Dead burglar's family awarded $300k in damages

[villanelle]

I saw this and thought of all of you. I feel pretty confident I can guess where the majority will fall on this issue, but I'm curious to see the comments.

This guy was shot and killed while burgling a car dealership. Because the dealership had experienced earlier burglaries, they'd set up a watch and 3 men were keeping an armed vigil. When they saw 2 guys (who were high on meth at the time), scale the fence, they fired. The burglars ran, but one was killed. It was later discovered he had several knives on him.

The jury awarded the dead man's daughter just shy of $300k, a decision that seemed ot be motivated by the fact that he was not threatening anyone at the time and thus posed no threat, so shooting him was not "reasonable force", which is what CO's self-defense statute states is acceptable when defending one's self.

The criminal case against the shooters was sent to the gran jury, which failed to indict to no criminal charges were filed.

Article here.

Fox, 20, was shot after he and a friend scaled a fence to get inside Southwest Auto Sales at 2444 Platte Place in the city’s Knob Hill neighborhood. According to the accomplice, Brian Corbin, they had smoked methamphetamine and were looking to steal anything to buy more drugs.
Corbin testified he saw two armed men charge out of a building and run in their direction, one of them shouting “we’re gonna get you” in an obscenity-laced threat. Corbin, who escaped by climbing over a car and jumping a fence, said he felt a bullet pass by him as someone fired four gunshots.
Fox was standing inside a small shed when a .45-caliber rifle bullet passed through the shed’s door and pierced his heart.

 

[MasterBates]

More extreme version of when some assholes stole my dirtbike, crashed it then sued me.

Kill all lawyers who take cases like this. Problem solved.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

[millsra13]

You're right about all those other cases where: someone breaks into a house, slips and falls, and sue the homeowners for freshly waxing the floors...those are ridiculous. This one is different because the guy is dead. I'm sure anyone who has taken a concealed carry course will remember that property is NEVER worth someone's life (well, except for maybe in Texas). Whether the guy was a scumbag or not, some piece of shit used car is not worth anyone's life. I'm surprised they aren't charging the guards with anything, I know in TN if you catch someone breaking into your car, even in your driveway, you are not allowed to shoot them unless they threaten you and you feel that you're life is in danger.The guards should have threatened, given the burglars a chance to leave, and then fired a warning shot if they refused. If the burglars made a charge at the guards with the knife (while not climbing a fence) then this would be a whole different beast.

 

[Rocketman]

I'm sure anyone who has taken a concealed carry course will remember that property is NEVER worth someone's life (well, except for maybe in Texas). Whether the guy was a scumbag or not, some piece of shit used car is not worth anyone's life. I'm surprised they aren't charging the guards with anything, I know in TN if you catch someone breaking into your car, even in your driveway, you are not allowed to shoot them unless they threaten you and you feel that you're life is in danger.The guards should have threatened, given the burglars a chance to leave, and then fired a warning shot if they refused. If the burglars made a charge at the guards with the knife (while not climbing a fence) then this would be a whole different beast.

Bad gouge here. You are never authorized to fire a warning or even a "wounding" shot. You are either authorized the use of deadly force or you are not. Period.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions of course but whether or not your are authorized to use deadly force to defend your property is a matter of law, not personal opinion. As you alluded to the law can vary widely by state. You are correct in that taking a CCW course may be the very best way to learn the local laws.

 

[Brunes]

The shooters made a bad choice-Like Rocket said- Deadly force in the protection of property is pretty clearly laid out most everywhere. They had ample opportunity to shout warnings, rack slides, and generally let it be known that no cars were going to be stolen without a fight that night- but shooting was a bad choice and they are lucky they are not being charged.

 

[millsra13]

Bad gouge here. You are never authorized to fire a warning or even a "wounding" shot. You are either authorized the use of deadly force or you are not. Period.

You aren't authorized to shoot someone over property in CO either, but that didn't seem to stop them. I never said they were allowed to fire a warning shot, I just alluded to the fact that if they would have fired a warning shot, a 3 year old would still have her dad and the dealership wouldn't be out 300K. Don't confuse gouge with opinion.

 

[porw0004]

.. will remember that property is NEVER worth someone's life (well, except for maybe in Texas).

In Texas, like you suggested, you are authorized to use deadly force to prevent a burgler/robber from fleeing with your property, at night.

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

[Rocketman]

You aren't authorized to shoot someone over property in CO either, but that didn't seem to stop them. I never said they were allowed to fire a warning shot, I just alluded to the fact that if they would have fired a warning shot, a 3 year old would still have her dad and the dealership wouldn't be out 300K. Don't confuse gouge with opinion.

Fair enough. I'm not confused but someone else reading the thread might be. To be clear they were not authorized by law to fire a warning shot. That's not opinion that's law. It was a bad shoot we can agree on that for sure.

 

[gotta_fly]

You aren't authorized to shoot someone over property in CO either, but that didn't seem to stop them. I never said they were allowed to fire a warning shot, I just alluded to the fact that if they would have fired a warning shot, a 3 year old would still have her dad and the dealership wouldn't be out 300K. Don't confuse gouge with opinion.

Just throwing this out there, but the three year old would also still have a dad if he hadn't been out stealing other people's property to pay for meth.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

 

[scoolbubba]

One less meth head. It's a pity the law in CO doesn't stand behind the people being victimized.

 

[millsra13]

True enough! The guy is definitely not an "innocent bystander", but the dealership had an ambush set and even told the police that they were going to kill the guys if they caught them. That is bordering on pre-meditated murder. Was the guy a saint..absolutely not, but is a used car (that probably had insurance on it) worth anyones life?

 

[villanelle]

I wasn't there so I don't know what it was like, but I am pretty uncomfortable with the idea of them firing into a shed to hit the guy. Even if the guy were running, I could see some scenario where his hand might move in a way that makes you think he's reaching for a weapon, but when he's cowering in a shed, it seems from where I'm sitting that that's more anger about being robbed than it is protection of either life or property.

I suppose I'm glad in a way that the spirit of the law was upheld (though this was a civil case). I think dismissing the case would have said all this was okay, and it wasn't. Burglary isn't a death penalty crime, and 3 guys hiding in a car dealership aren't a jury. But at the same time, I'm not so sure $300k is justified.

 

[GroundPounder]

Tennessee v. Garner

Prior to this case, peace officers could legally use dead force to stop fleeing felons. Now we can only use deadly force to stop any fleeing felon when they pose such a significant risk to the community that deadly force would be reasonable.

For example, if I were to see a person break into a car and take a item from the car I would have witnessed a felony, but I could not shoot them as they ran away. If I were to see a person jumping out of a window of a house covered in blood and holding a severed human head in one hand and knife in the other hand I would probably be ok in using deadly force to keep them from getting away.

An interesting thing to note is that the incident which changed how we could apply deadly force occurred on the night of 3 October 1974, and was not case law at the Federal level until 1985 when the USSC made their ruling. You can bet that if you ever have to use deadly force that third parties will be devoting months, if not years of time in a safe office deciding if your split second decision was justified. And that is the crux of the matter, it is very hard to make a definitive statement about when the use of deadly force by a person ( police or civilian ) because it comes down to what a District Attorney, Judge , or jury think is reasonable. What would be reasonable in one state would be a hell-storm in another state. The race and age of all of the participants is a huge factor as well.

I can never prove this, but it is my opinion that there are more cases where deadly force is justified and not used, than cases where deadly force was applied unjustly.

 

[bunk22]

Do I feel sorry for the dead guy? Nope, you reap what you sew. Would I do the same if I caught someone leaving my property with my stuff? I don't think I would shoot unless I was being threatened....but I'm Monday morning QB'ing here. I live in Texas, my home is protected by firearms, I conceal carry, etc. This was a business with hired security types so maybe they had different orders, don't know.

 

[MasterBates]

Was the guy a saint..absolutely not, but is a used car (that probably had insurance on it) worth anyones life?

I take it you have not met enough degenerate scumbags in your life. Some folks just need killin'.