Yes it is because it illustrates the actual circumstances. People love to connect two unconnected events to make a pretty picture. Example: Man in garage (as here) What has that got to do with the burglary. Did he sue for . . . . false imprisonment, how did they know it was the same individual exactly, was he there for an hour, a week, a month, what did he sue for because, say, ‘false imprisonment’ is a different, unconnected offence to ‘burglary’ etc – did they starve him etc. etc . . .
On the face of it, it’s plainly ludicrous, is all. Very Daily Mail.
Here’s one:
Farmer get sentence to life (later reduced to five years) for shooting and killing burglar. He was also sued for £15,000, for damages on second burglar (who, after the shooting, no longer enjoy sex or bear to see shootings on television :rolleyes: ).
I’m of the opinion that they had better had their fave meal before they stepped foot into MY house to do their dirty work. It will be their LAST, if I can help it.
My reasoning: I don’t know what they are there for, and I’m not going to stop and ask them either.
“Pardon me, Mr. Intruder, were you merely here for our TV, or were you going to rape me, or murder my family?”
No. They don’t get that kind of courtesy if they are an intruder in my home. I don’t give a shit what they are there for – they’re in my home, ILLEGALLY, committing a crime.
I’m defending myself. If there is only one person left to tell the tale, I’m going to be that person. Besides, I have children to protect. That’s my job, I love being a mother, and I will do my job til the death if that’s what it takes.
There are too many of those lawsuits where the intruder wins. The jury people need a harsh raping in the middle of the night by an intruder. Maybe they will change their minds.
**Winston Smith ** - All you’re doing is illustrating the core of the debate that’s been had a thousand times since Tony Martin went to prison. As said above, in the UK you can use ‘reasonable force’ (in the immediate context) to defend yourself. Anything beyond that ‘reeasonable force’ exposes you to potential criminal charges.
If, if, if, that goes to court, 12 of your peers need to agree with *this particular application *of the ‘reasonable force’ law in order to get a conviction – it was those 12 jurors who convicted Tony Martin‘. And this country is no stranger to presenting the judge with 'perverse verdicts’, ones that have no basis on the facts offered. They decided otherwise.
Yada, yada, yada. Yawn.
Isn’t there the duty to retreat in the US? I’ve heard that one is required to retreat as far as possible from the intruder and only then is one allowed to use deadly force. But I’ve also heard that one is not required to do so in one’s home.
I got an email from a gullible friend which contained famous stupid lawsuits. Unfortunately, each one of them left out certain key facts. There was one about a guy who robbed a McDonald’s then, got shot, and sued the manager of the restaurant and won. Problem was, he got shot in the back while fleeing, after discarding the knife he’d waved.
This sounds like the usual half-assed bling bling that conservatives use to form their opinions. Pathetic stuff. I don’t think there’s been a whole lot of lawsuit-winning in the U.S. I’ll bet there have been a lot of lawsuits filed because convicts get access to law books and often file lawsuits. Bet the ratio of filed lawsuits to won lawsuits is pretty pathetic – something like 1/1,000,000. I’ll bet that one case was one where there was evidence that the homeowner’s claim that it was self-defence was a lie. After all, somebody might lure another person into their home, beat them to death or shoot them and then claim the other person was a burglar. How would a jury know who to believe?
Maybe only remotely related to the OP, back in the 1980’s I think, a Miami store owner was prosecuted and acquitted for the death of a burglar who, while attempting to break into his store was electrocuted by a home-made trap installed by the owner.
Farmer get sentence to life (later reduced to five years) for shooting and killing burglar who was no longer in the house and running away (the kid was shot in the back) after walking into the trap set up by Martin
The guy had been burgled before and basically went apeshit.
A further trouble with allowing citizens to take the law into their own hands is that it invites life-or-death decisions to be made by those not really in a position to make them. There are some pretty serious consequences associated with shoot-first-ask-questions-later.
For example, a perceived burglar in your garden may be no more than someone who got lost in the woods behind your house and is now trying to get back onto the main road (this actually happened to me once, hence my thought of it as an example).
What you think is someone trying to break in to your house may actually be your drunk mate who suddenly had the bright idea of spending the night at your place and saw the window open.
You never know. But encouraging scared homeowners to wave lethal weapons around and shoot on sight doesn’t strike me as particularly sensible.
Yes, the items linked duly note that suits were filed. The more important thing to me, and perhaps to others, however, would be knowing how many of these cases resulted in awards to the plaintiffs. My guess is very few indeed, so what’s the beef?
december’s posting links to civil (money) suits, not criminal ‘defence’ cases. Different burdens of proof, different laws, different prosectiong authorities and, in the UK at least, only one has a jury (in almost every circumstance).
Nothing whatever to do with a criminal conviction for using excessive force in yur own defence, and everything to do with compensation for same.
You have a point, but even if law-abiding citizens are unarmed, a life and death decision is already in the wrong hands. I.e., an armed criminal may already be making life and death decisions.
I’d rather take the risk that a burglar is harmed than take the risk that my wife or child is harmed.
I grant that my argument makes sense only if one believes that being armed really does provide a measure of protection. I think it does. That’s why many celebrities have armed guards, at least in the US.
BTW do the PM, the Queen, and top entertainers use armed guards in the UK?
BTW, regarding some of these cases: it IS illegal for you in most jurisdictions to defend your property with a deadly trap (tripwired shotgun, electrified doorframe, punji stake pit, surplus bouncing-betty landmine), to actively give chase with intent to kill or maim, or to “finish off” an already-down assailant.
As Brutus points out, a large number of the more popular archetypical “examples” of “Burglar’s Rights” are in the UL category – and for those that did get presented, most often the courts later dismissed the case or found against the claimant, but that does not make headlines. The fact that you are allowed to file a ridiculous lawsuit in the first place really means little.
As to the OP question, they can sue anyone. Of course they should get nothing and be the ones who pay for all costs.
In the UK does a burglar have the right for damages if he breaks into a house and is injured when nobody is there or finds himself stuck in the house without the owners having laid a trap? In the USA, it can be done, and in some jurisdictions, courts will side with the burglar.
I couldn’t find a cite for this one, but I remember an '80s case in Indiana where a mobile home owner had suffered repeated break-ins and set up a booby trap involving a shotgun loaded with rock salt. End result - dead burglar, and the homeowner on trial (and convicted) on some felony charge short of murder.
Confront a burglar in your home some night and shoot them dead, and in much of the U.S. you stand a good chance of not being charged. Don’t set up a booby trap, though. We don’t like sneaky stuff.