Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Wrong House Halloween Disaster | Rodney Peairs / Yoshihiro Hattori Case Analysis" video.

I'm surprised and disappointed that he was acquitted, and agree he should have been convicted, but the way so many people are outraged by this is the other side of the same coin. You look to coerce and violently punish. There are too many people in jail. Locking up another human being is a violent act as well. I lived in a country where a conviction and a suspended sentence would have been the norm, with incarceration only if the person committed another offense during probation. That seems reasonable to me. Rodney was someone with no priors, and parents of young children are known to overreact easily, especially in the States. It's a shame, but they are human, too. Who knows why they were overwrought, or what experiences brought them to that state?
1
@kellyxu94 A jury acquitted him. Not clear why. No one attempted to enter his dwelling by force.
1
@logicalblackman8228 The analysis is correct. There was no attempt at break-in. Breaching the actual perimeter of the house when there are people inside gives rise to the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force. Being outside like these kids were doesn't.
1
@logicalblackman8228 Alleged perpetrator of what crime? Ringing a doorbell then leaving isn't trespass. Acting excited and goofy isn't either.
1
@logicalblackman8228 I don't defend Yoshi. Consider, however, the time line. The point is, there was no need for Rodney to put himself in a position where he could need to use deadly force, when avoiding it was easily accomplished. All he had to do was stay in the house, call 911, and have his firearm ready in case of physical breach of his dwelling. These are WELL KNOWN RULES of self-defense. If YOU voluntarily put yourself in a position where you may be more likely to need to use lethal force, then YOU could be civilly and/or criminally liable. In this case, Rodney was found liable in tort and lost his house. Your justification of Rodney is misleading, because he did end up being liable. Many self-defense laws create a defense against a civil judgment as well. Not what happened here. So, it's not just a matter of ethics.
1
@logicalblackman8228 What does the statute say in that state? Not every state has a confusing and potentially ambiguous "stand your ground" rule. Breaching an occupied structure, on the other hand, is generally very clear. A "bright line," as they say. If an acquittal in the criminal trial had meant he did nothing tortious, HE WOULD NOT HAVE SETTLED. He would have been immune under the law. This is frequently a matter of state statute. So, the fact that he settled certainly DOES matter. It's also common sense. Where you cannot be held liable, there is nothing TO settle, least of all to agree to give up your house.
1
@logicalblackman8228 No there is not.
1
@logicalblackman8228 Sounds like you're confusing burdens of proof, which pertain to evidence, with legal immunity, which, when it exists, leads to outright dismissal. These are entirely different points in the process. In any case, IF an acquittal had meant no violation of any law and no breach of any legal duty, then he would not have settled the civil suit. He would have gotten it dismissed.
1
@logicalblackman8228 Just as I thought. Motions to DISMISS come before discovery -- before the evidence to be presented to the jury is assembled. You're the one who doesn't know. Suppose someone attacks you. You defend yourself entirely within the law. Do you imagine they can now get hundreds of thousands of dollars out of you? Um, not usually, no. Neat scam, there are people who would do it. No, the issue is whether Rodney's wrong conduct was deserving of CRIMINAL punishment by the state (jury said no), or, by contrast, could nevertheless give rise to civil liability to the victim/victim's estate. Apparently the judge thought so, as the CIVIL action was allowed to proceed. If Rodney had breached no duty, there would have been no tort. No wrongful death. No excessive force claim.
1
@logicalblackman8228 Look up motions to dismiss, and when they are granted. I'm done here. Tiresome.
1
@logicalblackman8228 No, you don't understand. Rodney's wrong conduct did not rise to the level of a crime, but it did rise to the level of a tort. Conduct (some) people condemn as immoral may be criminal, or it may be tortious, or it may not give rise to ANY liability under the law whatsoever. Rodney's conduct was judged not to be criminal but could have been tortious (a purely civil wrong). So, he couldn't get the civil case dismissed. He had to settle. Sorry.
1
@logicalblackman8228 If you are "JUSTIFIED," how do you lose your house? This is tiresome.
1
@logicalblackman8228 Are you thinking of OJ, or something? EDIT: In the OJ case, the issue was to prove that OJ (and not someone else) committed the wrongful acts, not whether the acts themselves were wrongful. The jury decided that there was not enough evidence to prove OJ committed the wrongful acts beyond reasonable doubt. There was enough to prove OJ committed them by a preponderance of the evidence. No way were the acts "justified." This case stands for the principle that not every tortious act rises to the level of a crime. People can make a mistake without going to jail. You're trying to say Rodney made no mistake at all. That's misleading. Yes he did. That's why he lost his house.
1
@logicalblackman8228 If you did nothing wrong, nothing at all, then a suit can't go forward. It will be dismissed as a matter of law. It won't get to burdens of proof. "Tort" means wrong. Look it up.
1
@Jimmy911ism I thought he settled. That was the premise. I don't know if it is the case; we presumed it was, for the sake of argument. I agree with your point, you're absolutely right. However, in this case the bare facts are not in dispute. If there were no way to find him liable as a matter of law, the case could not go to a jury. It would be dismissed. So, no trial, no settlement. There has to be a reasonable way to argue that he did wrong as a matter of law -- gross negligence, recklessness, something. Some breach of a legal duty, not just moral. Otherwise there's no case. There's nothing to try. Here's a contrast: suppose I wake up to find that a stranger broke into my house and is assaulting me. I reach under the bed, grab my gun, and shoot him. He recovers and is now in a wheelchair. If he sues me, the case will be dismissed with prejudice -- and he may have to pay my lawyer. That's because as a matter of law, I did absolutely nothing wrong. The state can prosecute him, and I can sue him, and both are viable lawsuits. His suit against me isn't. There's no legal ground for it at all. No jury gets to hear it. This is true even if he were drunk and honestly thought we were married.
1