Phoenix homeowner fires gun at robbery suspects breaking into home

[CCTVCam]

Challenge accepted... ( ok, so not exactly what you were looking for )

(CBS) GREENBRAE, Calif. - A Northern California homeowner who police say survived being shot in the jaw during a burglary is now getting a "punch in the gut": The burglary suspect is suing him for returning fire

Burglar sues Calif. homeowner, 90, who returned fire

The burglary suspect is charged with attempted murder for shooting Marin County homeowner Jay Leone in the jaw

www.cbsnews.com

Property owners have a duty of care to maintain the safety of the premises for those who come onto the property. Can a burglar sue for personal injury? The short answer is yes ..

Can a Burglar Sue for Injury?

Property owners have a duty of care to maintain the safety of the premises for those who come onto the property. Can a burglar sue for personal injury?

www.rodriguezlaw.net

1) Trapped Burglar Sues Homeowner
A fine example of good sense failing is the case of Terence Dickson. In the process of exiting a house he had just entered and burglarized, he found that his planned escape route through the garage was a dead end as the door opener would not function and he was unable to open the garage door. Turning back to re-enter the house, he found that the connecting door had locked behind him! He was forced to spend the next eight days with only a case of Pepsi and a bag of dry dog food.

Mr. Dickson, upon regaining his freedom from the garage, filed a suit against the homeowner’s insurance company on the basis of his having suffered mental anguish during his unintended confinement. Incredibly, the jury determined that Mr. Dickson was to be paid $500,000 for his suffering.

2) Teens will be Teens

Further proof that craziness happens is the case of two teens who burned themselves touching an uninsulated wire while trespassing on private property. The boundary-crossing boys sued the owner of the house for the injuries. In an unbelievable trial outcome, they were awarded $24.2 million.

Real Estate Blog | HomeVestors

Looking for information, tips, and advice to help you get ready to sell your house? Read our blog to learn the ins and outs of how to sell your home.

www.homevestors.com

The first time Nigel Sykes tried to get money from the Seasons Pizza restaurant, he did it with a gun, forcing his way into the business through the back door.

This time, Sykes is trying to get money from the pizzeria by suing the employees who tackled him and wrestled his gun away during the robbery.

Sykes alleges assault in a federal civil complaint claiming the rough treatment was "unnecessary" and that as a result of the injuries he suffered during his attempted hold-up, he is due over $260,000.

NIGEL C. SYKES v. SEASONS PIZZA, et al. | District of Delaware | United States District Court

www.ded.uscourts.gov

Different circumstances entirely. A homeowner is responsible to maintain the premises in a safe manner. eg. as in the example above, not leave exposed live wiring around. I cannot see they are reponsible for someone who injures themsleves against a perfectly serviceable door that is functioning as a door should.

In the 1st instance, the burglar was shot in the jaw. It's within his right to sue for excessive force and for the home owner to prove otherwise. It's going to hinge on the state and rights of the homeowner in that state and the circumstances giving rise to the homeowner firing the gun.

In the 2nd instance, the homeowner was negligent for leaving a bare live wire exposed in a place where a "visitor" to the premises might touch it and injure themselves.

In the 3rd instance, the guy was trapped in the garage because of the defective garage door opener that prevented his escape and an arrangement where the hosue door automatically locked behind him. Is it forceable someone might be injured as a result of getting trapped because of an arrangement where a person can get trapped in an enclosed space with no means of escape? yes.

In the 4th instance, so far as I can see having read it at a glance, the case against the pizza employees and Police officers was dismissed on a technicality. Either way, again it was potentially a case of excessive force.

None of these instances lead to me to conclude on the face of it that a burglar injuring himself on a functioning door would have cause for complaint provided the door was functioning as intended and not deliberately set up with causing injury in mind.

 

[samplenhold]

Springfield man charged after reinforced door broken down

From the linked article:

"Johnson also is charged with the offense of criminal fortification of a residence, a Class 3 felony, said Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Milhiser.
A person can be charged with criminal fortification of a residence or building when, with the intent to prevent the lawful entry of a law enforcement officer, he maintains a residence or building in a fortified condition, knowing that the residence is used for the manufacture, storage, delivery or trafficking of illegal drugs.
“Fortified condition” means preventing or impeding entry through the use of steel doors, wooden planking, crossbars, alarm systems, dogs, etc."

So the 'criminal fortification' applies if it was to prevent lawful entry of law enforcement, not the criminal. Otherwise, even an alarm as stated in the quote above would be illegal.

 

[CCTVCam]

so far finding:

Johnson also is charged with the offense of criminal fortification of a residence, a Class 3 felony, said Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Milhiser.

Springfield man charged after reinforced door broken down

Man charged after reinforced door broken down

A 55-year-old Springfield man faces several drug charges after the Sangamon County DIRT team and Illinois State Police used an armored tactical vehicle to break down the reinforced door to his home w…

www.sj-r.com

So, looks like you can be charged for "fortification" ...

The article seems to have been withdrawn. However, charges imply criminal offences not civil suits and it could be there is some statute that renders it illegal to fortify your home for the specific purpose of preventing law enforcement from entering.

EDIT: Cross posted with Sampenhold. I think his finding clears it up and accords with what I was saying.

 

[samplenhold]

In the 3rd instance, the guy was trapped in the garage because of the defective garage door opener that prevented his escape and an arrangement where the hosue door automatically locked behind him. Is it forceable someone might be injured as a result of getting trapped because of an arrangement where a person can get trapped in an enclosed space with no means of escape? yes.

This is pure bull crap! every garage door in the USA has a handle to pull to open the door in case of power failure. I am sorry, but I doubt that the homeowner had rigged the doors to entrap a burglar. The jury award is bogus in my book. But that is how jury lawsuits can go.

I was on a jury for a lawsuit where the children were attempting to get money from their father's company as he was killed on the job. But neither of them had seen him for over 10 years even though they lived in the same town. Just a money grab. The guy died as a result of not following company procedure and was high at the time, though the info about being high was not presented during the trial since the judge thought it would be prejudicial (found this out after the trial by talking to the judge). There was one holdout in the jury that wanted to find the employer at fault. No amount of discussion was working. Finally she just blurted out that she felt bad for the 'children' (22-26yo) and wanted to give them some money. I said 'pull out your checkbook and write them a check'. That did not go over too well. So we instructed the judge we had a hung jury. He refused to accept that and told us to work on it longer. She finally gave up when she realized we would have to come back again the next day.

Jury lawsuits sork.

 

[mat200]

From the linked article:

"Johnson also is charged with the offense of criminal fortification of a residence, a Class 3 felony, said Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Milhiser.
A person can be charged with criminal fortification of a residence or building when, with the intent to prevent the lawful entry of a law enforcement officer, he maintains a residence or building in a fortified condition, knowing that the residence is used for the manufacture, storage, delivery or trafficking of illegal drugs.
“Fortified condition” means preventing or impeding entry through the use of steel doors, wooden planking, crossbars, alarm systems, dogs, etc."

So the 'criminal fortification' applies if it was to prevent lawful entry of law enforcement, not the criminal. Otherwise, even an alarm as stated in the quote above would be illegal.

My guess he was also attempting to keep others out also, not just law enforcement .. they only found 2 grams ...

 

[TonyR]

IMO, you can be charged with "criminal fortification" only under the circumstances below, in bold:

(720 ILCS 5/19-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 19-5)​

Sec. 19-5. Criminal fortification of a residence or building.​

(a) A person commits criminal fortification of a residence or building when, with the intent to prevent the lawful entry of a law enforcement officer or another, he or she maintains a residence or building in a fortified condition, knowing that the residence or building is used for the unlawful manufacture, storage with intent to deliver or manufacture, delivery, or trafficking of cannabis, controlled substances, or methamphetamine as defined in the Cannabis Control Act, the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, or the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act. ​

 

[CCTVCam]

As an aside, it would be kind of unfortunate if you fortified your door to keep criminals out and then got caught with drugs. Lesson there somewhere.

 

[user8963]

Not sure what they do in US , but in most european countries the police do not use any rams to open doors because it takes too long.. mostly they use explosives


this is why

 

[CCTVCam]

Different to the UK then. I suspect thats one of those reinforced doors. Most UK doors give way easily to rams and where they suspect it's reinforced they use hydraulic rams to push the door frame apart to make the rams work better.

This appears to be a reinsforced door - they used a stihl saw. I don't think in the UK they're allowed explosives:

 

[imaninjatoo]

Challenge accepted... ( ok, so not exactly what you were looking for )

(CBS) GREENBRAE, Calif. - A Northern California homeowner who police say survived being shot in the jaw during a burglary is now getting a "punch in the gut": The burglary suspect is suing him for returning fire

Burglar sues Calif. homeowner, 90, who returned fire

The burglary suspect is charged with attempted murder for shooting Marin County homeowner Jay Leone in the jaw

www.cbsnews.com

Property owners have a duty of care to maintain the safety of the premises for those who come onto the property. Can a burglar sue for personal injury? The short answer is yes ..

Can a Burglar Sue for Injury?

Property owners have a duty of care to maintain the safety of the premises for those who come onto the property. Can a burglar sue for personal injury?

www.rodriguezlaw.net

1) Trapped Burglar Sues Homeowner
A fine example of good sense failing is the case of Terence Dickson. In the process of exiting a house he had just entered and burglarized, he found that his planned escape route through the garage was a dead end as the door opener would not function and he was unable to open the garage door. Turning back to re-enter the house, he found that the connecting door had locked behind him! He was forced to spend the next eight days with only a case of Pepsi and a bag of dry dog food.

Mr. Dickson, upon regaining his freedom from the garage, filed a suit against the homeowner’s insurance company on the basis of his having suffered mental anguish during his unintended confinement. Incredibly, the jury determined that Mr. Dickson was to be paid $500,000 for his suffering.

2) Teens will be Teens

Further proof that craziness happens is the case of two teens who burned themselves touching an uninsulated wire while trespassing on private property. The boundary-crossing boys sued the owner of the house for the injuries. In an unbelievable trial outcome, they were awarded $24.2 million.

Real Estate Blog | HomeVestors

Looking for information, tips, and advice to help you get ready to sell your house? Read our blog to learn the ins and outs of how to sell your home.

www.homevestors.com

The first time Nigel Sykes tried to get money from the Seasons Pizza restaurant, he did it with a gun, forcing his way into the business through the back door.

This time, Sykes is trying to get money from the pizzeria by suing the employees who tackled him and wrestled his gun away during the robbery.

Sykes alleges assault in a federal civil complaint claiming the rough treatment was "unnecessary" and that as a result of the injuries he suffered during his attempted hold-up, he is due over $260,000.

NIGEL C. SYKES v. SEASONS PIZZA, et al. | District of Delaware | United States District Court

www.ded.uscourts.gov

According to Snopes, the Terence Dickson story is made up. Considering you posted the same source for the teens one, I wonder if that is also untrue?

Stella Awards

A bouquet of outrageous lawsuits demonstrates the need for tort reform?

www.snopes.com

 

[Xeddog]

From what I am seeing more and more is that it is not what the law says, but what the judge says.

 

[J Sigmo]

Heck, where I live if you speak to someone breaking in like that using harsh words you get prosecuted.

Enhanced sentencing for using the wrong pronouns, too, I'd guess.

 

[J Sigmo]

Different to the UK then. I suspect thats one of those reinforced doors. Most UK doors give way easily to rams and where they suspect it's reinforced they use hydraulic rams to push the door frame apart to make the rams work better.

This appears to be a reinsforced door - they used a stihl saw. I don't think in the UK they're allowed explosives:

My son was a paid firefighter for several years, and lost a substantial amount of hearing from operating, among other things, large gasoline powered circular saws. He said the blades they used in them allowed them to cut openings in structures pretty much no matter what the exterior material was. So such a saw would likely let you enter even a "fortified" door, but it certainly wouldn't be as fast as using a ram or some explosives. And that lack of speed would cause the cops to lose a lot of "surprise" and could prove to be dangerous.

It's like the other thread here where we all now want perimeter alarms to give us adequate warning of people trespassing on our property. The sound of a gas-powered saw hacking into the residence would likely wake even the most drugged-up perpetrator!

Still, it seems a bit sketchy to have a law on the books that makes "fortifying" your home or business illegal, no matter what the assumed purpose of said fortification might be. Seems like it may infringe on the 4th amendment to the constitution at the least. And how does the prosecutor establish the "intent" of the fortification? Maybe the drug dealers are just afraid of other drug dealers. How would one prove that it wasn't done for that reason? This statute just smells funny to me.

 

[SJGUSMC21]

Not sure what they do in US , but in most european countries the police do not use any rams to open doors because it takes too long.. mostly they use explosives


this is why

I'm liking that door and frame!