"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Jim Doyle"


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Jim Doyle"


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
. ..
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


snip

In the United States laws suits are too common. The 9 iron
scenario
above
would
most likely result in the home owner being sued with the bad guy
winning.

I understand what you are explaining. I think it a little odd that,
it at least seems, people can be prepared to kill to avoid court
action.

OK, let's try this on for size. The badguy victimizes me by entering
my
house
and threatens me. I settle the problem by adjusting his kneecap with
a 9
iron.
The badguy will never walk normally nor will he be pain free again.
So he
sues
for violating his "civil rights," medical bills for care not received
in
prison
and "pain and suffering." Let's say he wins. In this country juries
love megamillion dollar awards. If it exceeds my insurance I may be
forced to
sell
my house and/or pay him from my earnings for many years, maybe life.

Why should I be victimized more than once? First he commits at least
one
felony
against me, second I have to defend myself against a second assault
in
court
and third he takes away my wealth, possessions and a portion of my
life.

Well, you shouldn't be victimised at all, clearly. Once that burglar
has entered your property he should forego any right to sue you for
injuries whether they be from tripping over your dog or directly
inflicted by you wielding a 9-iron. So long as you've used a
sufficient amount of force to repel him without exceeding a
justifiable limit, you should not be in fear of a long, expensive and
drawn-out lawsuit.

However, surely by shooting him you're overstepping the reasonable
force criteria in at least some instances - and are therefore making
yourself liable for further upset as he/his relatives squeeze every
last penny out of you.

I don't advocate lethal force as first resort, but to prevent being
judicially
and financially raped by the criminal again I would seriously keep
that in mind.

Keep in mind if the bad guy dies his next of kin can also sue me and
possibly
win even if the killing was morally and legally justifiable.

Were the law to change, restricting the rights of burglars to sue for
non-lethal methods you may use to repel them - would you still
consider a gun?

Yes,I'd use the best possible tool for dealing with intruders,a gun.
There might not be time for a second defense attempt after a non-lethal one
fails.
You seem to think you can count on an intruder to be civil and not do
something averse to you or other occupants of your home.And other non-
lethal methods do not always work,even the police recognize that.

I'm thinking, should this be the reason that a person
would resort to lethal force upon an intruder, then the courts are
severely in the wrong to force the public to this degree of
protection. That's surely the fundamental issue for all but the most
trigger-happy homeowners - and I can see the justification for it,
even if I'm not to happy with the possible consequences.

Well,it's not about you being happy with the way things work out in such
situations.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net