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.

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.

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