just like that silly law we have in CA.  If someone breaks into your house, and you unload on them....as they are attempting to get away from you, then YOU go to jail. 

Hell, if someone is in my house illegally, i dont care what the consequences are...i will protect my family first, protect my fellow citizens second, hell, I would even protect an anti 2nd amendment lib, before i attempt to protect someone who just broke into my house.

Laws are made to protect law abiding citizens.  When criminals actually benefit from policies put in place by the government, one has to think where do our politicians'  intentions lie

I am not sure what context to put the report. We can sue for virtually anything. I can sue you for your dog dumping in my yard. Whether the courts will hear the case or whether I will win is a different matter.

Despite what you hear, a jury is unlikely to reward a criminal for damages when the damages would not have occurred if the jerk behaved himself and not committed a crime. A jury (in theory, anyway) brings an element of common sense to the courtroom that affronts arrogant lawyers and judges. A jury decision is the law. For a lot of legal professionals, this is too much power for common people who don't have the intellect and sophistication of law school.

Maybe this is why you don't hear of a judge giving instructions saying, "By the way, your word is literally law."

catpaw....im not sure you fully understand the meaning of the law here in CA about shooting someone fleeing your residence

A guy i grew up with shot a man who broke into his house, but was fleeing out the window at the time he was shot.  the bullet hit him in the foot.  the robber then sued the homeowner claiming disability to his foot...AND WON...plus the guy i grew up with was convicted of felony, because as per the law, "if you are not in immediate danger, fearing for your life, " you cannot shoot someone.  the robber was leaving his residence.

thats they way it went down...hence the name of this blog

And in Fla. a guy booby-trapped his a/c duct with a live electric wire. The would-be burglar died. The owner was aquited because he didn't intend to kill anybody.

A guy in La. waited outside a courtroom with a gun and killed the molester of his son with a shot to the head. He could no longer own a gun and had to attend therapy.

An inmate strangled another inmate who killed a family member. Acquited as justifiable homicide.

Here in Kern Cnty. a woman shot her live-in in the back after he beat her. Acquited on a hung jury.

Were I on your friend's jury, I probably would have held for acquital on the principles I stated, regardless of the judge's instructions. You see it on unrealistic cop shows all the time, lawyer saying, "You must acquit/find guilty." No--the jury can vote because they like/dislike the defendant's hair style.

i would have too catpaw...but, with the juries i have been on in the past (more than 10) many people dont see things like you and me

one instance...and I was the FOREPERSON on this one...the charge was that the guy was convicted of methanphetamine possession with intent to sell, and he DIDNT show up for his sentencing...that was what it was for...whether or not he did or did not show up for his sentencing...which he didnt

4 of those effers on the jury with me, the minute we got back to the jury room, started crying, "oh oh he's innocent"