k.

Yeah, I pictured a couple of drunk friends who were trying to get to their car but in their drunken state were completely lost. A drunk trying to get into a car he thinks is his looks an awful lot like a thief trying to break into a car that isn't his...but perhaps with a bit more falling down.

No way of knowing exactly what was going on. Shooting blindly doesn't just mean not SEEING your target.

 

[MtnBiker6510]

I'm an insurance agent and for me the most important thing in this case was that there were no criminal charges filed. This means his insurance company would pay the $300k. If criminal charges had been filed, he'd have been left out to dry by his insurance company according to the policy conditions. Most of us that have property insurance have at least 300k in Liability Protection for this kind of thing. I'm making sure mine is a million, just in case.

 

[NinnJinn]

Sometimes the legal system baffles me. I don't undersand how you can be liable for a wrongful death when you were cleared of wrongful death charges.HMMMMMMMM

Ditto!!!!

 

[Pyriel]

Ditto!!!!

Just ask OJ Simpson

 

[Caleb]

Meth ain't a bad choice, but rather a bad habit