Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scott5114]

I think intentionally inflicting serious bodily harm on someone would make you a bad person, whether or not it's legal on a technicality.

[J N Winkler]

Only if it's illegal for me to open my door if I'm sitting stopped in traffic. Which, to my knowledge, it isn't.

In the UK you are required to check that nothing is in the way before you open a car door.  "Dooring" (opening a car door into the path of a cyclist) is therefore automatically the fault of the person in the car.  I haven't checked, but I suspect that many, perhaps most, US states have a similar provision in law.

[kphoger]

I just looked up what lane splitting is and yikes, is that dangerous. That should not be legal anywhere, what a horrendous idea.

I see people do it occasionally, what a bad idea.

Until you see it in practice during stopped traffic on the Bay Bridge.  Totally saves time and is probably the sole reason you see sports bikes during commute hours in general around San Francisco.

Yeah, it's insanely dangerous...if you do it at 70 mph. If it's happening in the middle of a pack of cars rolling along at 10 mph I don't see why there's much reason to disallow it.

Which is precisely the type of traffic in which lane splitting is permitted in California.  Allow me to re-post a portion of the official analysis of the actual bill that legalized lane splitting in California:

AB 51
BILL ANALYSIS
April 6, 2015

SUBJECT:  Vehicles:  motorcycles:  lane splitting

A 2014 study published by the University of California at Berkeley, in collaboration with OTS and CHP, found that lane splitting can be done safely when riders are travelling only slightly faster than surrounding traffic.  [...]  Specifically, the bill expressly authorizes lane splitting under two conditions: when the speed of traffic moving in the same direction does not exceed 30 mph; and the motorcycle is not driven more than 10 mph faster than the speed of traffic.

[vdeane]

If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.

In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.

[NWI_Irish96]

If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.

In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.

Yes, but in some states if multiple people break into my house and I shoot and kill one of them, the other intruders can be charged with murder, so make sure to shoot intruders before they have the change to injure themselves.

[kphoger]

However, if someone is committing an illegal act (lane splitting) then wouldn't they be liable for their own law-breaking and reaping the consequences thereof?

Fault isn't always assigned in increments of 100%.  For example, the last time I had a fender bender, the other party was determined to be 80% at fault and I to be 20% at fault.

[JayhawkCO]

If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.

In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.

This is an issue in Colorado right now as one of the 14ers (peaks over 14,000 feet), Mount Lindsey, is partially on private property and the land owner has closed the summit because there was a ruling that, if someone got hurt on his property, he was liable. By putting up the "No Trespassing" signs, he absolves himself of responsibility if someone broke the law to climb it.

[webny99]

If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.

In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.

This is an issue in Colorado right now as one of the 14ers (peaks over 14,000 feet), Mount Lindsey, is partially on private property and the land owner has closed the summit because there was a ruling that, if someone got hurt on his property, he was liable. By putting up the "No Trespassing" signs, he absolves himself of responsibility if someone broke the law to climb it.

I think this is the same logic behind "no swimming" signs at some NY state parks, most (in)famously, Lakeside Beach State Park. But I would think "swim at your own risk" (which would be my preference) would also absolve the state of any responsibility, so I'm not sure why it's necessary to prohibit it altogether.

[kphoger]

If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.

In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.

Yes, but in some states if multiple people break into my house and I shoot and kill one of them, the other intruders can be charged with murder, so make sure to shoot intruders before they have the change to injure themselves.

Alternatively...  if one of a group of intruders injures himself in your house, immediately shoot to kill in order to shift the blame.

[abefroman329]

If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.

In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.

Yes, but in some states if multiple people break into my house and I shoot and kill one of them, the other intruders can be charged with murder, so make sure to shoot intruders before they have the change to injure themselves.

Alternatively...  if one of a group of intruders injures himself in your house, immediately shoot to kill in order to shift the blame.

"shoot to wound" is a myth.

[formulanone]

If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.

In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.

Yes, but in some states if multiple people break into my house and I shoot and kill one of them, the other intruders can be charged with murder, so make sure to shoot intruders before they have the change to injure themselves.

Alternatively...  if one of a group of intruders injures himself in your house, immediately shoot to kill in order to shift the blame.

"shoot to wound" is a myth.

Lots of people have said this anecdote over the years, but I have yet to find any actual successful examples that didn't have some underlying circumstances (for example, setting up a trap).

[abefroman329]

If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.

In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.

Yes, but in some states if multiple people break into my house and I shoot and kill one of them, the other intruders can be charged with murder, so make sure to shoot intruders before they have the change to injure themselves.

Alternatively...  if one of a group of intruders injures himself in your house, immediately shoot to kill in order to shift the blame.

"shoot to wound" is a myth.

Lots of people have said this anecdote over the years, but I have yet to find any actual successful examples that didn't have some underlying circumstances (for example, setting up a trap).

The explanation I've heard is that "shoot to wound" doesn't mean the target is immediately immobilized like it does in movies and TV shows, and you may end up in a situation where the person you've shot-to-wound has an adrenaline surge and is a bigger danger than they were before you shot them.

Source: A guy who's fired a gun on exactly one occasion

[formulanone]

If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.

In at least many states (if not nationally), one actually can be held liable in such a scenario.

Yes, but in some states if multiple people break into my house and I shoot and kill one of them, the other intruders can be charged with murder, so make sure to shoot intruders before they have the change to injure themselves.

Alternatively...  if one of a group of intruders injures himself in your house, immediately shoot to kill in order to shift the blame.

"shoot to wound" is a myth.

Lots of people have said this anecdote over the years, but I have yet to find any actual successful examples that didn't have some underlying circumstances (for example, setting up a trap).

The explanation I've heard is that "shoot to wound" doesn't mean the target is immediately immobilized like it does in movies and TV shows, and you may end up in a situation where the person you've shot-to-wound has an adrenaline surge and is a bigger danger than they were before you shot them.

Source: A guy who's fired a gun on exactly one occasion

Yeah, that's what I've heard too: psychologically, the one with nothing left to lose is potentially more dangerous.

My point was about successfully suing a homeowner during breaking and entering, et cetera.

[abefroman329]

My point was about successfully suing a homeowner during breaking and entering, et cetera.

Oh. 

Well, the thing about sensationalist headlines such as "movie theater where Aurora mass shooting took place sues victims of shooting" is that they actually mean that there's a dispute over liability going on between insurance carriers.  So, if you hear a story about a robber suing the owner of the home they broke into, then it's probably something along those lines.

[J N Winkler]

The "shoot to wound" phrase calls to mind East German border guards trying to claim at trial that what they were doing was somehow acceptable because they were told to aim for the legs rather than center mass.

[formulanone]

My point was about successfully suing a homeowner during breaking and entering, et cetera.

Oh. 

Well, the thing about sensationalist headlines such as "movie theater where Aurora mass shooting took place sues victims of shooting" is that they actually mean that there's a dispute over liability going on between insurance carriers.  So, if you hear a story about a robber suing the owner of the home they broke into, then it's probably something along those lines.

I recall one down in South Florida some decades ago where the storeowners had somehow hooked up a lethal amount of voltage to a metal frame. Crooks had broken in through the roof and one of them was electrocuted on his way out. So this supposedly brought up some sort of lawsuit, but I can't find a resulting decision in a case...perhaps someone knows how to look that up?

(Wow, that was much older than I thought.)

[J N Winkler]

I recall one down in South Florida some decades ago where the storeowners had somehow hooked up a lethal amount of voltage to a metal frame. Crooks had broken in through the roof and one of them was electrocuted on his way out. So this supposedly brought up some sort of lawsuit, but I can't find a resulting decision in a case...perhaps someone knows how to look that up?

The precedent that is usually cited nationally is a 1971 Iowa Supreme Court decision to the effect that mantraps do not enjoy protection at law.  I would therefore expect the store owners to be found liable, but this is Florida . . .

Edit:  The shopowner involved is named Prentice Rasheed.  I don't know if he was sued in civil court, but he went free in 1986 when a grand jury refused to return a true bill for manslaughter.  The Orlando Sentinel reported in 1991 that he was still trying to pay off $200,000 in legal fees.

[abefroman329]

I'm probably in the minority on this, but I don't think B&E should be punishable by immediate, extrajudicial execution.

[kkt]

I'm probably in the minority on this, but I don't think B&E should be punishable by immediate, extrajudicial execution.

I agree. So we may be a minority but at least it's not a minority of one.

[TheHighwayMan394]

We had a case in central Minnesota a number of years ago where a man was found guilty of torturing and murdering two kids he caught burglarizing his house, with the court finding it went beyond the scope of the Castle doctrine. Of course, a bunch of people found this outrageous, stating basically "if we catch them in our house we should be free to do whatever awful things we wish to them".

[abefroman329]

We had a case in central Minnesota a number of years ago where a man was found guilty of torturing and murdering two kids he caught burglarizing his house, with the court finding it went beyond the scope of the Castle doctrine. Of course, a bunch of people found this outrageous, stating basically "if we catch them in our house we should be free to do whatever awful things we wish to them".

Yeah, I believe there was a somewhat-similar case in Oklahoma where a homeowner shot some intruders in the back while fleeing and also tried to argue castle doctrine.  Not sure if it worked for them, though.