What do you think?
Client breaks out the window of a pawn shop. Its early in the morning
and still dark. He is looking through the window, but before he tries to
go in he is shot by the owner who is inside the shop. He was initially
charged with comercial burlary, but those charges were reduced to
criminal mischief since he never got in side the building. He wants to
sue the shop owner for shooting him. He is disabled because of the
gunshot wound. Client did not have a gun and the shop owner gave no
warning before shooting. Does he have a case?
2006-09-12 13:47:01 · 20 answers · asked by goldy 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Unfortunetly, he does. You are not allowed to use a firearm on someone if they are not an immediate threat. However, it might not be a cut and dry win. The owner can say he felt his life was in danger when the window broke. He had no way of knowing if the perpetrator has a weapon or not.
2006-09-12 14:03:55 · answer #1 · answered by Chris J 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What jurisdiction? In Florida, we can shoot you if you look threatening. He was shot legally, because he was doing illegal acts.
I don't care if the thief did not have a gun, he has the 'weapon' that he used to break out the glass, and so, he brought a 'stick' to a gunfight! I sure hope he paid in full for the window, and the bullet that he used!
My only problem is that he was permitted to live. I would have shot him until the gun was empty, and dragged his body into the shop through the window!
I hope he got serious jail time, but, he will probably be back for another gunshot first chance he is out on probation!
Some people are just born into stupidity, and never work their way out!
2006-09-12 20:56:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
client might really be perfectly innocent but realistically speaking I'd be the shop owner, I'm with Willow on this one. I mean don't we have the legal right to protect ourselves and our property. Do we have to wait till you actually gain entrance while trying to break in? How would we interpret the window being broke? "Gee, I think I better wait and see if they are really trying to break in or if it was just an accident." What if client had been violent and armed and owner waited to determine? I'm more of a shoot first ask questions later kinda person. I know that's not what you want to hear but. . .
2006-09-12 22:36:22 · answer #3 · answered by cptv8ing 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a bad situation,He was wrong for breaking into the store to start with.The owner does have the right to protect his property by what ever means he deems necessary.It is sad that the guy is now disabled,and in most states if you break in or attempt to break in and get injured whether by falling and getting hurt or at fault by the owner,He can sue.Usually you have to file a claim with the owners insurance.Best thing to do is call a lawyer.One who gets paid when the client does.
2006-09-12 20:54:50 · answer #4 · answered by mytifine_01 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He has a viable civil case against the shop owner for an intentional tort. While the shop owner has a right to self-defense, he does not have a right to defense of property. Thus, because your client did not threaten the shop owner in a manner a reasonable person would find threatening and thus react utilizing the least necessary means of self-defense, your client may file suit.
2006-09-12 20:53:15 · answer #5 · answered by mereronay 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, he would definitely have a good strong case and win a lawsuit. The shopowner had no right to shoot the man, even though he was apparently trying to break into the shop. There are many cases that a would be burglar has sued and won a big settlement, even though he shouldn't, but it's the law. The man needs a good Attorney, who would be willing to handle the case on contingency, since he probably doesn't have money to pay one. And, a good Attorney will win.
2006-09-12 21:04:43 · answer #6 · answered by skyeblue 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think the client has much since client broke the window. (How far does criminal intent go? Why did client break window and look around inside display?) Yet, there are so many crazy lawsuits that end up rewarding, in my opinion, the wrong party.
2006-09-12 20:53:02 · answer #7 · answered by Mom of One in Wisconsin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just one more added comment to the others. The absence in your scenario of any reference to the shooting being reviewed by the police and/or DA as lawful or not, causes me to think that there's an important piece of the story left out. The scenario, as told, would probably generate alot of local news and public inquiry. For the question to suddenly come up now(seemingly as a quiet afterthought in your scenario), and so far down the line of the court process is...well, it just seems something is missing.
2006-09-13 01:39:52 · answer #8 · answered by nothing 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't believe he does have a case. The owner was defending himself because robberies happen at pawn shops all the time and it usually ends up with the owners or workers being killed. It was the guys fault.
2006-09-12 20:53:38 · answer #9 · answered by son-shine 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The shop owner was defending his property.If it were me,i would have shot him dead.he should roll with the punches and thank god he is still alive.
If he broke the window,how was the owner able to determine the criminals intent.Shoot first,ask questions later!
2006-09-12 20:54:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋