Legal aftermath of an NJ shooting...

This is a discussion on Legal aftermath of an NJ shooting... within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I was reading a discussion on "Castle Doctrines" in one forum and was suprised to read about a situation where a criminal broke his leg ...

Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Legal aftermath of an NJ shooting...

  1. #1
    Member Array Wheel-man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    63

    Legal aftermath of an NJ shooting...

    I was reading a discussion on "Castle Doctrines" in one forum and was suprised to read about a situation where a criminal broke his leg attempting to break into someone's house and sued the homeowner for over a million dollars. (presumably for unsafe conditions )

    I doubt that New Jersey has a castle doctrine, so what can be the expected legal aftermath of shooting/injuring a dangerous intruder if escape is not possible?
    If anti-gun legislators truly believed that guns kill people, the guns would be on the witness stand and the assailent would be holding the "Exhibit A" sign.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 15,670'
    Posts
    12,119
    No matter what state you're in, it's bound to be a snake orgy of attorneys and legal fees..........The Castle Doctrine just helps a little dependent upon the exact construction of the statute and the courts in the effective jurisdiction.

    BTW, Welcome!

  4. #3
    Member Array Doberguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    32
    Sorry I don't have details, but I can imagine it is going to complicated.
    NJ doesn't have a Castle Doctrine as far as I know.

    First I imagine they are going to check all the permits and registrations just to own the gun and go from there.
    Some boro's have "no discharging weapons within the boro" it could go on and on.

    I worked at place in NJ where someone went dumpster diving to "steal" items from a dumpster and hurt themselves.
    They were awarded a 6 figure settlement for their injuries.

  5. #4
    Member Array Wheel-man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    63
    Well as some say, "better to be tried by twelve than carried by six" I suppose...
    If anti-gun legislators truly believed that guns kill people, the guns would be on the witness stand and the assailent would be holding the "Exhibit A" sign.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    The homeowners home insurance policy coverage accounts for incidents such as this be they guests or Joe Dirt stopping by to ring & run your doorbell.
    The wannabe thief likely knows this and with that snagged a bottom feeding attorney and went in together for a bite of cheese, which is what rats do.
    The homeowner if found to liable in civil court will likely not have to pay a dime as his insurer would, assuming the insurer would allow this to get to court to start and not offer a 'go away' settlement.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  7. #6
    Member Array Kankujoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Out in the Woods, West Central Missouri
    Posts
    160
    I grew up in So. Jersey but left there 30+ years ago to serve in the USAF. Haven't been back except to visit relatives annually. Things have become increasingly worse each year. More & more socialist laws and policies, more & restrictions and big brotherism. Not at all like the small town I grew up in.

    The more liberal the State (NJ, NY, CA, DC, MA WI, IL) the more rights criminals have verses rights victims have. As things become more liberal the less common sense is expected of individuals (liberals tend to think that the individual is to dumb or to poor to have common sense and therefore must be protected by the elite lawmakers). Criminals are just poor neglected people that MUST turn to crime because society has given them a raw deal, therefore they should be protected from their own misguided decisions. Too bad for the victim but we must protect the poor misguided criminal.

    Besides, there are so many lawyers that we must allow all these rediculous (and morally bankrupt) lawsuits so that they can make a living or else they will turn to politics and my job will be in jeopardy.

    To answer your question: its a coin toss... I'd hate to have to defend myself in that State, it would be a legal and civil nightmare. The criminal or their family would have dozens of lawyers only to willing to further victimize the victim who had to defend himself or his family.
    KJ

    Member: NRA, GOA

    "The more you sweat in training, the less you will bleed in battle" - Navy Seals

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array NCHornet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mt Airy, NC
    Posts
    2,158
    That is why you better be able to prove that you were in imminent danger or in fear of loosing your life and or person close to you. It is a shame that society makes the good guy the bad guy in courts of law.
    When Seconds Count, The Cops Are Just Minutes Away!!
    Carry On!
    NCHornet

  9. #8
    Member Array Biloxi Bersa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Biloxi Mississippi
    Posts
    399
    Mississippi's castle doctrine relieves the the shooter of any civil liability in a justified shoot.

    Rest assured that a BG that does a slip and fall, cut his hand on your broken window, got food posioning from eating that left-over ham sandwich in the fridge, these guys will always find a lawyer willing to take the case and sue the homeowner for something.

    I'm still amazed at the family members of the BG that gets taken out in a justified shooting: "Oh Johnny was a good kid. Just because he was trying to carjack at gunpoint doesn't mean you had to shoot him."

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array Tom G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,375
    who regulates these bottom feeding lawyers. The Bar sure don't seem to be able to. Seems like the victim gets the short end of the stick. You would think the BG would not have a case sinse he was trespassing. There should be a revue of this type of law. it's time the victim came first.

  11. #10
    Member Array Wheel-man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    63
    ...
    ...
    ...
    ...Anyone here know how the same senerio would play out in Pennsylvania?
    If anti-gun legislators truly believed that guns kill people, the guns would be on the witness stand and the assailent would be holding the "Exhibit A" sign.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Biloxi Bersa View Post
    Rest assured that a BG that does a slip and fall, cut his hand on your broken window, got food posioning from eating that left-over ham sandwich in the fridge, these guys will always find a lawyer willing to take the case and sue the homeowner for something.
    This just doesn't make sense to me. I have not heard of any real, documented cases of this sort of thing happening, but for sure it is widespread in the urban legend department. I'm not asserting that it's 100% not true, but what I do know is that I can't begin to cite anything more that, "I think I heard once, in a state I can't remember, that some guy sued the homeowner he was trying to victimize..."

    The fact is, doesn't criminal action sever the chain of liability? As in, if I sold my gun to someone, and he later shot his neighbor over a fenceline dispute, I am not liable for what he did with the gun. Likewise, if a person enters my home illegally, with clear criminal intent (possession of burglary tools, possession of a weapon, etc.) and hurts himself in my home, my escape from liability is that he was committing a criminal act just to be there and I did not owe him a safe encounter.

    Can anyone explain why at law, if I were justified in shooting the home invaded and could not be sued, I could be sued if he tripped on a roller skate and fell down the stairs? Due to his criminal actions, he assumed the risk!

    I'm still amazed at the family members of the BG that gets taken out in a justified shooting: "Oh Johnny was a good kid. Just because he was trying to carjack at gunpoint doesn't mean you had to shoot him."
    That is one that I have witnessed in actual news reports. People talking about what a wonderful guy the violent criminal was -- so long as you look past the "violent" and "criminal" parts, he was a great guy! Forget about the fact that to a stranger he has chosen to rob, and threaten to kill, the V & C parts are all that are relevant.

  13. #12
    Member Array Biloxi Bersa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Biloxi Mississippi
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by peacefuljeffrey View Post
    This just doesn't make sense to me. I have not heard of any real, documented cases of this sort of thing happening, but for sure it is widespread in the urban legend department. I'm not asserting that it's 100% not true, but what I do know is that I can't begin to cite anything more that, "I think I heard once, in a state I can't remember, that some guy sued the homeowner he was trying to victimize..."
    The lawsuits are out there. Do some research. Why are many states that adopt the "Castle Doctrine" including regulations that protect the homeowner/shooter from civil liability?

    I don't think that legislators in all of these different states base their laws on urban legends.

    There are numerous lawsuits filed against law enforcement agencies by criminals that have been shot (justifiably) by LE.

    The point is, that in this litigious society in which we live, frivilous lawsuits are the norm.

  14. #13
    Member Array Wheel-man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    63
    I once saw an episode of "Married with Children" with a criminal breaking into the Bundy residence. He got hurt somehow and sued Al for everything he had. At the end of the case (which the criminal won) Al punched him in the face, and sued the criminal for damage to his knuckle... which won all of his property back.

    I saw this back when I was a kid.

    ************************************

    Last queston, I know that in a shooting your weapon is confiscated for evidence. After this has happened, how long does it take to get your weapon back?
    If anti-gun legislators truly believed that guns kill people, the guns would be on the witness stand and the assailent would be holding the "Exhibit A" sign.

  15. #14
    Member Array TechGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Post Falls Idaho
    Posts
    143
    I have always wondered why criminal trespass does not supercede any injury or liability to the victim the BG can claim. THAT should be a law; “Anyone dumba$$ in the commission of a crime can not benefit in any way from their actions from the victim or for injuries received during or caused by said criminal actions.” Seems like the "Castle Doctrine" does not protect law-abiding people enough. Or better yet, keep it simple,"Your a criminal, you got hurt, TOO BAD!!! Go to jail, directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect ANYTHING! Plus you get to pay the victim back for any damage you caused."

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Self defense shooting aftermath question
    By stevem174 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2010, 02:22 AM
  2. Legal age in FL for shooting at the range without legal guardian
    By cmdrdredd in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 10th, 2010, 03:51 PM
  3. The aftermath of a shooting.
    By havegunjoe in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 1st, 2007, 09:20 PM
  4. The aftermath of a shooting.
    By havegunjoe in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 1st, 2007, 09:20 PM
  5. Shooting Aftermath
    By Rugerman in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 10th, 2006, 07:59 AM

Search tags for this page

aftermath

,

nj castle doctrine

Click on a term to search for related topics.