You're on the jury...

[RoeBear]

...for a self defense shooting. No criminal charges have been filed against the homeowner, this is a civil trial. The bad guy claims excessive force was used because the homeowner used hand loads. What info do you want to know about the case and which way are you leaning right now.

[demsrule4life]

1. As long as it is a clear cut self defense shooting

the weapon or bullets used doe's not matter.

[RoeBear]

2. But as the plaintiffs attorney...

...I'm going to tell you that the bullets were the most lethal hollow points available, the powder charge was above normal, and the gun was left lying around the house loaded. The defendant in effect was hoping for someone to enter his house just so he could play 'Dirty Harry'.

[demsrule4life]

5. If the hollow points are so lethal why is he still alive?

if the powder charge was above normal why did'nt the gun blow up? Ladies and gentleman of the jury these claims are the fabrication of a dirtbag that tried to rob the defendent and lost, now he is trying to use this court to try to rob him again.

[RoeBear]

7. Only through a miracle of modern medicine...

...and not the homeowners intention is my client still alive, but unable to work today.

[kalian]

14. And only through the miracle of freedom to own guns...

did the homeowner have a choice to defend himself.
Some would argue that the homeowner could have used a baseball bat
or some other ridiculous item. So, people expect the homeowner
to confront the intruder in hand-to-hand combat?
What if the intruder had a gun himself? What if the intruder was
extremely adept at using a combat knife?

:shrug:

[alwynsw]

42. BRAVO! BRAVO!

'nuff said

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

27. If the gun was left "lying around"

then it would seem that the plaintiff would have had a chance to get it and use it against the homeowner. The homeowner was definately stupid in leaving a loaded gun around in his house.

[slackmaster]

3. My inclination is to say it doesn't matter as long as the ammo was legal

If the ammunition was of a type not allowed in the state the plaintiff might have an issue. For example, if the defendant had used an explosive or pyrotechnic round, or one tipped with a toxic substance, the claim might have merit.

But just for being a handload? No way. For just about any caliber the maximum possible handload will always be less powerful than factory ammunition for another caliber, which the defendant could just as easily have used.

The plaintiff should be glad he or she is alive and shut the fuck up.

[RoeBear]

4. But my client...

...has injuries that were sustained because of the homeowners actions. And the homeowner has deep pockets. I'm not done yet.

[slackmaster]

32. You are an ambulance-chasing shyster and deserve to die horribly

Hypothetically speaking.

:evilgrin:

...has injuries that were sustained because of the homeowners actions.....

No, his injuries were the result of his poor career choice and even worse selection of a victim.

[Jane Roe]

6. Not leaning either way

Questions:

1. Who shot who -- did the guy with the handloads get a gun and shoot or did the bad guy shoot? This is not clear from your description?

2. It seems like the person who got shot is the plaintiff now suing, but not totally clear. Is the injury plead in the suit the injury caused by the handloads, the injury from the shooting or both?

3. For what purpose was the bad guy on the owner's property? Disd the homeowner invite him there? On the occassion in question? On any previous occassions?

4. What transpired between the handloads guy and the bad guy from the time the bad guy entered the property until the handloads were used? What transpired between the handload use and the shooting?

5. Where was the shot guy when he got shot? In the yard? Halfway over a fence on the boundary of the property? On the porch? In the house? In the infant daughter's bedroom?

6. What kind of gun? Pellet gun? Howitzer?


I don't see how you can expect people to form any sort of intelligent guesses about guilt here without a lot more information?

[RoeBear]

9. And that's why asking questions is allowed

1) Homeowner shot criminal. Criminal is my (pretend) client.

2) My client was injuried by the homeowner's handloaded ammo with the homeowners model 1911 45acp.

3) Client was there without permission and charged with home invasion.
Homeowner thought his life was in danger, police agreed and no charges were filed against the homwowner. Client is using my services while seating in jail.

4)Only seconds transpired from the point of invasion to my client being shot. Client claims it was a prank, but a prank to the wrong house.

5) In the homeowners living room.

6) see #2

[-..__...]

13. That being the case...

3) Client was there without permission and charged with home invasion.
Homeowner thought his life was in danger, police agreed and no charges were filed against the homwowner.

I'd find in favor of the defendent; I don't care if he used a 50BMG.

Should probably charge the plaintiff for the cost of the bullet; like they do in China. :D

[Jane Roe]

19. Leaning toward defendant

some other relevant factors could be the words exchanged between defendant and plaintiff prior to the shooting, was the door locked, position of defendant when shot (eg, prostrate, hands behind head, begging for mercy?).

Unless there are some facts favorable to plaintiff that haven't yet been disclosed, then this one sounds a lot easier to decide than the Bernie Goetz case.

[alwynsw]

62. Was the door locked?

That question is irrelevant. It was the homeowner's door, not the intruder's door. The lock is a convenience/inconvenience depending upon whether you're the homewoner or the intruder. One does not enter homes without an invitation and expect to be treated like dear, sweet Aunt Mabel.

Words exchanged? Irrelevant. In a situation such as this, body language is everything.

Position of the dewfendant: possibly relevant. If he were face down, etc. the shooting would likely be wrong. If not, it could go either way.

[-..__...]

8. Was the intruder...

armed or unarmed? If armed, with what?

How many times did the home owner fire?

What type of hand loads?

Caliber? Type of bullet? Powder charge?

Target or defensive load? (target loads tend to be more under powered than defensive loads).

[RoeBear]

15. My client...

...was armed with a baseball bat.

Homeowner shot and hit my client once.

I and the defendant's attorney aren't gun afficionados, I just know that I've been told that the handloaded bullet was considered more lethal than most and driven by a powder charge higher than recommemded in hand loading charts. Also the HO had the gun at his side, loaded ,obviously sitting in anticipation of something like this happening.

My client stands by his story that it was a prank to the wrong house.
And if the HO hadn't been laying in wait with a loaded gun my client would have realized his mistake and left without harming the HO.

More questions?

[-..__...]

22. If I were you...

I'd choose my clients more wisely. :D

[RoeBear]

23. All people deserve to be...

...represented.

[-..__...]

41. Sorry...

Next time I'll include the <sarcasm> tags </sarcasm>. O8)

[bleedingheart]

33. Darn that 6th Amendment

"Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of
Counsel for his defence.
"

although this is a civil trial...people do have a right to an attorney...unless we just limit the rights of people to have an attorney...

[RoeBear]

57. On the other hand...

...I guess attorneys do have the right to turn down cases and there are civil cases that no one would touch.

"Why do you want to sue him for one million dollars?"

"Because he called me ugly"

"Sorry can't help you"

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. Your client was armed

with a baseball bat. Did he use it in a threatening manner? Did the homeowner give warning, either verbally or by showing the gun, before he shot? Frankly, unless the loads used were considered illegal in your state, I don't think they are a factor in the case.

[RoeBear]

58. See message #36

nt

[bleedingheart]

10. Did the homeowner attempt to call the authorities?

because that would be of importance to me... if he/she had called the authorities and the person who was attempting to break in or do harm to the homeowner persisted and the police response was not fast enough...then I would lean more heavily in favor of the homeowner's actions.

I would also take into consideration whether the assailant was armed...

[kalian]

12. Sorry to say....but that makes NO DIFFERENCE...

the FIRST thing on ANY home owner's mind should be: Is my family
safe?
What if the home owner has no phone...? :shrug:

[bleedingheart]

16. For you maybe...for me it does...this is a free country right?

A homeowner who has no phone today but can afford ammo and weaponary??? hmmm....

If the criminal is outside banging on the door and has no way in unless you let them in...??? Hell the kids and everyone else could be hiding somewhere calling the police...or the homeowner can call while holding his shotgun....but vigilante behavior can't be condoned in a "civilized" society.

[-..__...]

18. Civilized society?.

vigilante behavior can't be condoned in a "civilized" society.

Neither can breaking and entering... in the night time... with a baseball bat... while the person is home.

[bleedingheart]

25. Now you are assuming that I wouldn't rule in the homeowners favor

aren't ya?

I would take all evidence into consideration.

For example I want to know where the paramedics found the assailant when they came...if he was lying in the house then that would lead me to believe that the homeowner was in imminent danger.

However if the assailant was lying in the sidewalk outside the house then I would have to ask...what the hell happened here???

Also...was the door broken down..etc

[-..__...]

40. Ok, fair enough.

Define "vigilante behavior"? (as you described the situation).

There's a difference between vigilantism and self-defense.

The defendant wasn't acting out Charles Bronsons role in "Death Wish".

[bleedingheart]

47. As a juror I would be looking

for evidence that indicated that the homeowner wasn't "itching" for a fight.

For example if the assailant beat down the door and moving quickly towards the homeowner then I would call that self-defense. Which is why the location of the assailants body is important to me.

However if the assailant did not enter the house but was perhaps banging on the door acting like an idiot and the Homeowner opened the door to shot the guy...well then I would have to ask why...why would you open the door for someone you thought would harm you.

For example...what if this was some sort of prank gone wrong...what if the assailant was on the softball team of Mr. Homeowner's neighbor... what if he was supposed to pick up his buddy.. but picked Mr. H's house... and perhaps he is an annoying jokester... then this might be a horrific tragedy...
(he would have to have evidence to back this up...like wearing a uniform and evidence that he was on the team.etc...)

[-..__...]

66. I see a lot of responses here...

that have nothing to do with the plaintiffs grievance.

Calling the police, not entering the house, warning shots, what was said, etc. All these things would have been addressed in any criminal investigation and/or charges by the DA. In the very first post we're told that no criminal charges were filed against the homeowner. So, I think we can safely assume that the shooting itself was justified by the law as defined in that jurisdiction. You and others may or may not agree with what a justifiable case of self defense is, but that's not what is being debated.

The complaint is not if there was negligence or an unwarranted shooting; it's if there was "excessive force". The plaintiff's esteemed attorney is not arguing that force... any force, was uncalled for given the situation (there is no contention that his client wasn't in the house armed with a baseball bat). The plaintiff isn't even disagreeing that he shouldn't have been shot to begin with. He's disagreeing with the type of ammunition that was used.


Ohhh, and you still haven't defined what you call "vigilante behavior". :)

[kalian]

20. No...its not a question of WHAT they can afford.

Maybe its a vacation home and they could care less for a phone
there.
Yeah, its a free country...and one such freedom is to OWN weapons.

[bleedingheart]

28. Well I am sure we would learn during the trial whether or not

it was a vacation home wouldn't we...

and you assume I don't agree with people's rights to own weapons...

[RoeBear]

21. As a juror...

...do you have a question in this imaginary case?

And BTW- I think I want you in my jury box

[bleedingheart]

30. Okay I want to know the following:

1. What if any relationship was there between the homeowner and assailant?
2. If there was a relationship, what caused the confrontation?
3. If there was no relationship, why was the assailant at the homeowners home? Can he/she give an explanation?
4. Was the homeowner's property damaged? Did the assailant actually break down the door or did the homeowner answer it?
5. As I stated before, where was the assailant found when the authorities did arrive?
6. I would also want to know whether the homeowner had called the police prior to the confrontation starting and if not why not? I would also take into consideration any issues like lack of phone, if the homeowner lived some distance from authorities...etc

those are to start...

[RoeBear]

17. Juror's, being made up of a broad spectrum of experiences...

...are allowed to have any thoughts they like... so this is a fine question to ask.


HO didn't call 911 prior to shooting my client. Claims that he was being rapidly approached by my client. As mentioned before my client had a base ball bat in his hands. HO says it was raised over his head my client says he was just carrying it in front of him and lowering it as he was realizing that he was 'pranking' the wrong house.

[kalian]

24. "Pranking" the "wrong house"....

tough friggin shit....
The home owner doesn't know what the intentions of the intruder
are. Sorry...if I were in the jury, I would be 100% behind the
home owner...

[-..__...]

37. Prank or not...

it's irrelevent to the case. The plaintiff admits that he broke into the house and that he approached the defendent with a baseball bat.

[kalian]

11. Here in Colorado....

We have the "make my day" law. You come into my house without being
invited and with the intent of causing harm to my loved ones or
myself and then deciding to steal my belongings...you're toast.

I have Hydrashok rounds loaded in my Steyr M40. 165gr rounds.
I will empty a clip...and then, I will call the cops and report a
home defense shooting. Then...quietly wait for the cops to arrive.

What is all this bs about criminals having rights? Where are MY
rights? :shrug:

[alwynsw]

63. Pretty much the same here in KY.

I use a .45 ACP with CorBons.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. I'd like to know the circumstances

What was the bad guy doing? What did the bad guy do or say when confronted with the homeowner with the gun? What did the homeowner say? Was there a warning shot fired?

These would all be important questions to ask. Right now, I am neutral in my assessment of liability, as there isn't enough information given to make a judgement.

[DavidMS]

31. The only question from me is

Did the defendant continue to attack the home invader after putting him hors de combat? Thats excesive force. Otherwise its a defensive shooting. The BG should be thankfull enough that he is still alive.

[alwynsw]

64. Excessive force applies to cops

We're talking about a homeowner here. Even if he were a cop, it would hardly be relevant although Mr. Roebear, Esq. would try to make it so.

[Paladin]

34. Slackmaster, Are You Reading All Of This?

I rest my case........

[slackmaster]

35. Yes, and it's all HYPOTHETICAL!

As someone who is not an attorney I advise you to turn off your computer and go outside for some fresh air.

[Paladin]

39. The Situation Is Hypothetical.......

....but the attitudes expressed on this thread are all too real. And all too typical.

[demsrule4life]

43. Some people choose to greet home invaders

with more than open arms.

[MrSandman]

45. Like, with arms in battery?

[demsrule4life]

48. Of course I could just let my boy Sako

(sholwoods Second Amendment)take care of them. He does more damage then guns.

[Tinfoil]

60. Dems, your weapon there

has a "trigger lock" on it. He wouldn't do much good tied to the stake, now would he? :)

[demsrule4life]

61. At home and in the back yard he

among a few others have no trigger guards in placed.

[-..__...]

46. And then there are some...

that would probably offer the intruder some milk and cookies.

[kalian]

50. And offer them their wives and daughters.....

Might as well, no?

[alwynsw]

49. I just greet them with arms

if the chamber is open, it's a club.

[kalian]

51. ROFL

:toast:

[MrSandman]

36. Lethal force was justified...

as evidenced by lack of police to even submit to the prosecuting attorney.

Is there evidence to the contrary?

Lethal force has no degrees. A .22 rimfire is lethal force. A 12 ga. is lethal force. Unless your homeowner loaded poison bullets, any .45 ACP is between the .22 and 12 bore.

I hold for the defendant.

ed for spelling...S

[alwynsw]

38. Tough titty (to use a trite, but appropriate phrase)

IMO one surrenders all rights to remain free of bodily harm when he embarks upon the commission of a crime. This is particularly true in the case of a home invasion of any sort. The homeowner is justified in using any means available to protect his home, his family, or himself.

In the instance that the intruder is not in possession of a weapon, the same holds true. Fear that one's life is in danger is reasonable grounds for physical defense whether it be a Louisville Slugger or a firearm. Any home intruder should cause that fear. It is impossible for the homeowner to know of the skills of the intruder. One skilled in hand-to-hand combat such as one of the several martial arts can be as deadly as a weapon.

The surest and best defense available to anyone in a truly free society is a firearm. An attacker can be immobilized before he comes within range to use a club, knife, or his hands to harm the intended victim. This is doubly so if the intruder is armed with a firearm. At bare minimum, firearms can somewhat even the contest.

[bleedingheart]

44. Were there any criminal charges filed and if so, what was the outcome?

[beevul]

52. Juror question

"I'm going to tell you that the bullets were the most lethal hollow points available, the powder charge was above normal, and the gun was left lying around the house loaded. The defendant in effect was hoping for someone to enter his house just so he could play 'Dirty Harry'."

Noted

"But my client... ...has injuries that were sustained because of the homeowners actions."

That is for the jurors to decide.:evilgrin:




"Client was there without permission and charged with home invasion.
Homeowner thought his life was in danger, police agreed and no charges were filed against the homwowner."

Noted.

"I and the defendant's attorney aren't gun afficionados, I just know that I've been told that the handloaded bullet was considered more lethal than most and driven by a powder charge higher than recommemded in hand loading charts. Also the HO had the gun at his side, loaded ,obviously sitting in anticipation of something like this happening."

Noted.


"My client stands by his story that it was a prank to the wrong house.
And if the HO hadn't been laying in wait with a loaded gun my client would have realized his mistake and left without harming the HO."


Noted.



I do have a question that I haven't seen asked.

What is the law in this fictional jurisdiction?

Is there a castle doctrine?

Any other pertinent information one way or the other before I give my verdict with an explanation?

[alwynsw]

53. None here

[RoeBear]

54. I'm back to play the game....

...I guess we have to go with 'castle doctrine' since law enforcement didn't pursue charges.

What other scenarios do you forsee? For example if this were Wilmette IL the pistol would have been illegal but it's still possible that law enforcement would not press charges. Does this change things in your mind?

[MrSandman]

55. Lethal force was justified...

evidenced by lack of charges.
Lethal is lethal.

[RoeBear]

56. A new variable added...

...this now happened in California and the HO shot my client with a tracer round (a round that is illegal in CA) will this make any difference to the outcome of the civil suit in your mind?

[MrSandman]

59. That's more complicated

Depends on whose expert is better at showing that the injuries were due to the tracer aspect(see earlier comment re: poisonous bullets)

[alwynsw]

65. That's a hypothetical bullet, RB

Tracers ain't hollowpoints.

on edit: But it IS your game. And it's fun!

[slackmaster]

69. In a California court that might make a difference

But regardless of the outcome of the civil case it's very likely the homeowner will be charged for possessing an illegal round.

[kalian]

70. Oh geez....now its a "highly lethal, hollow-tip tracer round".....

:eyes:

Ummm....that does not exist. ;)
Enjoy your rigging of the case in favor of a criminal.

[RoeBear]

71. I think you realize that I meant...

'substitute the hollow point for a tracer round', hell I don't even know if tracers are made for .45 acp.


Or substitute this; he took regualr FMJ (full metal jacket) rounds and cut a big 'X' into the nose to make them 'extra super duper daisy cutter' rounds.

[kalian]

73. Then...there's a "flip-flop" on plaintiff's position....

its no longer an "extremely lethal round" but an "illegal" round.
I don't know what the legality of tracer rounds are in various
states. I personally believe tracer rounds are NOT useful AT ALL
for home defense...since they can start fires....

This comes across as rigging the case and if I were sitting in
the juror's seat...any further comments from you would be complete
bs from there on...

[MrSandman]

67. Roe, I happened across this a few minutes ago.

"LoginLesson #22: Gun & Ammunition Choices and Legalities

It is time to put to rest the gun magazine nonsense about what guns or ammunition you use in self-defense. If you shoot someone the concern will be the legality of the shooting, not the weapons or ammunition used. In the past some lawyers have tried to go down that road and had their legal head handed to them on a platter. Nobody in the legal community would go down this road in the 1990s."

http://www.plusp.com/classroom/lesson22.php

[beevul]

68. Thus far...

I find 0 liability on the part of the defendant thus far. Only 1 shot was fired.

First. This event was completely enabled by the plaintiff.

Second. Whether the plaintiff was playing a prank or invading a home with nefarious intent, the defendant felt threatened, and used potentially lethal force. The issue of reloads hollowpoints and tracers is all academic, because potentially lethal force is just that, reguardless of what variety it is, so long as excessive use of it is not performed. If a person feels threatened to the point of using the potentially lethal force of a firearm, 1 shot is the least possible degree of application.




Without any other facts, I find 0 liability on the part of the defendant.

On edit:

The question of the legality of the weapon, for instance in the example Wilmette IL, would not make me question the use of potentially deadly force one iota. I would look on it no different if your client got cracked upside the head with a golf club rushing the defendant-cracked one time. The least possible quantity of of application, of a potentially lethal degree of force.

[RoeBear]

72. A question for all who have participated so far...

...Does the success of the civil suit hinge on the fact whether or not you believe my client's story about this being a prank gone wrong?

[kalian]

74. Nope....

and quite the contrary...
Initially, you stated that the plaintiff is accusing the defendant
with the use of an "extremely lethal variant of a hollow-tip"
round. Then, you come in an state that the plaintiff, when charging
the defendant with a baseball bat, realized that it was a
"prank" gone "wrong".
I think your plaintiff doesn't want to go to jail... I think he
"realized" that he made a wrong career decision when he saw that the
defendant COULD and DID defend himself.

Now...we see that the bullet used has been changed. What is the
evidence brought before the court in terms of what the police found
in the defendant's handgun? Where there more of these "tracer" rounds?
What is the legality of these tracer rounds in the state in which
this incident took place?
Throwing speculative scenarios and seeing how people react is not
correct.

You should have completely detailed the case in your initial post
and then worked from there...
This bouncing around like a ping pong ball makes it appear that
you're a classical criminal lawyer who cherishes the win of the
case instead of the outcome of the case...

[MrSandman]

75. Nope...

That would only concern criminal questions. If it was legal for him to be shot, he should thank the homeowner...that he did not use a shotgun. At that range, the shot would have left about a 1.5" hole. A slug would have left a .78" hole. No hand load would have approached that.

[slackmaster]

76. Nope...

Not in the slightest.

[beevul]

77. No...

"Does the success of the civil suit hinge on the fact whether or not you believe my client's story about this being a prank gone wrong?"


Not at all.

It hinges on whether or not excessive force was used, based on evidence presented.

Had the homeowner emptied a clip into the plaintiff, or shot the plaintiff while he was down, there might be a case.

No evidence of excessive use of potentially deadly force has been presented so far.

[alwynsw]

79. Nope

The intruder was where he shouldn't have been with a weapon in his hand. End of story.

[slackmaster]

78. OT - I know someone who is being sued for beating up a burglar

I just heard this morning - A mild-mannered orchid grower I've known for about 25 years caught a man breaking into one of his greenhouses that contain about a million dollars worth of plants. The guy knew what he wanted, and was busily grabbing up some of my friend's most valuable assets.

The story, which is third-hand at best, relates how my friend confronted the unarmed burglar who tried to throw a punch at him. My friend responded with some kind of garden implement and beat the burglar up pretty badly. "Beat the living crap out of him" according to another grower. No criminal charges have been filed against my friend because he acted in self-defense.

But now the burglar is suing my friend for damages. The fact that my friend hasn't been charged with a crime will help his defense.

It can be hard to know how to respond when someone is attacking you. Had my friend responded with a gun the outcome could have been much better OR much worse for any or all parties.