Family of electrocuted thief gets $75,000

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 2-25-2003 | DAN ROZEK

[goldstategop]

Crime Pays Jury Verdict Alert.

[The Old Hoosier]

I feel for the victim of this verdict, but this is a very good point: "You can't set these type of traps because property isn't worth a human life," Winters said, adding that the booby traps might just as easily have been tripped by firefighters or police officers answering an emergency call at the bar.

[The Old Hoosier]

I mean the second part of the quote: "the booby traps might just as easily have been tripped by firefighters or police officers answering an emergency call at the bar.

[ECM]

Um, if the police or firemen were answering a call, there'd either a. be someone there to disable the system or b. the police probably wouldn't be high on coke and would be able to read, therefore avoiding a nasty shock.

[goldstategop]

I agree with the principle. Its the application of it in this particular situation that happens to suck.

[goldstategop]

Yup. Not sure I want a crazed cokehead inside my home, period.

[Cagey]

The chances of someone being there to disarm the 'booby trap' during a fire are pretty low since most fires occur after hours at these places. And, firefighters don't look for alarm signs when answering a call.

[Kryptonite]

How can the family recover when the thief was more responsible than anyone else? And even assuming Illinois is a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, wouldn't that verdict be reduced by 50% - the amount the thief was responsible for? Poor reporting on this outrageous verdict.

[ECM]

That's a bit specious, dont you think? YOu're saying firefighters throw all caution to the wind in an emergency?

I don't think so.

But since I have a friend in the NYFD (and his father and brother) I'll ask him and see if he agrees with that statement.

[Lee Heggy]

"property isn't worth a human life,"

This is true if there are traps set but if there is an armed guard or home owner with a shotgun does it still apply?

[boris]

Hold muh cocaine?

[longtermmemmory]

Would not a sober fireman read the signs? It was an abuse of the judge to not allow for the fact that the perpetrator was high on coke and whatever else. His intoxication contributed to his death. This is no different that the DWI driver who pleads innocent because he was drunk at the time and his thoughts were impared. A defense that is prohibited.

What happened to laws that you could not benefit from the commission of a criminal act. This fool and his family should not be able to benefit from the criminal act.

The fact no jury would convict the business owner is a seperate issue.

[hauerf]

If a firefighter or policeman had been injured or killed, then that person's family could have sued. For this worthless turd, the result of the trial should have been that his family pay the defendants' court costs. While we're at it, their lawyer should have been reprimanded for introducing BS hypotheticals that did not in fact occur.

[neutrino]

because property isn't worth a human life

That depends on the life and the property. In my opinion.

[goldstategop]

I believe human life is precious. It can never be replaced which is why we can never defend property with deadly force even from a criminal. But we do have the right to defend ourselves and loved ones with deadly force from harm from some one who wants us gone from this life.

[tesshu]

I dont think that you could define it as a trap. Isnt a trap
something that is hidden and not declared? The signs outside declared that the security system was in place and dangerous. If so, then this system can be no different than barbed-wire fences, constenteine (sp?) wire, guard dogs, etc. So why is this case any different?

[SquirrelKing]

Grandfather was and Dad and brother are firefighters. One thing I've learned: One of the first thing that happens in a fire is that the power goes out. Poof.

[ClearCase_guy]

I think your point is very good. If the establishment is on fire, then a firefighter has a perfect right to enter it. Even to bring an axe and start chopping. Everyone recognizes that firefighters can do things that are denied to the man in the street.

Burglars do not have such permission. By clearly doing something that he was not allowed to do, I would say that the Burglar, and his family, lost any right to sue for damages.

But the judge sees it differently.

[You Dirty Rats]

Lethal security systems are flat-out wrong. This was a good verdict.

Had this been a home and a thief broke into the home at night, the occupants would have rightfully feared for their lives; this is why they can justifiably use deadly force.

Whoever set the trap is in my opinion lucky that they got off with only a civil judgment. This was negligent homicide.