Follow-up on earlier posts

[aquinasprime]

Last year I wrote two posts about a local homeowner who shot and killed an intruder in his house. I'll briefly recap:

A man and his wife were sleeping in their bed. A stranger (who later was eventually discovered to be a very drunk elementary school teacher from Albany attending a party at a neighbor's house) entered their house via a door that the homeowner's thought was locked. The man called 911 and while waiting for the police to arrive, warned the intruder repeatedly that he was armed and to not move, but the intruder continued to move about the house and approached the staircase. At this point the homeowner fired his weapon and killed the intruder.
After a review of the details a grand jury decided not to file charges against the homeowner. Not many details of the incident are available - it is known that the intruder had a BAC of 0.18. Why the intruder entered the home is unknown or not released to the public.

Today there was an article in the Buffalo News about this case. The wife of the intruder has filed a wrongful death suit against the homeowner. The lawsuit accuses the homeowner of "willful, intentional, malicious" slaying of Park, and acting "without just cause [or] provocation." It was unclear how much in damages she is seeking. The lawsuit also claims that the death resulted from negligence on the part of the homeowner, "without any negligence on the part of Park contributing thereto".

I have some serious issues with this. The lawsuit is claiming that the intruder bears absolutely no responsibility for his death. Apparently, the fact that he was drunk enough to enter a strange house and ignore cautions to stop or be shot are entirely the homeowner's fault. I'm interested to see how this turned out. The entire situation is tragic, but that doesn't mean it anyone's fault.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[pauamma]

Hmm. Those claims sound preposterous, given the grand jury decision, but with no further information, I'm reluctant to call it frivolous (yet).

[zorkian]

It's fairly well expected, at least among the gun owners that I am acquainted with here in California, that if you end up shooting someone -- no matter how 'good' the circumstances and how 'right' you are -- you will face (and probably lose) a civil suit. You can expect bankruptcy and financial troubles to 'reward' you.

[aquinasprime]

There is something inherently wrong with that. And then people wonder why conservatives are so hung up on preserving the second amendment.

[cheyinka]

I've heard people suggesting that if you have to shoot an intruder, it's better to kill him than wound him, because otherwise he'll sue you! When the laws are screwed up enough that not killing someone is worse than killing them, there's something wrong at a very deep level.

[ex_peasant441]

I think it's right that when someone has actually been killed the pros and cons of the case are examined in a court. So I'm glad that was done by the grand jury. It seems perverse that the widow should think she have any chance in an additional suit - are the standards of proof so different? Because that strikes me as wrong in itself. There is also the issue of double jeopardy, which is a very important principle that this comes close to breaking.

[zorkian]

The standards of proof are very different, actually.

In criminal court, where you can go to jail, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil court, where the only penalty is financial, it's either "clear and convincing evidence" (intermediate level of proof required) or the "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not, the lowest level required).

Double jeopardy doesn't come in to play because that is only for criminal trials, IIRC. You can be sued for something in civil courts by many people and have to respond to all of them, even if you're guilty every time.

IANAL, though...

[ex_peasant441]

I was thinking more of the underlying ethics of the issue than what the actual legal situation is.

Civil cases only have a different set of standards because at the times the standards for criminal law were being set the stakes were so much higher. It could be argued that now that civil cases can actually impose the harsher penalty (complete ruin both financially and reputationally as opposed to just a judicial slap on the wrist) the standards should be reversed.