[FRIZ]

The Washington Times
Published February 28, 2004

The high cost of self-defense
Editorial

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040227-081452-2302r.htm

Few cases better illustrate how our legal system sometimes stands justice on its head like the case of Tony and Matt Geckle -- small-business owners now being sued by the estate of a man they killed as he was attempting to rob them.
Their story is as follows: Sometime after closing on Friday night, March 16 and Saturday night, March 17, 2001, thieves broke into Back River Supply's Glyndon plant, owned by the Geckle brothers. They made off with equipment, including saws, a laser and a fax machine. Most ominously, they took a gun.
Matt and Tony called the police and filled out the requisite reports. On March 18, they tried to install a security camera, but could not get it to work. Matt (who told the Baltimore Sun he was worried that the burglars would steal the company computers, which were needed to operate the plant) decided that he would stay over on Sunday night to drive off the burglars if they decided to come back for a third evening in a row. Tony reluctantly agreed, and the pair brought their rifles with them.
Early on the morning of March 19, the burglars returned. Tony, armed and standing guard, ordered them to stop, but says the intruders ran toward him in the darkness. He fired, hitting all three burglars; one, Jonathan Steinbach, 24, died of his wounds. A Baltimore County grand jury heard the case and decided against indicting the Geckle brothers.
That should have been the end of it. Unfortunately, Steinbach's estate has filed a lawsuit demanding $13 million from the Geckles and Back River Supply. The lawsuit contends that the burglar's 4-year-old child has suffered because of his father's death. While this is undoubtedly true, it is absurd to claim that the Geckles or their company are responsible for this; the fault lies with Steinbach, who chose the wrong line of work.
In Annapolis, Del. Carmen Amedori, Carroll County Republican, has introduced legislation that would effectively make frivolous lawsuits by intruders like Steinbach and his associates impossible. This is a sensible way to ensure that businessmen like the Geckle brothers do not become targets of such legal harassment in the future.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

When order breaks down, we must regulate common sense.

[Samurai Penguin]

Has anyone thought of countersuits?

Scenario: Harry Housebreaker attempts a B&E when Joe Citizen catches him in the act. Harry jumps Joe and finds himself with a fatal case of acute .40 caliber lead poisoning. :D

Bottom-feeding lawyer for Housebreaker family sues Joe for one million dollars. :fire:

Joe gets his own lawyer on the case and countersues on the grounds of emotional distress and violations of his civil rights(hey, it worked in the OJ civil suit!)or something, for two million dollars. :neener:

IANAL, but I wonder if that might not work...fight fire with fire, so to speak.

(P.S....7.62, I stole your Marx parody. Hope you don't mind!)

[Dannyboy]

The sad part is that since it's Maryland, the good guys will probably lose, thus bankrupting them and focing them out of business.

[CarlS]

Has anyone thought of countersuits?
That scumbag probably had little in his estate. That would mean the good guys would have to pay for the cost of the litigation up front. With little hope of actually collecting anything even if they won, most lawyers would demand payment upfront.

Now a law that had losers of a filed suit absorb all court costs and the defendants' legal costs would cut down on frivilous lawsuits. However since most politicians are/were lawyers...

[dustind]

Someone should set up a counter bogus suit fund. Anyone who is sued for a ridiculous reason can have their legal costs paid for by the fund.

It would do two things. It would defend the innocent against bottom feeders, and it would end ridiculous lawsuits almost overnight. Who would try to sue a store because a lady was injured by tripping over her own child when they knew they would be up against a competent defense?

[Standing Wolf]

The lawsuit contends that the burglar's 4-year-old child has suffered because of his father's death.

I contend that there's at least one lawyer too many walking around on the loose.

[BowStreetRunner]

Standing Wolf,
there is more than one lawyer too many walking around loose, this coming from a future lawyer
BSR

[316SS]

I don't like the idea of legislation that prohibits lawsuits by virtue of the class to which the parties might belong, i.e. gun manufacturers, illegal intruders, etc. Its too complicated, and requires a new law every time a different group is unfairly targeted.

The problem with countersuits is that there is significant cost in countersuing, and as Carl S notes, not enough to gain. Trial lawyers initiate suits against "deep pockets" because when they win, they win big and actually see some money.

Here's what I propose:
Develop a standard of frivolity in civil litigation (maybe one exists?). If a case is thrown out of court as being frivolous, the wronged party would automatically be entitled to recompensation of costs and even punitive damages, by virtue of the frivolous nature of the suit brought against them.

Best of all, the renumeration would be levied, proportionally, against the original complaintant and the law firm bringing suit. Trial lawyers would be risking a lot more than their time spent to bring a frivolous suit to court.

316SS

[CarlS]

Here's what I propose:
Develop a standard of frivolity in civil litigation (maybe one exists?). If a case is thrown out of court as being frivolous, the wronged party would automatically be entitled to recompensation of costs and even punitive damages, by virtue of the frivolous nature of the suit brought against them.

Best of all, the renumeration would be levied, proportionally, against the original complaintant and the law firm bringing suit. Trial lawyers would be risking a lot more than their time spent to bring a frivolous suit to court.

Sounds like a great idea to me, 316SS. Now how who we get lawyer/politicians to actually pass a tort reform that would cut down on lining their pockets?

[Zundfolge]

I don't like the idea of legislation that prohibits lawsuits by virtue of the class to which the parties might belong, i.e. gun manufacturers, illegal intruders, etc. Its too complicated, and requires a new law every time a different group is unfairly targeted.

I agree ... the simple solution is to make a law that states that you forfeit any right to sue if injury or death occurs while you (or in the case of death, your family member) are in the commission of a felony.


Here's what I propose:
Develop a standard of frivolity in civil litigation (maybe one exists?). If a case is thrown out of court as being frivolous, the wronged party would automatically be entitled to recompensation of costs and even punitive damages, by virtue of the frivolous nature of the suit brought against them.

Best of all, the renumeration would be levied, proportionally, against the original complaintant and the law firm bringing suit. Trial lawyers would be risking a lot more than their time spent to bring a frivolous suit to court.

The problem is in determining what is "frivolous" ... remember we live in an age where we fight over what the definition of "is" is. This would kill any second amendment defensive suits because all you need is an anti judge to decide that the second amendment is a collective right and you idiotic gun nuts trying to establish it as an individual right are engaged in "frivolous" legal action.

The biggest problem with any sort of looser pays system is that the little guy will be afraid to take on someone who is wealthier then him because of the fear he may lose and be stuck with millions in legal bills (or a judge may decide their claim is frivolous and they will be stuck with millions in legal bills).

[StuporDave]

The lawsuit contends that the burglar's 4-year-old child has suffered because of his father's death.

The kid has suffered because he no longer has a burglar and thief as the major roll model in his life.

I'm sorry the kid lost his father, but if the father had not been committing a felony, he wouldn't be dead.

The kid is now being taught that people shouldn't hurt you if you steal their stuff. And if they do hurt you, they should be punished. Great lesson there, mr. lawyer.

Dave

[foghornl]

My take on this:

If the Grand Jury, D.A., etc decides it is a "no-bill" case, end of discussion. No suits from the family of the deceased miscreant.