concealed carry

Interesting...

The burglar and the skylight: another debunking that isn’t

by Ted Frank on September 25, 2006
Bizarro-Overlawyered is upset about the fact that a legislator, over twenty years ago, mentioned a lawsuit involving “a burglar [that] fell through a skylight and injured himself only to recover thousands of dollars from the owner of the skylight,” and points to this MS Word account of the case of Bodine v. Enterprise High School to debunk the tale. Those dastardly reformers, misrepresenting the facts once again! (Of course, there are several thousand posts on Overlawyered over the last seven years, and not a one before today mentions this case, so it’s hardly central to the reform movement. It doesn’t appear on the ATRA website, either. But why split hairs when there’s a chance to demonize reformers?)
Except if one actually goes to the document, buried within a lot of rhetoric criticizing reformers for mentioning the Bodine lawsuit, we learn: Ricky Bodine was a 19-year-old high-school graduate who, with three other friends (one of whom had a criminal record), decided the night of March 1, 1982, to steal a floodlight from the roof of the Enterprise High School gymnasium. Ricky climbed the roof, removed the floodlight, lowered it to the ground to his friends, and, as he was walking across the roof (perhaps to steal a second floodlight), he fell through the skylight. Bodine suffered terrible injuries to be sure, though one questions the relevance: if the school is legally responsible for burglars’ safety, it doesn’t matter whether Bodine stubbed a toe or, as actually happened, became a spastic quadriplegic. But I fail to see what it is that reformers are supposedly misrepresenting. A burglar fell through a skylight, and sued the owner of the skylight for his injuries. Bodine sued for $8 million (in 1984 dollars, about $16 million today) and settled for the nuisance sum of $260,000 plus $1200/month for life, about the equivalent of a million dollars in conservatively-estimated 2006 present value.
In other words, a burglar fell through a skylight, and blamed the skylight’s owners for his injuries; because the law permits such suits, and because the law does not compensate defendants for successful defenses, Bodine had the ability to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayers for injuries suffered in the course of his own criminal behavior. Bodine’s only hope of recovery is the law’s rejection of proximate cause as prerequisite to liability. Assemblyman Alister McAlister, the Democratic legislator who used the story to push for reform, described the facts correctly. McAllister didn’t mention that Bodine was 19, but so what? He didn’t mention that Bodine was 6′1″ and a waiter, either, and all three facts are irrelevant. Lilliedoll accuses McAlister of falsely claiming that the legal theory was “failure to warn,” but that’s hardly an inaccurate description of a duty-to-trespassers theory: the alleged duty could have been fulfilled by posting visible warnings to trespassers of the dangers of traversing the roof.
Were the skylights safe? Perhaps not; there had been other accidents (all involving trespassers) at other schools, though not long enough before Bodine’s accident for a school bureaucracy to have time to react. But, for most people’s sense of justice, that is hardly relevant: Bodine had no business being on the roof in the first place. In the words of anti-reformer Justinian Lane, “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”
If this is the best the anti-reformers can do to point out “distortions” in the reform movement, I’d say we’re doing a pretty good job. (Earlier in the series: Sep. 17; Sep. 18). And once again, the only people misrepresenting anything are the supporters of the litigation lobby, who once again fail to honestly engage with the reform position in their efforts to rebut it.

 

What is the point of this post (which is a repost if you bother to follow links) on the topic of concealed carry?

Bolding some reported statements means..... Maybe by shooting the kid after he fell through a skylight this could have been avoided?

 

I dont know why the article was posted in full, but as to the relevance of this to the discussion, people were starting to talk about using a firearm in self defense and the possibility of negative legal/civil reprucussions. In doing so, several posters referred to the 'burglar who fell through the skylight, and sued' case as their example.

I was simply sorting through the bs and mis-information being put out.

 

I understood the rationale behind your post, and it's relevance to the discussion - just not the repost and emphasized sections dealing with nothing pertaining to concealed carry or the legalities associated. Unless, as I suggested, the correlation between the two was to shoot the intruder.

Your post served to clear up BS. The repost just added to it.

 

I was talking about the open carrier being the focus of my attention if I were to be robbing a store or something and saw you with a gun on your side.
Also, people who commit armed robbery very often end up shooting at people in the process.
Lastly, your opinion of what the armed robber is thinking make me wonder about you personally, just a bit. I would much rather have it hidden.

 

Can't say I argue with that at all- article states that the laws in Colorado clearly prohibit the use of deadly force to protect property. Those guys are probably lucky that they didn't get indicted.

Just my opinion, but its stupid to camp out at your business planning to ambush someone who is stealing stuff. I undersrtand that is someone's livelihood, but thats also what you have insurance for. Not worth killing for.

Back to the story, its highly unlikely that these guys will actually pay that judgement, so its little more than a symbolic victory for the tweaker's family.

 

It is ok and some states agree

 

I'm with you. The "hero" was an idiot. There is no excuse for bringing firearms into the equation in this situation, all that he was losing was his stuff.

Call the plates in to 911? Sure. But let the officers arrest thieves, don't go vigilante when your life isn't at risk. That's ridiculous.

On the other hand, I do carry on certain occasions. I don't choose to carry every single day; I don't think I need to. If something happens that carrying would have prevented, well, lots of things can happen in our daily lives.

A big exception for me is all the backwoods camping I do. If I'm in a large enough group, no big deal. I usually bring some bear mace regardless, as it works great on 2 and 4 leggers. However, in some of the more deserted areas when it's just me and a buddy where police and cell service are just plain far away, I'll carry. I realize I'm less likely to encounter somebody up to no good, but I'm also much less likely to have any other recourse.

So far, no problems.

I do, by the way, completely resent this, and I'm not even from Alabama, I just live here. You sound like the brits and canadians that think every corner of America has a gun fight.

"Stuff like this" is not common in "backwoods Alabama", and Birmingham is a metropolitan area of a bit over a million or so people, not "backwoods".

 

I also think what they had going against them is the fact that they pursued the thief after he ran away thus proving there was no threat or danger in their well being but they took his life anyway. At that point it looks more like revenge IMHO. I know here in NC I would be well in my right to fire upon someone who broke into my home but if said bullet went from their back to front I very well may be in deep doodoo since it will look as if the perp was trying to flee when I fired thus taking away the "I was in fear of my life" defense.
I have a ccw and to be honest I do not carry as often as I should just out of pure laziness. If I am carrying concealed I do just that which choosing your clothing needs to become part of the thought process to really be sure that your weapon is concealed which is where I become lazy. I do not want to show in any way that I am carrying for fear of becoming a target before I even know I am the target which is why I would never carry open carry. More often than not the weapon is in the center console of my truck though especially if my wife and daughter are with me. It's usually on the road where you encounter the most @ssholes who want to try and prove something. The gun will always be a last resort but it does give me peace of mind knowing it's there if god forbid the need for it were to arise. I'm willing to throw down with the biggest and baddest even if I know I will take a beating but if they come out brandishing a weapon well, than that just brings it to a whole other thought process.

 

Just another thought for those thinking about carrying open or concealed. If you are not comfortable carrying a firearm with a round piped you may want to re-think carrying at all. I just bring this up as I know a couple guys who do carry concealed but they never ever have a round chambered which kind of defeats the purpose in my opinion. If it comes down to needing to draw that weapon for self defense the extra time spent to chamber that first round will more than likely be all the extra time needed to make the weapon useless and possibly a threat to yourself. Just a little food for thought.

 

For about the first 2 or 3 weeks I was carrying I didn't carry chambered. Then I saw the video of the guy in Ohio at the gas station who got attacked. He was on an Ohio concealed carry forum and said that if he hadn't of had a round chambered, there would of been no way he could of chambered a round. From then on, I've had one in the pipe.

 

I have a Fl cwp and I do carry, never had to pull it but have pulled the jacket back in a bad spot and the person went the other way, A gun is not a toy if you have to pull it you have to be ready to use it. there will be no time to think it over.. Just my 2c worth... Jim

 

I carry everyday pretty much every where I go. Just knowing that I can protect myself in an effective manner calms my nerves. I've been in alot of fist fights and just knowing I have a firearm on me keeps me from getting in that state of defense (adreneline and tunnel vision) and allows me to make sound judgements. I really stay very calm and keep my distance from most all situations. I've had several confrontations with people and dogs and its turned out for the better simply because I remained focused, plus I dont want to use a firearm unless it was absolutly a last ditch resort.

 

I do not carry regularly. I like to have the option, depending on where I am headed. I think that it is easy to overestimate how much safety is gained from carrying. Possessing a weapon and effectively using a weapon are not the same thing. Furthermore, I think that many people underestimate the importance of using good judgement and observation to mitigate risk regardless of whether the are carrying or not. I am always keeping track of who is around me and where my exits are, and when things get a little tight, I extricate myself from them.

Re: open carry. Just a thought, I think a lot of people are sensitive to the fact that open carrying makes you a bigger threat and thus a target for criminals. I think that this line of thinking is accurate but I also wonder about the net benefit to our communities of open carrying. When a criminal observes a person open carrying they have two options, either remove the threat or cede the fight and move on. In the first instance, because the criminal has the initiative, the open carrier is dead (gross negative for public safety) and the crime proceeds (net negative). If the criminal moves on (gross positive), it is likely he will pursue another target of opportunity (net neutral). Conceal carry on the other hand introduces a small but pervasive doubt about prospects for success of criminal conduct which any criminal must consider. Weapons carriers too have an slightly increased likelihood of survival and corresponding opportunities to catch the bad guy, either today or in the future.

I have never heard this argument against open carry, I can imagine some of you guys see it different...I would love your feed back.

 

We have open carry in Ga. but I dont OC myself. I would rather not let anybody know I carry. But, I often times use an OWB holster and even though my shirt/jacket is covering I still print, that doesnt really bother me.

 

I have heard this argument about open carry a lot actually. It is a very good and accurate argument against open carry. Showing that you do have a firearm gives a potential criminal a reason to either step away and find a new victim, or escalate force towards you.

I carry concealed everyday and I know the time and place to show force...Most situations will not escalate to that and can be diffused without the show of force. And I know in Oregon, it is a "shall-issue" state so if you want your CCW, you can get it (as long as your not a felon). But open carry is legal as well. Although it makes it hard with oregon courts ruling that your car is a public place...but thats a whole other argument...

And, its good to read up on the "30-foot rule" too. If you do feel that your life is in danger and the criminal has just an edged weapon or something, read up and watch videos on this. Its an eye opener!

And just agreeing with everyone else, if you don't feel comfortable with a condition 1 (round in chamber) weapon and/or you don't trust your own judgement, DON'T CARRY. You're just going to create a liability for yourself and compromise the safety of others.