http://www.gazetteextra.com/prochaska061307.asp
Burglar pursues suit against doctor who shot him

(Published Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:49:01 AM CST)

By Mike DuPre'
Gazette staff

Convicted burglar Kurt Prochaska is proceeding with his lawsuit against the doctor who shot him after he broke into the doctor's house.

On Tuesday, Judge James Welker scheduled a jury trial to start March 31, 2008. Both sides anticipated a trial of three to four days.

Prochaska, 39, was sentenced in March to eight years in prison and four years of extended supervision for burglary and felony criminal damage for breaking into Michael Rainiero's home on Linden Avenue on Halloween night 2005.

Prochaska actually fell through the ceiling of Rainiero's home after he had torn off a roof vent in what he claimed was an attempt to enter the home to use the bathroom.

A jury didn't buy Prochaska's story.

Rainiero shot Prochaska once in the back in what Rock County District Attorney David O'Leary determined was self-defense.

Rainiero was not charged with any crime.

But Prochaska claims Rainiero used excessive force and caused him permanent pain and injury. Prochaska's lawsuit admits he was an intruder in Rainiero's home.

During his criminal trial, Prochaska used a walker and walked with a slight limp.

Emile Banks, a Milwaukee attorney representing Rainiero, told Welker he has tried unsuccessfully since February to get a deposition from Prochaska, who is an inmate at Fox Lake Correctional Institution.

If Prochaska refuses to be deposed-a necessary step in any lawsuit-Welker told Banks "bring your motion, and I'll dismiss his case."

Prochaska's attorney, James McCann of Milwaukee, said by phone that there should be no problem either with Banks' deposing Prochaska or getting an independent medical exam of his client.

Welker set Dec. 15 as the deadline for Banks to file a motion for summary judgment, which, if granted, would dismiss the lawsuit.

Letters to the editor:
gpeck@gazetteextra.com




That's screwed up.... A man defends himself and some Wisconsin commie pinko lawyer will represent some scum bag criminal from being shot.

I'm curious how you can shoot someone in the back, and then claim self-defense? Weird.

Still I would have added an additional year to his sentence for frivolous lawsuit. He's just mad he got caught.

Castle Doctrine

Yeah, the scumbag was pissed that he got shot and arrested.

The doctor made a major mistake ... he caught a burgler in his home (placing him and his family at personal risk), decided that deadly force was necessary (Castle Doctrine), and 'only' wounded the intruder. The doctor should have killed the burgler and we wouldn't be reading about another in a series of BS lawsuits in this feelgood politically correct warped society.

Talk to 'most' policemen, and they all say the same thing ... if you chose to use deadly force against an intruder, you are further ahead IF you kill the intruder - to 'only' wound the intruder is to open yourself to lawsuits (believe it or not).

3/4 years ago we had a guy under seige in his own place in the country. Gypsies had been terrorrising him by repeatedly breaking in to burglarise.
He had every security measure and had had to board up all windows etc, and he couldn't sleep properly because he had to keep guard. One night, under darkness, two crept in and he was waiting, sat on the stairs. He didn't know how many etc and how they were armed. In the darkness he gave it a blast - killed one injured the other. I seem to remember that one caught it in the back. He got 5 years, although the police should have been on the case and protecting the property. Eventually public opinion got him released, and I believe he was sued by the survivor.

I believe that any burglar confronted in someone else's home is fair game. The homeowner has too little time to assess the rights and wrongs, so the villains must stand that risk.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

3/4 years ago we had a guy under seige in his own place in the country. Gypsies had been terrorrising him by repeatedly breaking in to burglarise.
He had every security measure and had had to board up all windows etc, and he couldn't sleep properly because he had to keep guard. One night, under darkness, two crept in and he was waiting, sat on the stairs. He didn't know how many etc and how they were armed. In the darkness he gave it a blast - killed one injured the other. I seem to remember that one caught it in the back. He got 5 years, although the police should have been on the case and protecting the property. Eventually public opinion got him released, and I believe he was sued by the survivor.

I believe that any burglar confronted in someone else's home is fair game. The homeowner has too little time to assess the rights and wrongs, so the villains must stand that risk.

Disagree.

Only if they were armed, or are acting in a threatening manner should lethal force be applied. And yes you can tell when someone is a threat to you or not (I speak from experience). Simply trespassing or burglary does not merit lethal force, even in Florida.

I once got into someone else's car by accident because I couldn't see clearly (in a blizzard with no viability), I don't deserve to risk get killed ("Castle Rule" be damned), for an honest mistake. Even if the driver mistakenly thought I was a car-jacker, It's just not right. There was a case in Texas (I believe) of a drunk Japanese Foreign Exchange student who walked into the wrong house for a party and was gunned down by the owner. The owner went to jail.

I don't know the full facts of the case, The article doesn't say if the thief was armed or was acting in a threatening manner to the doctor, but if he wasn't, (and the fact he shot the thief in the back suggests so), then the force was excessive.

It might have been legal (at least in Florida, it's not in most States), but it was excessive.

mm - of course you have the law correctly, and I take your point, but nevertheless burglary is an under-estimated social crime which affects the quality of the victim's life in a big way. It is a crime which deserves to be wiped out and is very prevalent here. No-one should go into someone else's home with criminal intent and those who do should consider that they put themselves at risk. There can be no way of knowing in advance the intent or armed condition of an intruder, so it should be , in justice, take action first ask questions later. As I stated, in my opinion, the risk is all theirs. They don't have to be there.

Last week I was awoken at 3.30 am by a tremendous crash from somewhere. On investigation, I calculated that a large loud drunken hooligan had tried to kick my front door in, and was now trying to pick my lock or trying a large bunch of keys. Like most people, I have family to protect.
I stayed silent and waited for the door to give way, when I would have acted so fast that it would have been the intruders worst nightmare, however big. Strike first ,ask questions later has to be the key, and as we know, there is no greater stategy than surprise.

It did not become necessary to do other than change the locks the next day. A witness told me that the culprit approached and deliberately targetted my front door, who knows why. When challenged he claimed that he lived at my address, and collected a compadre so that he could threaten the witnesses with violence.

I guess in USA you still have benefit of gun possession at home, we have no such protection now. I sent my 5 shot skeet gun to Wisconsin with a returning US colonel. He said that while you could kill a charging bear with many hand weapons, my gun was the only one to stop one in its tracks.

I never had to use it, but I kept it only for security. It hung over my fireplace until the ban.

I promise I would not have shot you for getting into my car. The very worst punishment would have been that I might have made you keep it.

DelBoy

When I did my firearms training (rifles, never tried handguns) my instructor told us that the only time we were able to apply lethal force if there was a threat to self or others. In other words, use lethel force when you are given no other choice in order to protect yourself. This is NY state law, of course the law can be different elsewhere. But it seemed like a good rule of thumb.

There are certain people within the US that are looking for any reason to use their guns or that their constitutional right to own a gun permitted them to do absolutely anything they wanted.

I have seen guns pulled on my father twice for minor situations that in no-way merited such a hostile response. In both situations (a minor traffic accident, and a hunter who was hunting on our property without being invited) my father was angry (and he had a right to be) but he was neither armed nor threatening. He was no danger, and both cases the jackass pointed a loaded firearm on him.

Instead of using guns because they have no other choice, using them because they want to, and because they think the law gives them the right to. I don't refer to all gun owners, not even most gun owners. But there is definatetly a group of rather unpleasant people who are basically looking for any legal justification to shoot someone. Thats not self-defense, that's vigilantism. And I think thats real agenda of the NRA is going for. Its not really "the rights of gun owners" (because thats already guaranteed by the Constitution) but rather the right to take the law into their own hands. The KKK was exactly like this. They viewed liberated Blacks as a threat, ergo deadly force was encouraged.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

The doctor made a major mistake ... he caught a burgler in his home (placing him and his family at personal risk), decided that deadly force was necessary (Castle Doctrine), and 'only' wounded the intruder. The doctor should have killed the burgler and we wouldn't be reading about another in a series of BS lawsuits in this feelgood politically correct warped society.

Talk to 'most' policemen, and they all say the same thing ... if you chose to use deadly force against an intruder, you are further ahead IF you kill the intruder - to 'only' wound the intruder is to open yourself to lawsuits (believe it or not).

Heard that from both my uncles, LEOs, and a few good friends... "Deadmen don't testify at grand jury inquiries."

Colorado has the "Make My Day Law"... best law on the books anywhere in CONUS for protecting you and yours.

And when all else fails its like my dad told me, "If its important enough to pull a gun on someone over, its important enough to shoot them and if its important enough to shoot someone its important enough to kill them." And he lived by those words, two years in Alabama for voluntary manslaughter... I come from stock who don't talk **** we don't mean.

I don't care if he was running the other way. He was oviously just trying to get the Doc "the long way round".