Shot an invader -- family comes over to harass you

[HoughMade]

If there's a lawsuit, I'd love to defend that case....it would be my honor.

 

[shortyforty]

ok here is what i believe most of us missed,in the story it says "Police said Jeffrey Carson, 29, of Elyria, broke into a house at 112 Water St. about 2:44 a.m. after getting a friend to boost him up to get in through an unlocked window" heres an idea you want answers to why this happened to your brother go ask the turd sandwich hold the bread that gave him a boost in the window.

 

[Hammerhead]

ok here is what i believe most of us missed,in the story it says "Police said Jeffrey Carson, 29, of Elyria, broke into a house at 112 Water St. about 2:44 a.m. after getting a friend to boost him up to get in through an unlocked window" heres an idea you want answers to why this happened to your brother go ask the turd sandwich hold the bread that gave him a boost in the window.

Actually, if that's the case and there was a second person, that accomplice can now be charged with murder. I'm certain I've seen that as being case law here in IN (and probably elsewhere, too).

This means that the victim(s) aren't on the hook civilly either, as the accomplice is a fault, so the "family" should be going after the accomplice.

But yes, let's go taunt the guy who just shot your brother whilst he was being a criminal. Just like going up to a lawfully carrying citizen and screaming obscenities and generally being nasty.

 

[KG1]

The homeowners should have just ran, far far away from their own house and as fast as they could have.

Otherwise known as the Bryan Ciyou method.

 

[daddymikey1975]

But yes, let's go taunt the guy who just shot your brother whilst he was being a criminal. Just like going up to a lawfully carrying citizen and screaming obscenities and generally being nasty.

That's akin to poking sticks at an angry alligator.. Not a smart idea.

 

[HoughMade]

...This means that the victim(s) aren't on the hook civilly either, as the accomplice is a fault, so the "family" should be going after the accomplice....

From a civil liability standpoint, that is not accurate, but it would still be a relatively simple case to defend, assuming the facts s reported in the original article are accurate.

 

[danimal]

That's akin to poking sticks at an angry alligator.. Not a smart idea.

Yes, or a crocodile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSTdtuyQgww

 

[Hammerhead]

That's akin to poking sticks at an angry alligator.. Not a smart idea.

That was my point.

 

[Hammerhead]

From a civil liability standpoint, that is not accurate, but it would still be a relatively simple case to defend, assuming the facts s reported in the original article are accurate.

Let us not forget the self defense law that states, "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

 

[HoughMade]

#1- Anyone can be sued by anyone at anytime for anything (thank God, my kids need to eat too)
#2- As soon as you use the words "reasonable" and "necessary", you've created enough ambiguity to get it before a judge, and possibly, a jury. Who determines what is "reasonable"? Who determines what is "necessary"?
#3- No matter how right you are, once you've been sued, you have to affirmatively demonstrate to a Court why the lawsuit has no merit. With extremely limited exceptions, "the judge will just throw it out" is a myth, a fairy tale.

Lawyer up, my friends.

 

[daddymikey1975]

With extremely limited exceptions, "the judge will just throw it out" is a myth, a fairy tale.

After a clean cut case of self defense (criminally), how often does the same case go to civil court and the person who acted in self defense loses ?

What are some of the possible reasons they lost in civil court but they were cleared of charges criminally?

The "no legal jeopardy whatsoever" seems pretty solid (although I agree with your statements of ambiguity earlier).

(not being snarky, seriously asking)

 

[jon5212]

I would say if I were a judge, and the facts show a self defense situation, and the criminal's family sued, I would not only toss the case out, I would then charge the criminal's family for all costs incurred for even hearing the case, and also for the criminal's family to reimburse the defendants legal costs for a lawyer.

 

[HoughMade]

After a clean cut case of self defense (criminally), how often does the same case go to civil court and the person who acted in self defense loses ?

What are some of the possible reasons they lost in civil court but they were cleared of charges criminally?

The "no legal jeopardy whatsoever" seems pretty solid (although I agree with your statements of ambiguity earlier).

(not being snarky, seriously asking)

Cases as clear cut as this seems seldom go to civil court in Indiana. I can't speak to other places.

The key is that if a person is sued, they have to (hopefully with a good lawyer doing the lifting) show the judge that the statute applies to them and the evidence that requires a dismissal. Judges don't read through the cases as they come in and rule on them. The defendant has to file a motion and pursue it to dismissal. It's up to the litigants to argue their side. Judges will never sift through cases on their own looking for merit or no merit (with the exception of pro se prisoners filing lawsuits in federal court).

 

[repeter1977]

After a clean cut case of self defense (criminally), how often does the same case go to civil court and the person who acted in self defense loses ?

What are some of the possible reasons they lost in civil court but they were cleared of charges criminally?

The "no legal jeopardy whatsoever" seems pretty solid (although I agree with your statements of ambiguity earlier).

(not being snarky, seriously asking)

It has happened before, and will happen again, because our legal system is set up to allow for this form of legal recourse. But, you can also counter sue for harassment, and all sorts of things your lawyer and you can dream up. If you were to be this victim family, best thing to do is to have a notebook of all this events that had occurred, make sure to call the police each time. All the police reports can be used in the civil trial when you sue or counter sue them. Granted, Im not a lawyer, but I happened to have read a bit of civil law, and watched a LOT of court shows while laid up in the hospital.

 

[thompal]

After a clean cut case of self defense (criminally), how often does the same case go to civil court and the person who acted in self defense loses ?

What are some of the possible reasons they lost in civil court but they were cleared of charges criminally?

"Preponderance of evidence" (civil) vs. "Reasonable doubt" (criminal).

 

[daddymikey1975]

After the last few replies (thanks to everyone that replied) I can say it's a sad state of affairs when this is the case.

(goes to check out some insurance policies on this type of stuff.. I know we've had discussions on it before)

 

[Ted]

After a clean cut case of self defense (criminally), how often does the same case go to civil court and the person who acted in self defense loses ?

What are some of the possible reasons they lost in civil court but they were cleared of charges criminally?

The "no legal jeopardy whatsoever" seems pretty solid (although I agree with your statements of ambiguity earlier).

(not being snarky, seriously asking)

"Preponderance of evidence" (civil) vs. "Reasonable doubt" (criminal).

Thompal is correct. A lower burden or proof, or standard of evidence occurs in civil actions, as opposed to criminal actions. OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal action regarding the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, but was instead, found liable by the preponderance of evidence in the wrongful death civil action.

Consider it like a football field.

In criminal matters in which Reasonable Doubt is the standard, a touchdown is scored after 100 yards.

In civil matters regarding the Preponderance of the Evidence, a touchdown occurs at 51 yards.

In some jurisdictions, Clear and Convincing Evidence is also utilized in civil matters, in which a touchdown is achieved at 75 yards.

 

[Ted]

After the last few replies (thanks to everyone that replied) I can say it's a sad state of affairs when this is the case.

(goes to check out some insurance policies on this type of stuff.. I know we've had discussions on it before)

Be sure that your homeowners insurance coverage includes both judgements and attorney costs.