Lawmakers debate civil liabilities of home invasions (self-defense)

[Common Sense Party]

HB129 clarifies that an individual is justified in defending his or her home and family against criminal activity and may not be held civilly liable for damage or injury to perpetrators. The bill received preliminary approval in the Utah Senate...

While Utah's criminal code addresses the issue of self-defense and home invasions, Painter said he believes HB129 "absolutely forecloses the civil side of it."...

"If you're being victimized, you can defend yourself without being sued by the person trying to take advantage of you or your property," Bramble said...

People who are victims of home invasions, he said, should not be further penalized for attempting to protect themselves, their families and their property.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865551322/Lawmakers-debate-civil-liability-of-home-invasions-as-police-investigate-Springville-case.html


Some criminal breaks into your home and terrorizes you and your family. You defend yourself and in the process the criminal is injured. And then he turns around and SUES you for his boo-boo's?

For the homeowner, isn't that adding insult to injury?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. The bill does no go far enough... it should cover victims OUTSIDE the home, too.

But I agree. It's outrageous that someone can attack/assault another person and then cry foul when that person has the audacity to defend themselves. In states without Castle Doctrine protection, if you kill or maim a home intruder you're likely going to lose more in court than what was being stolen from you - assumng the bad guy was not there to rape or kill you instead.

[oneshooter]

2. Won't happen in Texas.

[Hoyt]

3. Like that happens often, if at all.

[Clames]

4. Oh ye of little knowledge...

...if you think criminals haven't sued property owners for injuries they inflicted upon themselves during a crime. Sued and won substantial amounts of money too.

[Hoyt]

5. Yeah, maybe some unarmed kid rummaging through a carport -- but not one breaking into a house with

evil intent. You folks believe too much stuff that appears on Fox News Network, Rush Limbaugh's hate radio program, or right wing gun web sites.

But then, as some in the gun culture have posted here -- a unarmed teenager in a carport is fair "game" for those who practice every chance they get to shoot people.

[gejohnston]

6. prove it

or are you talking about gun control advocates like Carl Rowen who shoot kids skinny dipping in his pool with his (illegal in DC) pistol?

[Hoyt]

7. Actually, I'm saying you guys don't need more laws that allow you to shoot anyone in your yard.

The gun culture will just take it to the limit.

Why don't you guys show us one case of someone breaking into a house with the intention of hurting the occupants who sued the owners for being shot?

Charges are seldom brought against a homeowner shooting someone in their house. When charges are filed, it's because the home owner shot someone fleeing -- and that happens very rarely. But, even then, those shot don't win big sums of money unless there are some very strange circumstances.

[gejohnston]

8. gee, that is true

in every civilized country including Canada. I suppose you agree with the DC politician that tells citizens "I have my six figure salary, and armed guards but you chumps who voted for me have to suck it up even if you are injured." Or in other words, give them what they want and if maim or kill you in the process, that is your tough shit.

[shadowrider]

11. Ask and ye shall receive

http://www.wisn.com/news/9950016/detail.html

[Hoyt]

12. Judge dismissed case, homeowner insurance paid any legal bills, and doc did shoot him in back.

Keep looking until you find one where home owner had to pay an award, criminal had a gun, and was not shot in the back or while obviously fleeing.

[shadowrider]

13. Move the goalposts?

You asked for an instance where the bad guy sued the good guy.

Now you want to know where the bad guy sued and won an award.

Nice.

Goalposts heavy?

[Hoyt]

14. Read my previous post including last paragraph -- it says it doesn't happen unless homeowner shot

unarmed man in back. You find one case that was immediately dismissed by judge and didn't even read the part about shooting him in the back. Of course that's what these castle laws are all about -- give the owner a free ride to shoot someone even if they are fleeing. There are many more cases of some fool shooting someone fleeing who is not a threat than someone filing a law suit (with or without the stipulations posted earliar -- that's just more right wing gun talking points supported by those who want to feel good about pulling the trigger).

My own opinion is that if someone enters your home, you pretty much have the right to shoot them. Although shooting in the back or while fleeing -- especially if the person is no longer a threat -- should be reviewed by law enforcement and perhaps courts. When you take a persons life, it has to be reviewed. Even someone subject to the death penalty imposed by a jury gets appeals.

[Callisto32]

16. Exactly.

Every single state that passes laws like this sees an immediate rise in the number of people who just LOVE killin', they love it so much, that they booby (he he, "booby&quot trap their homes with lots and lots of attractive nuisances, just so they have an excuse for killin' people in their yards, yup, the blood makes the grass in those spots grow so much greener the next year, don't you just love grass, I mean it's useful for fuck-all but it gives you something to fight with during the warmer months, you know, when there aren't any people in the yard to fight with and KILL, that's the bad (and good) thing about grass, you can beat the shit out of it and it just keeps coming back, that is, of course, unless some dog pisses on it, then it just ties and turns brown like dog-piss was some kind of defoliator, hmm, maybe we should call it "agent yellow!".....

[SecularMotion]

9. All gun owners should be required to carry insurance

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Illegal. See Minneapolis Star vs. MN Department of Revenue...

...which held that a tax on newsprint infringed the First Amendment. Same would go for insurance requirements to hold a protest.

[Callisto32]

17. "You should need to pass a literacy test to vote, also it costs money to take the test."

[BiggJawn]

10. We need this in more states.

I know Hoyt's going to call me a liar, but the possibility DOES exist for a homeowner to be sued for injuring or killing a home invader.
The homeowner may win the suit, but it ain't gonna be cheap, and you may as well go pound sand as expect the losing parties to pay your legal fees.

[oneshooter]

18. Won't happen in Texas and several other states.

In Texas if you are no billed, charges are dropped, or found innocent, or not guilty by a trial jury then you can not be sued for neglegence, loss of income, or many other reasons. The state raised the level of evidence to the same level as a criminal trial, if it can't be tried in criminal court, or you are found innocent, or not guilty in a criminal trial, you can not be tried in civil court.
For this reason most lawyers will not touch this type of suit without a heafty fee up front.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas