A home owner (defending him/herself from a burglar) should only ever be liable for criminal action, and NEVER civil action if he/she acts out of proportion to the burglars actions.Posted by: Zylorarchy
For the purpose of this poll, this excludes the home owner killing the burglar. This basically states that a home owner should not be liable to be sued by the Burglar even if the home owner seriously injures him or her as a result of reacting to the burglar out of proportion to the burglars' actions. The home owner, should only be criminally liable. Do you agree?
I agree with this statement
I disagree with this statement
I made this statement so obviously I agree with it. Someone who defends themselves but acts way out of the proportion to the attack should indeed be punished. But, why should the offender in this case, who has also invaded the home owners house with the intent to steal, gain any sort of remedy here? They should not have invaded that person’s home and it is their own fault they received said injuries. Why should they be entitled to anything? The home owner should be punished for inflicting serious injuries upon the burglar yes, but the burglar is also IN THE WRONG. Not to mention MOST extreme reactions are provoked by fear, fear that the home owner experiences… Is a home owner realistically going to ask him/herself, “Are my actions against this burglar reasonable?” No they are not, because they are scared of this illegal intrusion and often scare for their life. In my opinion, the burglar should not receive ANY money from the person they have committed the crime against as they provoked this fear. The state in this case should punish the home owner, but the Burglar should certainly not be the one who punishes the home owner when he or she initiated the whole chain of events. Hence a home owner who acts out of proportion should be criminally guilty, but not civilly liable.