I have seen loads of stories about people defending their home from burglars, often resulting in the burglar getting injured, the culprit then goes on to sue the home owner for damages. But there are also many examples where the burglar is not injurede at all, one of these examples was;- a family went on holiday and whilst they were away for the week someone broke into their house, from the house there was a door into the garage, the criminal went into the garage but the door back into the house locked itself, trapping the burglar inside the garage until the family got back, when they discovered him he fled and then sued them, beacuse he got trapped in their garage.
I find it absolutley apalling that these criminals can win a case agaisnt someone who is defending their home ,these criminals have not right to break in, so they should hvae no right to sue us if they get hurt.
Please let me know your view on this subject, is it right for burglars to sue us after getting injured in our home.
Bwana Bob, there is a different legal structure in the UK, where magicman and I are from. If you kill a burglar, the police will need some kind of proof that you did it in self-defense. Killing someone for trespass and theft is likely to land you in jail in the UK. Cite.
It’s a very tricky area. The phrase “reasonable force” is a key one here, and it’s a grey area, decided by the courts. One may restrain the burglar, possibly by knocking him/her out, until the police arrive, using reasonable force.
My personal opinion is that, if the court decides that the burglar was trespassing with ill intent, then their rights should be foregone.
The bit that bugs me, more than any “reasonable force” issues, is the “duty of care” that has occasionally been invoked in Ireland - (made-up example) burglar falls down staircase during burglar, sues homeowner for lack of provision of “mind the stairs” sign. However, I’m not sure how apocryphal these stories are.
The only problem is…burglars or their surviving relitives have sued and won in court for on the job injuries. If you maime or kill a burglar make sure it’s in your house or drag him back in unless you want to face a manslaughter charge.
personally i think that if somebody breaks into someones house then they should loose all their rights, because if i woke up in the middle of the night and found a stranger going through my things scareing the hell out of me and my family how are we supposed to protect our home, i say the law should be changed, the burglars shouldn’t be in our house in the first place, so by breaking in they should be fully aware they might get hurt.
I remember a man in England who after having been burgled a number of times, and especially after being royally pissed at seeing how the burglars always took big swings of his finest whiskey, decided to put rat poison in one if the bottles. And surely after some time, he came home (from a fine game of bridge with his wife – this being England) and found a dead man on his floor. He was sued, can’t remember what happened though. If you ask me, that’s what goes with the territory of being a burglar. Don’t like the odds – change profession.
I cannot give you a source for that information, i heard it from a police officer who came into my school and talked to us,i raised the same question i have here and she discussed it with us and gave that example.
He won a lot of money,i don’t know what grounds he sued on, it shouldn’t matter, he was is in the wrong, the family weren’t even there so they did nothing wrong.
Put another way, cite, please because facts soon get lost in this kind of Chinese whispers game **
[/QUOTE]
Am I correct to assume the Chinese Whispers Game is the same or similar to “Telephone” also called “Gossip” played in the US. Play is started by tellign a very short story and relaying it around the circle of players to the starter. The end resuld being very different if not unrecognizable from the original?
I suppose I’d nitpick but it doesn’t really matter.
IMHO, chinese whispers is more of an honest change (in the substance) due to the human inclination to interpret.
But ‘gossip’ works as well (in this context) as things get exaggerated, embellished, simplified and increasingly ignorant of the legal facts. It just makes for a better/more interesting story to pass on.
We don’t know which, if either, is appropriate in this case.
I’m not convinced about this “sue” business. Either unreasonable force was used – in which case the homeowner has committed a crime and should be charged and tried appropriately – or they have not, in which case what grounds are there to sue?
I would also like to see an actual cited case where the burglar sued and won in a civil court, as opposed the homeowner being charged with a criminal offence.
Is it really fair to insist on cites for parts of posts where it is of no consequence? I took his burglar story as an amusing preamble to the core of the OP “Do Burglars Deserve The Right To Sue Us If They Get Hurt While Robbing Us”. To be taken literally or theoretically as you like, but mostly serving as further illustration of what he would like to discuss.
From my understanding, most of the ‘burglar sued homeowner’ stories are urban legends. Here is a cite for a somewhat related, and equally assinine take on that line of stories.
From the link:
It seems the UK has a different view of peoples right to self-defense and protection of property. Certainly any intruder in my home is very likely to get dead, much less injured. (Not the the legal system is much less screwed up in regards to ‘criminal rights’ over here.)