A Killer Defence

[Panzer 0]

The Scene -

Your house has been constantly robbed and you are getting sick of it. The police cant/wont do anything about it and you cannot afford a security company to watch your house. You decide to take matters into your own hands and set up some defences in your home. You set up wires running an electrical current around the inside of your windows, so if a burglar breaks through the window they get electricuted.

 

A robber does end up trying to break into your house, he breaks through your window and gets zapped by your custom made security system. The robber is paralyzed from the waist down, you ring the ambulance to get assistance for him.

 

Weeks later you find out he's sueing you for attempted murder.

 

Guilty Or Not Guilty?

 

(This is similar to a case on Boston Legal. My brother and I argued over it so im interested to see other people's opionions.)

[Dawiss 0]

I think that "NOT guilty".. the rubber brake in your house your property.. nobody exept police have such opportunities to break in somebodys house.. the man who set up the electricity system have all rights to set such system up.. so I think he's no guilty.. ...

[kasm 0]

The Scene -

Your house has been constantly robbed and you are getting sick of it. The police cant/wont do anything about it and you cannot afford a security company to watch your house. You decide to take matters into your own hands and set up some defences in your home. You set up wires running an electrical current around the inside of your windows, so if a burglar breaks through the window they get electricuted.

 

A robber does end up trying to break into your house, he breaks through your window and gets zapped by your custom made security system. The robber is paralyzed from the waist down, you ring the ambulance to get assistance for him.

 

Weeks later you find out he's sueing you for attempted murder.

 

Guilty Or Not Guilty?

 

(This is similar to a case on Boston Legal. My brother and I argued over it so im interested to see other people's opionions.)

 

It is my opinion that:

1- You are not guilty before this robber. He has no civil right against you.

 

2. But you are guilty before the state since you did something not permitted. You have the right to defend yourself in the court and may be it will not charged you. This to make surer that nobody do that against someone else and kill him/her and say that it was breaking house and may be is not the case.

[truefusion 3]

I'd say not guilty. The robber was trespassing. The fact that the robber is suing someone is proof in its own that he was trespassing. The robber should not have attempted to break in and enter. He would have never gotten shocked if he hadn't.

[shadowx 0]

Im of the opinion of my house is my law, if you break in i can do whatever the hell i like and theres nothing you can do about it. Where i live id say its a fairly rough area, ive been mugged and my house has been burgled so i belive if someone breaks in i have the right to kill them let alone zap them!

All the police do is tell them never to do it again, put them up in prison for a year and then let them go and they do it again! It really annoys me that these people get away with it.

There was a case over here in england where a farmer was robbed and pulled out a shotgun and shot the guys! I say good on him! But alas he was put in prison and i think the robbers got away! What the?!

So definately not guilty, although technically you did do something wrong but the law needs to stop being so finite and the decision of guilty or not needs to be carfefully considered taking into account the whole story!

This to make surer that nobody do that against someone else and kill him/her and say that it was breaking house and may be is not the case

That is the only argument for guilty, a murderer could easily invite people to his house, kill them, smash a window and claim they broke in.

but still not guilty!
Edited August 19, 2006 by shadowx (see edit history)

[Plenoptic 0]

If the police wouldn't listen to your plead for a security watch or whatever then you did what you had to do. I belive you are not guilty because he was breaking into your house. If he wasn't doing it that wouldn't have happened. Although I think a video camera probably would have been better. What's he gonna say though, I was checking to make sure his window was stable? You might need a good lawyer though because they always find a way to make it bite you in the butt.

[Panzer 0]

You might need a good lawyer though because they always find a way to make it bite you in the butt.

Thats where Alan Shore comes in!
Interesting results, im suprised no one has said 100% guilty yet. I wonder how long until they do.

[God-Of-Earth 0]

Dont know about america but in England you would be found guilty. Not that i agree with it. You should be able to what the hell you like when somebody breaks into your house.

[elevenmil 0]

So if a robber comes into your house to rob it and falls down the stairs because the top step was tricked with vasaline and paralyzed himself/herself that means he/she could sue? No, unless you have a terrible lawyer there's no real way you could be sued for such an incident.Now if the outside of the house did not have a sign saying there is security and it is private property, DO NOT ENTER, then you can possibly get into trouble, especially if it is someone you know who isn't trying to break into the house.It could potentially be a complicated case but for the most part quite frankly, only a dumb lawyer who worked for you could get you into trouble. Other than that the robber is just a poopeater who stepped into the wrong house.

[gaea 0]

I'd also say not guilty...though the courts may very well say otherwise. It reminds me of a similar case some years back in Florida. A burglar fell through a man's skylight while attempting to break into the house. He then successfully sued the owner. Pretty ludacrist in my opinion...but we live in a sue happy country.

[husker 0]

I have to agree with everyone else and say not guilty. First off, the police should come, so it's partly there fault. The robber would definately loose the case. The judge would probably ask, "why were you there?" "To rob him." The burglar had it coming I think. He had no business being on your property.

[Plenoptic 0]

I have to agree with everyone else and say not guilty. First off, the police should come, so it's partly there fault. The robber would definately loose the case. The judge would probably ask, "why were you there?" "To rob him." The burglar had it coming I think. He had no business being on your property.

He won't say to rob him, his lawyer will come up with some excuse to why he was there or whatever. I mean he could come up with anything. Oh I thought I saw a fight inside and I went to check it out and then I fell through the window. That is what the lawyer's job is to do, lie for him and help him come up with convicing stories.