Legal aftermath of an NJ shooting...

[Wheel-man]

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?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Rock and Glock]

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!

[Doberguy]

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.

[Wheel-man]

Well as some say, "better to be tried by twelve than carried by six" I suppose...

[Janq]

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

[Kankujoe]

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.

[NCHornet]

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.

[Biloxi Bersa]

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."

[Tom G]

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.

[Wheel-man]

...
...
...
...Anyone here know how the same senerio would play out in Pennsylvania?

[peacefuljeffrey]

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.

[Biloxi Bersa]

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.

[Wheel-man]

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?

[TechGuy]

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."