Skip to comments.Ohio Burglar Sues the Victim Who Shot Him
Posted on 02/10/2010 7:28:24 AM PST by Sasparilla
A Lima, Ohio Burglar has sued the man whose home he invaded and who shot him. Nineteen year old Jack White has sued 54 year old Stephen White (no relation), saying that Stephen White shot him intentionally. The younger man says that the gunshot caused serious injuries and a disability. His medical bills have reached over $35,000.00. Stephen White had just returned to his home last February and found Jack White and two others in his yard. Jack had just broken into Stephens house and was running back to his own house nearby with a rifle and other things he had stolen from Stephens house.
The elder Mr. White chased Jack. He confronted Jack, and the rifle that Jack had just stolen went off during a struggle for it.
A Judge has sentenced Jack White to two years in prison, and told him that he had no right to be in another mans home. Jack is well on his way to being a career criminal. He has a long juvenile record that includes other breaking and entering, assaults, thefts, and criminal trespassing convictions.
To further complicate the case, Stephen White faces Felonious Assault charges and a charge of...
(Excerpt) Read more at armedselfdefense.blogspot.com ...
Of course he shot him intentionally. Unfortuneately it wasn’t fatal.
Campaign for a castle law in your state.
Practice “Point Shooting” and there will be fewer lawsuits!
my thoughts exactly
Poor gun control = Live injured criminal
Good Gun Control = center of body mass = dead criminal
He should write the homeowner a thank-you-note for not blowing his head clean off.
“Ohio Burglar has sued the man whose home he invaded and who shot him”....
He should be sued because he didn’t kill him....
It goes way beyond that.
They were out of the “castle” and off the property.
The questions arise,
“Do citizens have a right to protect their property?”
“Do citizens have the right and obligation to stop crime?”
How does that even get allowed into court? This ain’t England.
Cheaper to pay funeral costs than medical costs.
And finish the job.
I hope it applies here.
No. He should be sentenced to weekend confinement for a year at a shooting range or until his aim improves.
Citizens do not have the right to use lethal force to protect their property. This is settle law. (Katko vs. Briney.)
Anyone can file suit against someone for anything. This appears to be a civil suit brought by the wounded home invader and it'll probably get laughed out of court.
Steven White's real concern are the criminal charges filed against him for unlawful gun possession. Sounds like he might have had a checkered past himself and, as such, is no longer allowed to legally defend himself with a firearm.
anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice.
Is that a local law?
Because in Texas, and a few other states, you do.
“...and the rifle that Jack had just stolen went off during a struggle for it.”
Any good attorney will get Stephen off ... with unintended consequence of the theft and struggle. Good.
"He confronted Jack, and the rifle that Jack had just stolen went off during a struggle for it."
He wasn’t struggling WITH the rifle.
He was struggling FOR the rifle.
That means another party (the owner).
It’s a shame that they’re going after the proprty owner, who was trying to get HIS property back.
Red some of the other stories on that site. Especially the one about the years worst robbery.
In Ohio, deadly force can be used only to prevent serious bodily harm or death. Deadly force can never be used to protect property only. Depending on the specific facts and circumstances of the situation, use of deadly force may lead to criminal charges and/or civil liability.
Government prosecutors believe that Stephen White pulled the trigger. He is going to trial on these charges in late spring, and could be sentenced to 12 years in prison. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Oh yeah, government going after the victim.
The American court system, as it now stands, appears to exist to give lawyers a job.
12Ga Shotgun- #4 birdshot followed by 00Buckshot and this would never be a problem for anyone.
That information is either out of date or doesn't apply nationwide. A number of states have laws explicitly allowing use of deadly force to protect property.
The only way it would be handled better is because of the LEO’s qualified immunity.
If citizens were granted the same “privelege”, you’d see better results because they don’t have to wait 10 minutes for a report writer to show up.
Remember, a hundred years ago we didn’t have a police force for EVERYTHING. Nowadays, they show up for lawn infractions, arguments, et al. Back then, you had a Sheriff and a hundred good citizens to back him up. We’ve outsourced our responsibilities to bureaucrats.
In a struggle with a rifle I find it unlikely that anyone gets shot unless someone is grabbing the barrel towards themselves. What I find a lot more plausible is that Stephen White grabbed the rifle and then shot the burglar.
Much to my regret, I tend to believe the Burglar that this was not a shooting in self defense.
Countersuit: if not for the commission of the crime, the homeowner would not have been subject to a do-or-die decision and its consequences. Whatever the perp demands, homeowner should demand 100x.
I’ll be happy to prosecute the cross complaint.
2. Trespass to chattells;
4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress;
5. Negligent infliction of emotional distress;
6. Assault and battery.
I think I can get a jury to award way more than the perp might get for injuries. A little discovery, expose what a creep the perp is, and the case will go away. They probably filed because they think they can get at some homeowners insurance. Don't give the bastard a penny!
A dead perp can’t sue. More range time required.
Except White can't really call the police to report a stolen firearm when he himself isn't allowed to possess a firearm.
The best measure would’ve been to cap him. Dead perps don’t sue.
“No. He should be sentenced to weekend confinement for a year at a shooting range or until his aim improves.”
Read the article, the guy chased the perp, the perp had stolen a rifle. They stuggled over the rifle as the home owner tried to regain possession of his property and the gun went off. IMO, it probably went off because the perp was trying to shoot the victim and it didn't work out that way. The guy did NOT shoot the kid on purpose.
I wish every state had a castle doctrine law.
Depends on what state you are living in, and nothing is settled law, NOTHING. Not all laws are constitutional and laws change all the time. Disallowing people to protect their property is unconstitutional, regardless of what the courts say. Saying something is settled law is what dimwits do when they want to impose their will on people, I.E.: climate change/global warming.
If the owner and the thief are struggling over the loaded firearm, the thief is an aggressor. It's reasonable for the owner to assume he is in mortal danger. The thief cannot pretend he is innocent of any escalation.
Upon what FACTS do you base your demonization of the victim?
BTW, fighting a burglar for a loaded firearm is an excellent justification for self defense, no matter where you are. He gets it, he shoots you. Sounds pretty obvious to me.
Robert A. Heinleins character always put things into proper perspective for me when I was a boy growing up. In fact I can easily assert that RAH's entire body of literary work shaped my whole personality and was responsible for a chunk of my professional life. In fact I don't know a single infantry officer who's NOT read Starship Troopers at the very least....
Good luck with that.
Just the quote from the paper that the shooter is facing Felonious assault charges for shooting the perp and was breaking the law by having the gun in the first place.
My speculation is that the homeowner grabbed the rifle away from the burglar and shot him. Do I have facts? Of course not, but I know that it is hard to accidentally discharge it into someone while struggling over it. A pistol is a different matter.
Also location matters a lot. If this had occurred in the house, the shooting would have been entirely justified. Chasing a guy down the street, grabbing your gun from him and shooting him, I don't think is a good idea.
LOL, I love these reports that say the gun “went off”.
I am not a citizen of the state in question. But in the general case, while pursuing a fleeing felon, it seems unreasonable to give the felon the benefit of the doubt when he is apprehended and struggles for control of a loaded firearm. Whether it was a good idea to pursue the felon does not seem germane to the question of self defense in the case of struggling with a felon over control of a loaded firearm while the felon is committing the felony.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.