What is your take on this lawsuit?

[Olustee bus]

A little background. This guy, lets call him jack (about a 45 year old man), was believed to have not paid his homeowners dues to our association. He in fact did not pay a 250 assessment for work on the damn of the lake. He did not pay them as they were assessed out of conformance with association rules.

Because he was considered no longer a member of the association, he had no rights to use the lake. However, his sons continued to use the lake.

Jim (a man in his mid 70's or early 80's), across the lake, took on the role of local police and told the boys to get off the lake. There was a lot of bad blood after that.

One day, Jacks boys were on Jims lot, throwing rocks at the geese that live here. Jims son (grown man) went out and ran the off, telling them to get off their lot.

Well, Jack was pissed and called Jim and told him he was coming over to beat his ass.

Jim called 911 and told them what was happening and they told him that he could do what ever if he felt his life or family was in danger.

Well, Jack drove up with his boy and Jim and his son was on the porch, telling Jack to not come any further. Jack kept coming. Jim's son fired a warning shot. Jack kept coming. Jim told him that he better not come any further or he would shoot him. Jack kept coming towards the stairs and Jim shot him with a 38. It hit his neck and came out his shoulder.

The sheriff did an investigation and no one was charged.

Jack, the one shot, sued Jim, the shooter. Jim wanted a Million dollars. There was a settlement of $125,000.

Now here is a man in his mid to late 80's facing this problem. His wife said it has ruined his life. I believe that. I used to see him out on the lake all the time. After that incident, I have seen him only once in 4 years. Sad to me.

What do you think about this situation as presented.

[Meeko87]

My take is shoot to kill and you won't get sued.

[Datawiz]

He should have aimed better.

[carlton_fritz]

Shoot those that awarded Jack the $125,000.

[Blademaker]

Jim shoulda aimed better and had a throwdown.

[Uri]

Jim........jackass trying to enforce rules on the lake. Local police my ass. Mind your business.

Jack communicated a threat.....another douche bag!!

Jack - Wants to beat an old man. Kill him...... NOW!!

Both should suffer, one for douchbaggery, the other for not being sure in his shot, AND TRYING TO BE THE LOCAL FAGGOT POLICE!!

Fk both of them.

[American Made]

Shooting an unarmed man has its consequences. Even on your own property. If you're gonna play the role of a life taker you should be prepared to pay and I'm not just talking about the legality. Pepper spray would have been better.

[mrvette]

Much adoo about nothing but STOOfreeking PIDITY.....

glad I have a tract house in a friendly hood of retirees....

we just set around and comment on the insanity of the rest of the freeking ****ed up world we are stuck with....

piss on the world....

[Flatbush Harry]

Several stupid comments above. That said, any time you use a firearm for the purpose of "self-defense", you will be arrested and be sued. You'll have two probs...first, the DA. Depending on circumstances, you may be prosecuted, you may not....either way, you get to pay an attorney. Next, either the vic, or, if you follow the bad advice of some of the above posters, his/her heirs and assigns, will attempt a wealth transfer of every last feckin' thing you've got from you to them. As, in the case cited, it'll cost at least attorneys' fees and court costs and maybe a bunch more.

I have oft said that using a gun for self-defense is a very, very serious business...and this is but one facet of the business. The other (stipulating that you don't end up in prison or the poorhouse) is that you will have shot a fellow, at least partially, human being. You get to live with that.

FH, cereal

[mrvette]

Shit, Harry, I"d seriously kill 1/2 the Population on this planst as being useless muvva fockers , and not think a thing about it at all....

[G8rDMD]

Jim should have minded his own business with the kids on the lake. However, if there were kids on my property throwing rocks at geese (or whatever), I'd have told them to get lost too. Jack is an ass for many, many reasons apparently, not the least of which is threatening to beat an 80+ year old man and then driving over to his house to follow through. Jim should have never pulled a gun. Nowadays, a cellphone with a video camera is a better weapon than a gun in cases like this. Video the confrontation and take the evidence to the cops if warranted.

Or, Jim could have turned and gone inside his house...if Jack(ass) followed inside, then I think the self-defense use of a firearm would be more in line with the situation...

[ConstantChange]

I have to side with Jim on this one. I doubt I'd ever shoot in a situation like that, but if I did, I'd shot to kill.

That's why I want 5-10 acres. I hate neighbors, HOA's, and shared property.

[Me2]

Originally Posted by G8rDMD

Jim should have minded his own business with the kids on the lake. However, if there were kids on my property throwing rocks at geese (or whatever), I'd have told them to get lost too. Jack is an ass for many, many reasons apparently, not the least of which is threatening to beat an 80+ year old man and then driving over to his house to follow through. Jim should have never pulled a gun. Nowadays, a cellphone with a video camera is a better weapon than a gun in cases like this. Video the confrontation and take the evidence to the cops if warranted.

Or, Jim could have turned and gone inside his house...if Jack(ass) followed inside, then I think the self-defense use of a firearm would be more in line with the situation...

I agree. Jim should have minded his own business or at least called the HOA and let them deal with the initial issue.

When the kids were on his property throwing rocks at the geese, Jim should have stayed inside, called the HOA and the police.

When Jack came on his property, Jim should have gone inside, locked the door and called the police. If Jack would have broken in Jim's house, then I think he would have had a right to shoot to kill.

[ConstantChange]

Originally Posted by G8rDMD

Jim should have minded his own business with the kids on the lake. However, if there were kids on my property throwing rocks at geese (or whatever), I'd have told them to get lost too. Jack is an ass for many, many reasons apparently, not the least of which is threatening to beat an 80+ year old man and then driving over to his house to follow through. Jim should have never pulled a gun. Nowadays, a cellphone with a video camera is a better weapon than a gun in cases like this. Video the confrontation and take the evidence to the cops if warranted.

I'm guessing Jim is from the old school where people don't go running to the cops or threaten to sue people over every thing. He handles it himself.

Originally Posted by G8rDMD

Or, Jim could have turned and gone inside his house...if Jack(ass) followed inside, then I think the self-defense use of a firearm would be more in line with the situation...

That's probably the best answer so far.

[ConstantChange]

Originally Posted by Me2

When the kids were on his property throwing rocks at the geese, Jim should have stayed inside, called the HOA and the police.

Are you kidding me? The police aren't babysitters.

[Millenium Vette]

Originally Posted by Flatbush Harry

Several stupid comments above. That said, any time you use a firearm for the purpose of "self-defense", you will be arrested and be sued. You'll have two probs...first, the DA. Depending on circumstances, you may be prosecuted, you may not....either way, you get to pay an attorney. Next, either the vic, or, if you follow the bad advice of some of the above posters, his/her heirs and assigns, will attempt a wealth transfer of every last feckin' thing you've got from you to them. As, in the case cited, it'll cost at least attorneys' fees and court costs and maybe a bunch more.

I have oft said that using a gun for self-defense is a very, very serious business...and this is but one facet of the business. The other (stipulating that you don't end up in prison or the poorhouse) is that you will have shot a fellow, at least partially, human being. You get to live with that.

FH, cereal

Originally Posted by Olustee bus

The sheriff did an investigation and no one was charged.

Jack, the one shot, sued Jim, the shooter. Jim wanted a Million dollars. There was a settlement of $125,000.

Now here is a man in his mid to late 80's facing this problem. His wife said it has ruined his life. I believe that. I used to see him out on the lake all the time. After that incident, I have seen him only once in 4 years. Sad to me.

What do you think about this situation as presented.

I would venture a guess that it was the homeowner's insurance company that decided to settle and pay the $125,000. Whether or not the dude that was shot deserved it or not doesn't matter, it is the insurance company who decides to fight or settle and $125,000 doesn't buy shit as far as a defense in a liability case.

My take is both sides used terrible judgement all along. Neither had a lick of common sense. The one dude is lucky that he isn't dead and the other dude is lucky that he wasn't charged with anything.

[xXBUDXx]

I bet Jack doesn't threaten an elderly man, again.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Millenium Vette

I would venture a guess that it was the homeowner's insurance company that decided to settle and pay the $125,000. Whether or not the dude that was shot deserved it or not doesn't matter, it is the insurance company who decides to fight or settle and $125,000 doesn't buy shit as far as a defense in a liability case.

My take is both sides used terrible judgement all along. Neither had a lick of common sense. The one dude is lucky that he isn't dead and the other dude is lucky that he wasn't charged with anything.

125 grand in 'legal fees' who in hell bullshitting WHO??

some damn lawyer making a case over nothing is going to retire for LIFE....

get a pool of money enough to fund a TV addy, and not do another day's work for life....

must be NICE>>>>>>

[Avette4me]

Originally Posted by xXBUDXx

I bet Jack doesn't threaten an elderly man, again.

Indeed...

[Uncle Pervey]

Maybe I have misunderstood the "Castle Doctrine" that exists in Texas and some other places. I was under the impression that you could not be prosecuted if you felt that you were being threatened and were protecting yourself and your property.
I guess not getting prosecuted doesn't prevent the asshole from filing a civil suit does it?
I don't know what I would have done, but if I felt threatened by someone and I was 80 years old, I'd shoot the mofo.