Burglar sues homeowner that shot him

5.56X45mm

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
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.
 
Doctor made a mistake ...

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.
 
Last edited:
Del Boy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Chief Bones said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
I don't care if he was running the other way. He was oviously just trying to get the Doc "the long way round".
 
I once saw a vivid example of true justice in an American documentary about a vicious crime situation in New Orleans.

A little old lady, in her eighties , was behind the counter of her shop, telling her story. She said that a huge man entered the shop, leaned over her counter and made his demands.

Then, for the camera, the little old lady reached down and brought up this massive hand gun.

She said - ' I got him right between the eyes.'
What happened - He fell down.
What did you do then.

I walked round to the front and gave him another one just to make sure.

What a crime-stopper! I never forgot it.
 
bulldogg said:
Colorado has the "Make My Day Law"... best law on the books anywhere in CONUS for protecting you and yours.
Click to expand...

As a Floridian, I find that offensive. Florida has the best laws on the book anywhere in CONUS for protecting yourself and others. Colorado just copied it and changed the name... :cowb:

Dead men tell no tales....
 
Well, Florida had a castle doctrine law for as long as I can remember. It allowed you to defend yourself in your home, business, or car/truck. It was altered in 10-01-2005 and called the Stand Your Ground Law, all that did was remove the duty to retreat clause of the Castle Doctrine. Before the Stand Your Ground Law, if you were in public and could retreat you had to. This changed it and allowed you to stand your ground (hence the name).
 
I remember the halloween case where the Japanese youth was shot in Louisiana. The shooter didn't go to jail. The courts found the homeowner within his rights because the young fellow approached the guy in the dark and pointed a camera at him. It was tragic but one can never be sure in the dark what's being pointed at him.
 
Missileer said:
I remember the halloween case where the Japanese youth was shot in Louisiana. The shooter didn't go to jail. The courts found the homeowner within his rights because the young fellow approached the guy in the dark and pointed a camera at him. It was tragic but one can never be sure in the dark what's being pointed at him.
Click to expand...

How long ago was that? I confess my facts might be off here as I am basing it off memory. I thought the incident was in Texas, but if it was in Louisiana that would explain why I couldn't find any info on it. The story I am referring to happened in when I was in collage, so that would have been around 1994-1995.
 
I'd probably get hung in court in this openly gay state (NY) for shooting an invader 5 times with my SKS. But I would not hesitate for a second to shoot someone who has broken into my house 5 times in the back with a rifle.

What if he is carrying a pistol? Do you value his life enough to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him turn around, possibly to put a couple of slugs in you?

If someone trespassed in your home when everything is locked up, they should be prepared to pay the ultimate price.
 
I reckon this whole "guns for protection" is a load of bollocks. Most of you here don't even care about defending.... It's all about finally getting to use your gun so you can kill somebody without any major fuss. We call defence the physical act of not getting hurt. There has to be an action made at your person. You just hope somebody wanders into your garden so can shoot him! And any innocent victim is collateral damage, which is acceptable.
 
Now you're getting it Ted. We're just a nation of homicidal maniacs. That's why everyone wants in... and if you're interested I have some beach front property in Arizona for sale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top