San Francisco Homeowner Sued by Home Invader

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...truder-never-thought-it-would-amount-to-this/

Joe Balistreri met a man who had attempted to enter his front door, then jumped his fence and forcibly entered his garage door. Upon meeting the 6'4" man in his darkened garage, the homeowner fired three shots.

No criminal charges were filed but the home invader subsequently sued the homeowner in civil court saying the shooting was negligent and he was merely drunk and confused. The home invader lost this case as well; but the home owner racked up considerable legal fees in defending the case (another forum mentioned $85,000).

I thought this was a good example of the type of abuse the NRA model Castle Doctrine laws are designed to protect citizens from as well as an important reminder that shooting in self-defense can be an expensive proposition.
 
In the UK you are not allowed to harm the criminal who just kicked your door in, it's only a matter of time in some jurisdictions until this happens here.

Consider that one US political party has a platform plank supporting repeal of 'Stand Your Ground' laws, and by extension, Castle Doctrines, and you can guess which jurisdictions may be first.
 
counter sue the criminal AND his estate.
Click to expand...

That might be viable if it was a neighbor who actually was drunk and confused; if it is your typical criminal, all you are going to do is spend even more money obtaining a judgment that the criminal will never pay - if you're lucky you'll get enough money to pay the lawyer you hired to actually get the judgment fulfilled.
 
Where is it written that drunken neighbors forcibly entering someone else's home cannot have rape and murder on their mind?

Seems to be a mindset out there that says they are all harmless sots just looking for their own couch to crash on.
 
I've heard it said before that you don't let an intruder live if you're forced to defend yourself.
Seems like this would be an example of why.
 
I've heard it said before that you don't let an intruder live if you're forced to defend yourself.
Click to expand...

I've heard similar ridiculous things, up to and including "if you shoot them outside, drag them inside"...

That kind of fine advice, if followed, could get you a murder conviction!

The INSTANT the threat ends, you are no longer justified to shoot. That means if they fall down, or turn their back to run, even if they don't run.

Check the threads, check the news, find the stories how a shopkeeper/clerk justifiably uses a gun defending themselves, and then faces charges, gets convicted and goes to jail because they shot at the fleeing criminal, or worse yet, chased them out into the street and fired.

If a bad guy dies as a result of the justified use of deadly force it's a sad thing, but defender did nothing wrong. If the defender "makes sure they die", THAT is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER, and the law generally calls it murder,
 
I have heard many things said regarding home invasion and self-defense that make me cringe. The idea that killing someone is the preferred outcome is exactly what anti-gun zeolots use to make their case for all sorts of ridiculous and illegal laws. Yes there should be protection from civil suits in a justified self-protection shooting in all 50 States. Advocating "that you don't let an intruder live" in a public forum is not in our best interest.
 
If a bad guy dies as a result of the justified use of deadly force it's a sad thing, but defender did nothing wrong. If the defender "makes sure they die", THAT is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER, and the law generally calls it murder,
Click to expand...

There was case just a couple years ago here in MN. The old duffer is now spending some serious time in jail.
 
MurBob said:
I've heard it said before that you don't let an intruder live if you're forced to defend yourself....
Click to expand...
Yes people say that. And it's a really stupid thing to say.

A fellow in Oklahoma by the name of Jerome Ersland appears to have thought that way . Mr. Ersland is now in prison serving a life term for first degree murder.
 
Another insane bit of advice I've heard is 'don't call the cops.'

So a justifiable act of self-defense will turn into a murder charge when the burglars' girlfriend calls the cops and says he went to your place and never came home.
 
but the home owner racked up considerable legal fees in defending the case (another forum mentioned $85,000).
Click to expand...

Are those fees not recouped from the plaintiff?

In the UK and many European countries (I can't comment on elsewhere) if you lose a case, you are also liable for the other party's legal costs.

Otherwise that would amount to an innocent party being punished financially through no fault of their own. Is that not the case in the US?

In the UK you are not allowed to harm the criminal who just kicked your door in,
Click to expand...

Please, check your facts. You ARE permitted to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself, your property, others and their property as well as making lawful Citizen's Arrest.

What you can't do is attack an intruder purely with a view to harming them, punishing them or exacting revenge for their actions on you and your stuff.
I suspect the same limitation applies in many parts of the US.

There are many aspects to UK law that infuriate me without adding inaccurate or inflated dimensions to them.
 
No matter what the circumstances of a shooting, if you are involved in it in Ca.(and some other states as well)...you better be prepared for the legal costs. Justice can be very expensive in this country and actuality vs. theoretical rhetoric can be two very different things. A justified case of shooting to protect ones self can well cost a person everything they own or will own in their lifetime. Not right, but the way it is...lawyers have to eat too.
I remember a case of a person I knew in Ca. years ago that I always thought was a good example of how things can be warped. He had a drugged out person trying to break in his front door while screaming at him thinking he was someone else. He called the police and by the time they arrived the druggie had moved down the street somewhere and ceased the screaming. The police asked him if he had a weapon in the house...and when he pointed to a Winchester 94 he had leaning in a corner near the door...they confiscated it. The officer said they didn't want anyone hurt if the druggie returned.
In some places you just can't win....better to try to avoid any problems you can.
 
Seems like another example where criminals have more rights than the law abiding citizen. A legal justified shooting and the home owner is burdened with legal fees to the point of financial ruin. The criminal goes to jail and gets 3 hots and a cot, plus free medical, optical and dental. Paid for by the law abiding tax paying citizen.
 
counter sue the criminal AND his estate.
Click to expand...

To have an estate, he would need to have had something other than unpaid debts.

Something to look for on your homeowner's liability policy, some of them will exclude the defense obligation for intentional acts that would foreseeably result in liability, not just intentionally inflicted harm.
 
Are those fees not recouped from the plaintiff?
Click to expand...

Legal fees can sometimes be recovered from the plaintiff as a legal matter. As a practical matter, it can often be more difficult than that. However, the general rule is each side pays for its own legal costs.

Also, because of the nature of the American system, there is immense pressure to settle or plead cases before trial. So actually going to trial and winning is quite involved and quite expensive. Locally, if 95% of the cases brought in a given year don't settle, the court docket becomes backlogged. So there is an actual capacity to give a trial to maybe 5% of the cases filed in any given year.
 
Legal fees can sometimes be recovered from the plaintiff as a legal matter. As a practical matter, it can often be more difficult than that. However, the general rule is each side pays for its own legal costs.

Also, because of the nature of the American system, there is immense pressure to settle or plead cases before trial. So actually going to trial and winning is quite involved and quite expensive. Locally, if 95% of the cases brought in a given year don't settle, the court docket becomes backlogged. So there is an actual capacity to give a trial to maybe 5% of the cases filed in any given year.
Click to expand...

Wow!!

Doesn't all that potentially put someone in a low income bracket at an immediate disadvantage however strong their case might be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top