FL man who shot teen prankster liable for damages in civil suit

FL man who shot teen prankster liable for damages in civil suit

This is a discussion on FL man who shot teen prankster liable for damages in civil suit within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; The Palm Beach Post reports here that Jay Levin was found liable for damages of $750,000. The jury of one man and five women had ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: FL man who shot teen prankster liable for damages in civil suit

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168

    FL man who shot teen prankster liable for damages in civil suit

    The Palm Beach Post reports here that Jay Levin was found liable for damages of $750,000.

    The jury of one man and five women had deliberated longer than it had seemed expected, asking questions of the judge about just when "self defense" kicks in (because the scumbag plaintiffs' lawyer Bob Montgomery had been second-guessing the defendant's actions leading up to the shooting).

    Well, this story says that Levin will no longer face the possibility of punitive damages (Montogomery had said he would seek $25,000,000!). So this is both a victory and a defeat for Mr. Levin, who was put into a difficult, precarious situation by the actions of the deceased midnight prankster Mark Drewes.

    I feel that the parents were wrong to seek damages when their kid created the scenario in which he was killed. I can just imagine what the jury room was like. It was probably the man holding out against awarding the parents any money, and the women "sympathizing" with the grieving mother (who was allowed all throughout the trial to sit 20 feet from the jury, crying!). I really suspect that some horse-trading went on, there.

    I'm glad that Levin plans to appeal. He should. He shouldn't owe any money in this case.

    Oh, I want to mention that Montgomery made statements prior to the trial that he wanted to "make him [Levin] bleed" He even was irritated that Levin's insurance company agreed to pay his legal fees, stating that he would sue the insurance company for "interfering" (even though it's completely their legal prerogative to pay on behalf of their insured)!


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array briansmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    688
    ouch

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array jdsumner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    riverview, fl
    Posts
    765
    How will/does the Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law come into play in this case?
    Any lawyer types care to venture a guess.

    Dan

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array Tom G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,375
    Hope he comes out better on his appeal. A shot in the dark sure can cost you a lot of money. I wouldn't shoot any body in the dark unless he was shooting at me or my family. I don't know all the details but sort of sounds like those hunters who take bush shots. The kid was playing a dangerous game and got caught up in it.The mother and father should have had their kid under control and maybe they wouldnt be crying now. Mr Levan should have identified his target before shooting. He is very lucky that his insurance company was willing to foot the cost of his trial.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array jdsumner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    riverview, fl
    Posts
    765
    good point, Tom G.
    I dont know enought about the circumstances to make any judgements. Yeah, the price of a Surefire is minimal compared to what he's facing now. Damn.

    Dan

  6. #6
    Member Array TwistedMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis, Mn
    Posts
    109
    The kid was playing ding dong ditch....NOT a dangerous game. He was outside the residence, he was running away and was shot in the back.
    From reading, there was no threat of life, no one was in immediate danger. I'd say the accountant is in a world of a **** storm.
    "If all you carry around is a hammer....everything in the world looks like a nail to you!"

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,392
    Quote Originally Posted by TwistedMonkey View Post
    The kid was playing ding dong ditch....NOT a dangerous game.
    "It is likely the strange noises that he said aroused him from his bed shortly after midnight on Oct. 25, 2003 were sounds Drewes made as he attempted to attach fishing line to Levin's door-knocker as part of a game of ding-dong-ditch."
    Not enough details to make heads or tails of this case, at this point in the game.

    Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy. That the innocent be in immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm.

    Surreptitious or furtive noises don't equate to life-threatening danger. Unknown if the actual reality of what the defendant was hearing/seeing went beyond this. Unknown if the deceased was attempting to enter the home. If simply making noise and rooting around the outside, it doesn't seem like a threat to family members could be taking place.

    An example of a stellar reason to remain indoors, to not shoot through doors, to not exit the home when "furtive" noises are heard, to call the cavalry and stay put ... not only to remain safer, but to avoid situations of mistaken-identity shootings under the auspices of "self defense" that may well end up destroying a family in addition to the deceased.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #8
    Member Array TwistedMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis, Mn
    Posts
    109
    I do feel sorry for the accountant, though his actions along with all of our actions are viewed under a microscope by the media and the public.

  9. #9
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,629
    Quote Originally Posted by jdsumner View Post
    How will/does the Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law come into play in this case?
    Any lawyer types care to venture a guess.

    Dan
    Dan, my understanding is that he plead guilty to a manslaughter charge in the criminal aspect of the case, so that the Castle Doctrine was not applicable to bar the civil suit for damages.

    Ron

  10. #10
    Member Array rcsnpr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NPR Florida
    Posts
    259
    I wasn't there and I don't know nothin'! But...Shot in the back...Outside his home? If you just woke up and your mind wasn't alert yet...Still...shot in the back..Outside the home? It sucks for all involved.
    As a kid I used to do that to folks doors but we called them "Knock knocks".

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array sass20485's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central FL
    Posts
    2,093
    Dumb prank by the kid and a not too smart gun owner.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    An example of a stellar reason to remain indoors, to not shoot through doors, to not exit the home when "furtive" noises are heard, to call the cavalry and stay put ... not only to remain safer, but to avoid situations of mistaken-identity shootings under the auspices of "self defense" that may well end up destroying a family in addition to the deceased.

    I fully agree. I can second-guess the man and arrive at the same sort of conclusion. If he really feared that there was someone about to break in, he was right to get his gun; he should have then gotten on the phone to the police, shouted that the police were on their way, and waited in case the door was penetrated. He could have positioned himself to have a clear shot from cover or concealment, should anyone have breached.

    But I can't root for the parents even if I think Levin could have done more sensible things; and I sure as hell despise their lawyer, Montgomery, an ambulance-chasing money-grubbing gun-owner-hater.

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by rcsnpr View Post
    I wasn't there and I don't know nothin'! But...Shot in the back...Outside his home? If you just woke up and your mind wasn't alert yet...Still...shot in the back..Outside the home? It sucks for all involved.
    As a kid I used to do that to folks doors but we called them "Knock knocks".

    One thing that was made clear even in the reports in the far-left Palm Beach Post was that experts (several of them) testified about how easily the kid could have been facing Levin and turned away just as the decision to fire went from brain to index finger. Ayoob Files have discussed this, too. Just because the hit was in the back does not mean that the decision was made to shoot in the back, that's for sure. The fact is, the jury didn't find that he had done intentional harm, and that is part of why they are not awarding punitive damages, as I understand it.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array Tom G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,375
    You never know who it might have been in the yard. It could have been a cop chaseing the kid. This is what causes tradgeys like this . If you don't know what your shooting at don't shoot. It sounds like Jay Levin was a little too fast on the trigger.

  15. #15
    Member Array Woody357's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom G View Post
    You never know who it might have been in the yard. It could have been a cop chaseing the kid. This is what causes tradgeys like this . If you don't know what your shooting at don't shoot. It sounds like Jay Levin was a little too fast on the trigger.
    I agree 100%...
    Woody!
    Go prepared or dont go.

    Bless & support our troops.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored 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. civil suit in Arizona?
    By jzattack in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: February 19th, 2010, 02:20 PM
  2. Civil suit?
    By kspilot536 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: November 13th, 2009, 04:23 PM
  3. Insurance for CIVIL liability suit in Self Defense Injury or Death
    By Bag Man in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2009, 10:42 PM
  4. Teen Prankster Shocks Homeowner With Fake Gun
    By miklcolt45 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: February 20th, 2008, 01:19 PM
  5. No civilian protection against civil suit for reporting terrorist activity
    By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 26th, 2007, 10:49 AM

Search tags for this page

fk man shoots teen

,

fl man shoots prankster

,

florida prankster shot stand your ground

,

florida teen shot ding dong ditch

,

florida teen shot jay levin

,

jay levin florida murder

,

jay levin florida shots

,

jay levin shooti

,

jay levin teen murdered

,

shot playing ding dong ditch florida

,

suit where florida man

Click on a term to search for related topics.