90-year-old shot in face during burglary is SUED by burglar b/c homeowner shot him

[CPA]

Kind of reminds me of the story years ago when a thief broke into a house was going up the stairs to the bedrooms on the second floor and slipped on a toy, fell down the stairs, breaking his back.

He was able to successfully sue the home owners for his medical bills, pain and suffering due to negligence in letting their child leave a toy on one of their stair steps.

I'd like to see that article. 1) it either happened in a different country or 2) in a state with some f'd up laws.

 

[zinfamous]

I own a shotgun, 4 rifles and 3 handguns. I'm not scared of a damn thing.

well, you clearly are.

 

[RampantAndroid]

well, you clearly are.

And you draw this conclusion how? You think I buy these for defense? That's a purpose I can use them for...but it isn't the reason I buy these things.

The shotgun - it's fun, and it's great for defense.
The Garand and the 1903A3 - great vintage weapons, and the 1903 saw service in WWII.
The Mk14 - fun as hell to shoot, fun to compete with friends for accuracy
The AR15 - see above.

The revolvers: fun to shoot. Fun to reload for them.

The 1911: good carry gun, oh, fun to shoot.

A grand total of TWO of those were bought with idea of defense on my mind, and even then it wasn't the driving force. I'd only ever use the revolvers in defense against a bear. Same for ALL of the rifles - they'd shoot through a target and into walls and maybe innocent people.

 

[woolfe9999]

OK, I'm going to point out that there are 2 versions of the facts here. According to theory of the DA prosecuting the intruder, there is zero question about the shoot. It's quite obviously justified.

According to the defense theory, the "intruder" was there to complete a drug deal with someone else who lived there. That could make him an invitee of a legal resident. Doesn't matter if he's there to buy drugs or borrow a screw driver. If he was invited in by a resident, the castle doctrine would not apply and we're talking about ordinary self-defense rules whereby "shooting someone in the back while he flees" is not a justified shoot.

I highly doubt the intruder's version BTW. I'd be inclined to credit the homeowner and the prosecutor on this. I'm just pointing out that the lawsuit is valid in theory because it is based on an alternative version of the facts.

 

[spidey07]

OK, I'm going to point out that there are 2 versions of the facts here. According to theory of the DA prosecuting the intruder, there is zero question about the shoot. It's quite obviously justified.

According to the defense theory, the "intruder" was there to complete a drug deal with someone else who lived there. That could make him an invitee of a legal resident. Doesn't matter if he's there to buy drugs or borrow a screw driver. If he was invited in by a resident, the castle doctrine would not apply and we're talking about ordinary self-defense rules whereby "shooting someone in the back while he flees" is not a justified shoot.

I highly doubt the intruder's version BTW. I'd be inclined to credit the homeowner and the prosecutor on this. I'm just pointing out that the lawsuit is valid in theory because it is based on an alternative version of the facts.

The dude was shot in the face in his house, castle doctrine absolutely applies.

 

[wirednuts]

'The .45 hit me right in the face here and went through the back of my head,' said Leone.

'I didn't feel a thing.'

jeezus christ!

 

[RampantAndroid]

OK, I'm going to point out that there are 2 versions of the facts here. According to theory of the DA prosecuting the intruder, there is zero question about the shoot. It's quite obviously justified.

According to the defense theory, the "intruder" was there to complete a drug deal with someone else who lived there. That could make him an invitee of a legal resident. Doesn't matter if he's there to buy drugs or borrow a screw driver. If he was invited in by a resident, the castle doctrine would not apply and we're talking about ordinary self-defense rules whereby "shooting someone in the back while he flees" is not a justified shoot.

I highly doubt the intruder's version BTW. I'd be inclined to credit the homeowner and the prosecutor on this. I'm just pointing out that the lawsuit is valid in theory because it is based on an alternative version of the facts.

Well, wait...the account from the guy is that he had to ask to go to the bathroom - that he was being held hostage basically. Castle doctrine absolutely applies in that case. Can the moron who got shot in the chest invent a story where he didn't break in and deserve to be shot? Sure...

 

[ModerateRepZero]

the lawsuit is why I'm surprised tort law doesn't bar someone from filing if they committed a (violent) felony related to the lawsuit's circumstances.

 

[WackyDan]

Pretty sure you're good in NC, they recently passed castle doctrine for your home. Not sure if it extends to your occupied vehicle or any place you have a legal right to be. That's one of the big reasons for castle doctine, not only can you not be held criminally liable or be prosecuted, you are immune from civil liability and cannot be sued by the family of the criminal you killed.

Basically, once they cross the threshold you are good to shoot. So just make sure they're inside. <wink>

-edit- google around, your state just very recently expanded castle doctrine to include occupied vehicle and places of work as well as your home

Still waiting for my new purchase permit to be approved. Should take only 30 days but they are taking up to 45+ now for new firearm purchases. $5 for each weapon. Part of the process here prior to purchase... Election year is causing higher demand and lengthening the wait... I'm buying a new carry piece, small frame and lighter for the hot summers here..-nothing to do with the election, just poor timing on my part.

 

[kage69]

jeezus christ!

Yeah, that's pretty amazing. Tells me the perp had the cheapest ball ammo he could find. I think any of the modern JHP loads out there in .45ACP would probably have removed a substantial chunk of his face and head.