(B2431) wrote in
:

From: "Jim Doyle"


"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.

That's a nice theory, but in this country it's not a fact.

Strange how some folks think that one must only respond to a criminal with
force no greater than what the criminal displays("reasonable force").
Hobbling the ODC while the criminal is under no such restraint.
Or that they can discern the INTENT of a criminal,and that it will not
change for the worse in the course of a confrontation.
As if an elderly,weak,or handicapped person could fight off a
healthy,young,strong man without great risk to themselves.Some burglars
might (and have)decide the victim is weak enough to ignore or even
assault.A BAD time to have to go find a better weapon.

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, if required. Many years ago a 10 year old boy broke into my house
and stole some of my edged weapons. Had I been home at the time I
would NOT have drawn a weapon on him. I would have had one handy in
case he had an older accomplice. I used to have a neighbour with
alzheimers. He sometimes would enter my house in the afternoon. I
never reached for a weapon.

Well,one should always identify their target before shooting.

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.

Jim Doyle

Having said all this all citizens have to use common sense all the
time. If you leave money in plain sight in an unlocked car the bad
guys have no right to take it, but you did a stupid thing. Same thing
with your home. You shouldn't HAVE to lock your house, but you are a
fool if you don't.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net