Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ohio Burglar Sues the Victim Who Shot Him
armedselfdefense.blogspot.com/ ^ | 02/10/10 | Sasparilla

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 Stephen’s house and was running back to his own house nearby with a rifle and other things he had stolen from Stephen’s 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 man’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: banglist; blamethevictim; selfdefense; takingoutthetrash
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last
To: SJSAMPLE
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?”

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.

41 posted on 02/10/2010 9:27:28 AM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Citizens do not have the right to use lethal force to protect their property. This is settle law. (Katko vs. Briney.)

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.

42 posted on 02/10/2010 9:35:38 AM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
Much to my regret, I tend to believe the Burglar that this was not a shooting in self defense.

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.

43 posted on 02/10/2010 9:57:18 AM PST by no-s (B.L.O.A.T. and every day...because some day soon they won't be making any more...for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"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."

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.

44 posted on 02/10/2010 10:00:37 AM PST by RetiredNavy ("Only accurate firearms are interesting")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla
From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long: Always get your first shot off FAST, then make your second shot PERFECT. The message here is very clear as it applies to the OP.

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....

45 posted on 02/10/2010 10:22:35 AM PST by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Good luck with that.


46 posted on 02/10/2010 10:26:08 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Impeachment !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RetiredNavy; no-s
Upon what FACTS do you base your demonization of the victim?

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.

47 posted on 02/10/2010 10:30:43 AM PST by LeGrande (The government wants to make a new Government program (Health Care) to fix Medicare and Medicaid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
It went to the US Supreme Court from Iowa in the 1960s.
Briefly, Briney owned an old house on his farm near Eddyville, IA that Katko had broen into several times.
Briney set up a shotgun to go off when the front door was kicked in.
Katko broke in and was nailed. He sued and the Supreme Court upheld Katko’s suit for damages and awarded him Briney's farm.
48 posted on 02/10/2010 10:30:47 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Impeachment !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

LOL, I love these reports that say the gun “went off”.


49 posted on 02/10/2010 10:34:13 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
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.

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.

50 posted on 02/10/2010 10:44:36 AM PST by no-s (B.L.O.A.T. and every day...because some day soon they won't be making any more...for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Citizens do not have the right to use lethal force to protect their property. This is settle law. (Katko vs. Briney.)

Oddly, the Iowa Supreme Court doesn't find it necessary to consider the laws of other states when ruling on a case, and the states that have these laws for some reason don't find Iowa Supreme Court rulings to be binding precedent.

51 posted on 02/10/2010 10:52:50 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

That’s a “man-trap” and is somewhat different.
Had Briney held the shotgun himself, it would most likely had a different outcome.

Recall the Texas homeowner who called the police after he noticed two illegal aliens breaking into a neighbor’s home. When they came out of the house, he told the dispatcher he was going to get them.

Shot and killed them BOTH and walked.
Completely legal under Texas law.


52 posted on 02/10/2010 10:57:14 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

This was a US Supreme Court ruling, not Iowa.


53 posted on 02/10/2010 10:58:52 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Impeachment !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: no-s
But in the general case, while pursuing a fleeing felon, it seems unreasonable ...

That is precisely the problem. It is unreasonable to pursue a fleeing felon. Vigilante Justice is not justice. If you go and kill a fleeing felon you are guilty of murder.

Our sacred right to bear arms is predicated on our right to self defense. We do not have the right to go out and shoot people that are no threat to us, we have given that right to our Government.

54 posted on 02/10/2010 11:02:03 AM PST by LeGrande (The government wants to make a new Government program (Health Care) to fix Medicare and Medicaid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

“Briney set up a shotgun to go off when the front door was kicked in.”

ERIC: What you described is called a “Spring Gun.” This gun trap type setup is illegal in all 50 states, and has been for years. This law protects first responders such as police and firemen who may have to enter the residence in an emergency.
And, if no one is home to disconnect it, bang.


55 posted on 02/10/2010 11:12:42 AM PST by Sasparilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

He was struggling to take his rifle back from the thief when it went off. That doesn’t sound like an intentional shooting. The burglary victim was not armed when he encountered the burglar.


56 posted on 02/10/2010 11:15:23 AM PST by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

The US High court ruled against Briney because he was using deadly force to protect property, not because it was a trap gun.


57 posted on 02/10/2010 11:16:58 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Impeachment !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole

I know that.
I don’t think he should be charged.


58 posted on 02/10/2010 11:19:21 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Katko v Briney is a 1971 case.

The Iowa Supreme Court looked to jury instructions 2, 5, and 6. They were:

“In instruction 2 the court referred to the early case history of the use of spring guns and stated under the law their use was prohibited except to prevent the [**7] commission of felonies of violence and where human life is in danger. The instruction included a statement breaking and entering is not a felony of violence.

Instruction 5 stated: “You are hereby instructed that one may use reasonable force in the protection of his property, but such right is subject to the qualification that one may not use such means of force as will take human life or inflict great bodily injury. Such is the rule even though the injured party is a trespasser and is in violation of the law himself.”

Instruction 6 stated: “An owner of premises is prohibited from willfully or intentionally injuring a trespasser by means of force that either takes life or inflicts great bodily injury; and therefore a person owning a premise is prohibited from setting out ‘spring guns’ and like dangerous devices which will likely take life or inflict great bodily injury, for the purpose of harming trespassers. The fact that the trespasser may be acting in violation of the law does not change the rule. The only time when such conduct of setting a ‘spring gun’ or a like dangerous device is justified would be when the trespasser was committing a felony of violence or a felony punishable [**8] by death, or where the trespasser was endangering human life by his act.”

The Court further stated, [*662] The legal principles stated by the trial court in instructions 2, 5 and 6 are well established and supported by the authorities cited and quoted supra. There is no merit in defendants’ objections and exceptions thereto. Defendants’ various [**15] motions based on the same reasons stated in exceptions to instructions were properly overruled.


59 posted on 02/10/2010 12:22:43 PM PST by Sasparilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

Spring guns are illegal everywhere.


60 posted on 02/10/2010 12:25:54 PM PST by Gideon7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson