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

[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.