Charges against homeowner who shot trespasser dropped (FL)

[tt11758]

Florida is a bit sketchier, but the principle applies. In a complicated tort case like this the jury needs to assign blame and cupability. I say its complicated because both parties did something that led to the injury, the victim by trespassing and the homeowner y shooting. Given that the incident began with unlawful behavior, that should be it. Culpability should be assigned here.  I do find it interesting that the pending charge against the homeowner was battery, not attempted murder. This would indicate that the prosecuter had a certain sympaty for the homeowner from the get go. This will hopefully carry over into a civil trial as well, assuming a jury is like minded.
FQ13

Even if the homeowner wins, unless he counter-sues to recover legal costs, he'll quite possibly go bankrupt defending himself from this potential lawsuit.  Too bad the situation doesn't end when they refuse to press criminal charges.

[fightingquaker13]

Even if the homeowner wins, unless he counter-sues to recover legal costs, he'll quite possibly go bankrupt defending himself from this potential lawsuit.  Too bad the situation doesn't end when they refuse to press criminal charges.

In Florida the loser pays. It doesn't mean that the homeowner won't have to shell out big bucks for a lawyer upfront. Most lawers want $20K plus as a retainer for something thats going to go to a jury. It might not cost the much, and whats left over will be refunded, but they want to ensure that they will get paid when the client no longer needs them.  Also, getting a judgement for legal fees is a different matter than collecting them To make matters worse, the homeowners insurance company enjoys the right of estopple. This means that they can step in and decide to settle up to the max amount of the guy's liabilty coverage whether he wants to or not. They can then drop him as a bad risk, and depending on how close to the coast you live it is darn hard to get home owners at any price. (mine comes with a $15K deductible for wind and water I only have it to keep the bank happy). All in all, he's home free on the scary stuff, but still by no means out of the woods.
FQ13

[tt11758]

In Florida the loser pays. It doesn't mean that the homeowner won't have to shell out big bucks for a lawyer upfront. Most lawers want $20K plus as a retainer for something thats going to go to a jury. It might not cost the much, and whats left over will be refunded, but they want to ensure that they will get paid when the client no longer needs them.  Also, getting a judgement for legal fees is a different matter than collecting them To make matters worse, the homeowners insurance company enjoys the right of estopple. This means that they can step in and decide to settle up to the max amount of the guy's liabilty coverage whether he wants to or not. They can then drop him as a bad risk, and depending on how close to the coast you live it is darn hard to get home owners at any price. (mine comes with a $15K deductible for wind and water I only have it to keep the bank happy). All in all, he's home free on the scary stuff, but still by no means out of the woods.
FQ13

Oh, I don't know.  Having to cough up $20,000 on short notice is pretty damned scary to me.

[m25operator]

I would like to think I would have taken a secure position, armed with an eye on the door, and the police on the phone, kept shouting ( don't come through that door ) and waited for law enforcement to take over. But what if I'm doing that and I hear glass break in another room, sit rep changes in a hearbeat. I am not going to condone or condemn what happened, just wait for the facts.

[TAB]

This really is too bad for both sides.

[Sponsor]

[PegLeg45]

Had a situation a county over from me yesterday where a land/home owner shot one of two thieves trying to steal his harvested pecans out of his storage area. Pecan theft is a big thing in this area due to the large pecan crop and the price per pound at a dollar or more. They had stolen some from him the previous day and didn't get them all. So, he waited for them and the next day when they tried to steal some more, he shot and wounded one of the two men in both arms. At the time of the news story last night, charges were not expected to be filed against the home owner.

[TAB]

They are stealing his livelyhood.  I don't have a prob with that.  Same as some one stealing my tools.

[Rob10ring]

What kind of idiot criminal stirs up trouble in a place called "Stagecoach Village"? It sound kind of like an old west type of place where you might be able to get yourself shot. My parents live in an area called Horse Thief Canyon - people seem awfully polite there.

[Hazcat]

Florida is a bit sketchier, but the principle applies. In a complicated tort case like this the jury needs to assign blame and cupability. I say its complicated because both parties did something that led to the injury, the victim by trespassing and the homeowner y shooting. Given that the incident began with unlawful behavior, that should be it. Culpability should be assigned here.  I do find it interesting that the pending charge against the homeowner was battery, not attempted murder. This would indicate that the prosecuter had a certain sympaty for the homeowner from the get go. This will hopefully carry over into a civil trial as well, assuming a jury is like minded.
FQ13

FQ,

In FL the shooter CANNOT be sued by anyone if it is determined that he was within the law.  As that is the outcome in this case (charges dropped) the shooter CANNOT be sued.

776.032  Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1)  A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2)  A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3)  The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1)

[fightingquaker13]

I was wondering about this very point Haz. The guy WAS charged, but the charges were dropped. Does this no bill make him immune from suit? I would hope so, but my fear is that the initial charge (indicating the prosecuter found the shooting to be problematic) would be enough to open the courthouse door to the drunken fool. I hope that you are right, and the final determination that the action fell within the purview of the castle doctrine ends the matter. This is a tricky case, but from a policy perspective, its best for everyone if the homeowner wins on all fronts.
FQ13