Quote Originally Posted by Ragoczy View Post
Ah, but keep in mind civil, rather than criminal, liability.

Shame on the business owner who didn't ensure his air ducts would support the weight of the criminal robbing him in the night by crawling through the air conditioning system ... he must pay the medical bills.

Shame on the property owner who put up a barbed-wire fence, injuring the poor, misguided wretch who only wanted to steal enough to buy a bit of drugs (he's addicted and can't help himself, you know) ... pain and suffering damages awarded.

Shame on the homeowner who shot and killed the teenager who'd just broken through his door carrying a gun ... that poor boy's family is bereaved and deserves compensation.
Ahh, yes, all too true, I'm afraid. Part of the vagaries of the jury system. If that businessman had had jurors who were also businessmen, the outcome might have been different, I'm sure. But juries today feel that insurance companies will pay the costs anyway, so no harm done.

And I have yet to figure out how a person who was not criminally responsible for committing a crime could be held financially responsible. The OJ Simpson murder case comes to mind. If he was not guilty of killing the two people, how can he be held financially liable? Doesn't make sense to me.

And, of course, I can countersue the guy who damaged my barbed wire fence, forcing me to pay for biological clean up to remove his carelessly spilled blood, couldn't I?

Truth is, I don't know if any of those examples you noted would hold up on appeals.