Was the deceased committing a crime?.....
>>”This is a case that people will have strong feelings about one way or the other, but people need to keep in mind that David wasn’t a criminal. David was an award-winning elementary school teacher whose life was cut short,” he said.<<
And a drunk who walked into a stranger’s house then proceeded to start up the stairs towards the homeowner’s wife.
Yeah.
The lawsuit accuses David D'Amico of the "willful, intentional, malicious" slaying of Park, and acting "without just cause [or] provocation."
I'd call being an intruder in someone's home more than just cause and provocation. Any intruder in my home is going to die. This day and age, you don't know what kind of h**l someone breaking in may be prepared to inflict. I'm not going to give up an advantage in the element of surprise, I'm going to act to defend myself and my family who by definition are in mortal danger from any intruder. Too many home invasions end with the people in the home dead. Not me or mine.
Just another reason to live in Texas. A government that protects gun owners. IF i shoot you and the cops deem it legit, you can’t sue me.
So he was...Dead drunk.
Only an attorney could assert that with a straight face.
“David Park was a teacher and a family man, and he should not have died that night.”
And he would not have died but for the 0.18 blood alcohol level, or more than twice the drunk limit. If they had an ounce of decency, they’d leave it at a sad event, not try to blame innocent people.
Maybe they are counting on a homeowners insurance settlement?
In Texas, there would be no case.
I’d like to think I could tell the difference between a confused drunk and a dangerous belligerent drunk, but I wont condemn the man who was defending his home. Unfortunately the legal bills to defend himself will probably bankrupt him.
The judge should throw it out as a frivolous case. It is a shame that the teacher got drunk and committed the crime of breaking and entering. The perp was the drunk teacher. Ripstein and her attorney are seeing dollar signs because they will attempt to find a sympathetic jury. This civil suit is totally wrong.
So? I do not care if he was a award-winning teacher, a local pastor, or the president of the United States. He was an intruder and the shooting was justified. Sorry this woman lost her husband, but she has to eventually realize it was all her husband's fault for what happened. I would have shot him too.
Pretty suspicious...
Technically the guy might have been within his rights to shoot. Nonetheless I would not have done it under the circumstances. Somebody too drunk to know where he was or that he was in the wrong house would be pretty hard to view as dangerous.
Which is relevant to what? Oh, yeah, absolutely nothing.
0.18% is not so drunk a grown man doesn't know what he's doing. He was obviously up to no good...
The lawsuit deserves to fail, as the shooting seems fully justified. Still, for the rest of his life, D’Amico will probably wish he had reacted differently. I hope he can forgive himself.
Although no criminal charges were filed, attorneys for the Park family allege under civil law that D'Amico was negligent and acted wrongfully by killing Park.
"[The incident] occurred as a result of the fault, negligence and carelessness of D'Amico, without any negligence on the part of Park contributing thereto," attorney David H. Elibol said in court papers.
Had Mr. Park gotten behind the wheel and killed somebody on his way home, he'd have been guilty of negligence because he was drunk. So, why is he not negligent when he drunkenly enters someone's home and refuses to leave when ordered?
Your honor, move to dismiss...
Usually there are no fences to separate the back yards of houses in the Buffalo suburbs, so this really is plausible. This theory does not explain what happened after he got into the wrong house, just how he did get into the wrong house.