Burglar sues homeowner who shot him

[Dave Workman]

Outrage: Indiana burglar sues homeowner who shot him

A sense of outrage appears to be spreading since yesterday's revelation by several news agencies around the country, including WXIN in Indianapolis that a convicted Indiana burglar is now suing the homeowner who shot him just over two years ago.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Joe13]

Too bad the shooter didn't have better aim...

 

[Mikej]

If the question were put up to a public vote, which way would it go? Disregarding the merits of the Indiana case, should homeowners be immune from civil liability if they shoot burglars?

For me, if the guy is running away, I don't care what he's done I'm not shooting. Can't say for sure if the guy was armed, with a fire arm. Do you think you could use the defense of shooting the guy in the back to protect the PUBLIC? Like police can? Gamble much?

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Yep, just one of the reasons we repeatedly say, "When you shoot somebody, you are in for the hassle of a lifetime." It'd better be a good shoot.

After the police and prosecutors grind you through the gauntlet, then it'll be the scrote's family who will turn him into a halo-wearing angel of the saints, or the scrote himself, who now will tell the court how, thanks to you, he is unable to return to his former life of selfless service to the community.

Meanwhile, you will be vilified in the press for being a bloodthirsty maniac and every aspect of your life will be used to "prove" what a loose cannon you are, "it was just a matter of time". And your former friends might even look at you sideways, a little uneasy at knowing such a notorious gunslinger.

Meanwhile any money you may have had will go down into the black hole of a $250.00/Hr attorney you have to hire to manage the blowback.

"When you shoot somebody, you are in for the hassle of a lifetime."

 

[Joe13]

Depends on where you live and the color of your skin.

If you disagree, do some Google fu - plenty of folks around here have shot intruders and only had a cursory follow up by the sheriff that the prosecutor would not be filing charges.



@Mikej, personally No, I wouldn't shoot someone in the back because that wouldn't be threatening to me. Might be different in the middle of the night when I am 90 though, hard to tell.


@Doc In UPlace, I think the exception are the people with guns that WANT to shoot someone. The rest of us keep guns around for the worst case scenario. If I NEED my gun, lawyer fees are the last thing on my mind at that point.


To everyone,

Can anyone look in the mirror and honestly say your going to take the time to assess what shooting an immediate deadly threat to you or your family's life will do to your financial future???

IF you answered yes, then I would highly recommend you lock everything in your safe for range days. Id recommend a bat but if you swing and they turn away, you just murdered someone by hitting them in the back or side of the head with a deadly weapon and the same situation will unfold.


Edit - last sentence wasn't needed

 

[nammac]

There should be a nationwide castle docturine.

If someone crosses my threshold, without an invitation, especially by forceful entry in the middle of the night, I'm thinking they're not there for high tea...

My home is my safe haven, any violation of that space can and should be met with force by the homeowner(s) or their family members. To include deadly force.

No shooting a fleeing felon, that's clearly an issue... But, if you are in my home at 3:00 am uninvited, then that causes me to be in fear for my life and the lives of my loved ones...

And as such, I would take the appropriate action. As I'm the victim, whether the perp is breathing or not at the end of the encounter... I'm still the victim...

Perhaps victims should bring suit against the thrives for pain and suffering and PTSD...

 

[Joe13]

Lawyers - waddya gonna do?

 

[boogerhook]

You shoot to stop a threat. Not more not less. Killing the intruder does not protect you from a suit brought on by the family, so don't get the wrong idea here ...

 

[RicInOR]

http://www.thestarpress.com/story/n...burglar-sues-homeowner-who-shot-him/83418638/

"McLaughlin, now 33, fired gunshots at the intruder he saw fleeing from his property, in the 400 block of West Commerce Drive. One of the bullets hit Bailey in the left arm as he ran down an alley."

The State thought this was criminal. And so did a jury.

"In September 2014, a Jay Superior Court jury found McLaughlin guilty of criminal recklessness in the shooting. Judge Max Ludy later sentenced the Dunkirk property owner to 60 days in jail, to be followed by four months on home detention."


Now comes the restitution part.

 

[mkwerx]

Damn shame - yes what the homeowner did was stupid - but damn it, a burglar should NOT profit from his own criminal enterprise and stupidity. The guy should've gotten probation, and the burglar should be in jail. Or rather, in his grave. No sympathy for burglars.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

In June 2015, Bailey – who had pleaded guilty to burglary – was placed on electronic home detention for three years.

WTH? So the criminal did not get any jail time while the homeowner had to take two months off his job to sit in the county lock up!

I wonder if the homeowners sentence would have been lighter if he had used rock salt or a non-lethal shot load?

 

[Joe13]

In June 2015, Bailey – who had pleaded guilty to burglary – was placed on electronic home detention for three years.

WTH? So the criminal did not get any jail time while the homeowner had to take two months off his job to sit in the county lock up!

I wonder if the homeowners sentence would have been lighter if he had used rock salt or a non-lethal shot load?

Probably worse because now he is useing a gun with less then lethal rounds signifying your lack of fear for your life....

You shoot to stop a threat. Not more not less. Killing the intruder does not protect you from a suit brought on by the family, so don't get the wrong idea here ...

Now no one take this the wrong way... I am not advocating anything just pointing it out as an observation... If your aim sucks then it's your word against his; if your aim is good then it's just your word against the evidence that will most likely exonerate you with reasonable doubt.

As we saw years ago with OJ Simpson, he was sued by the family and won I believe - I don't remember much more then there was a series of law suites that bankrupt him which caused him to write a book to try and help with legal fees.

That dude in Florida that shot that kid in the hoody ultimately got off because the kid wasn't around to testify as to what really happened.

 

[boogerhook]

the value of your testimony as evidence hinges largely on your credibility, which is the first goal to destroy during cross ... Hopefully the jury gives a little more credit to the home owner than the burglar ... other evidence is still crucial.

 

[Dave Workman]

In an emergency, is 'smart gun' better than reliable one?

Just hours after news reports surfaced yesterday that the Obama administration would have an announcement about "smart guns," an 80-year-old Sultan-area woman used a plain old firearm with the "smarts" behind the trigger to fatally shoot a home invader last night who stabbed her husband.


<broken link removed>

 

[The B]

Well they both became criminals that night..

Let a jury sort that one out. Again.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

The poor homeowner could have avoided this by using a flashlight and properly articulating the perceived threat to the police. "Well officer I shined my light down the alley and shouted 'Stop thief'. He turned toward me and pointed something metal that looked like a gun right at me. I was in fear for my life so I fired three quick shots and took cover behind my garage. Oh that was only a prybar in his hand? Would you be willing to bet your life that it wasn't a gun officer?"

Or by living in Texas where criminals are fair game after dark.

 

[mjbskwim]

Two things
If the person is running g away and you don't want to pick up and dispose of the body,let him run
Second
Dead men tell no tales
I'm outtahere

 

[David Bowman]

I have a hard time believing that this will get too far; but given the legal system today, common sense isn't so common.

Making sure that the only tale that gets told to the cops is yours (through your attorney) is of supreme importance. The bad guy's tale needs to be known only to him and the hereafter.

Otherwise, the story is going to be that you violently attacked a wayward bible study student on his way home from the seminary who happened to be wandering through your living room with your plasma TV in his hands at 2 am on his way to feed homeless children.