PDA

View Full Version : Brandon Harris Penalty on Punt


Mean Machine
11-24-2012, 03:42 PM
Texans vs Lions game is on NFL instant Classic Replay on NFL Network right now!

Question, what was the reasoning behind the penalty on Brandon Harris when he hit the punt returner right after he caught the ball.
They called defenseless receiver.
I dont understand the call.
It caused a fumble!
thanks for any input.

TheEastwood
11-24-2012, 03:49 PM
Yeah, I don't get this call. Since when can a returner be "defensless"? Isn't that the whole reason for a fair catch? Oh well, the Texans didn't get the ball anyways so it's irrelavent. Still a wierd call though. I've never seen that before

dream_team
11-24-2012, 03:49 PM
Texans vs Lions game is on NFL instant Classic Replay on NFL Network right now!

Question, what was the reasoning behind the penalty on Brandon Harris when he hit the punt returner right after he caught the ball.
They called defenseless receiver.
I dont understand the call.
It caused a fumble!
thanks for any input.

I think they said he was a defenseless receiver. But this is another rule that needs to be revisited. Punt returners have the fair catch option, so they aren't defenseless.

dream_team
11-24-2012, 03:53 PM
Yeah, I don't get this call. Since when can a returner be "defensless"? Isn't that the whole reason for a fair catch? Oh well, the Texans didn't get the ball anyways so it's irrelavent. Still a wierd call though. I've never seen that before

I forgot who it was, but there was a Texan there ready to scoop it up and run it in for a TD. I think this call seriously cost us a TD.

Allstar
11-24-2012, 04:38 PM
My bet is it wouldn't have been a penalty if it wasn't such a hard hit. He might have led with his helmet as well, I don't remember.

CloakNNNdagger
11-24-2012, 04:40 PM
Yeah, I don't get this call. Since when can a returner be "defensless"? Isn't that the whole reason for a fair catch? Oh well, the Texans didn't get the ball anyways so it's irrelavent. Still a wierd call though. I've never seen that before

He didn't call for a fair catch as I remember it. Once he makes the decision not to call it, and to catch the ball, he must be given the opportunity to catch the ball and "set" before he can be hit..........just like a defenseless receiver.

dream_team
11-24-2012, 04:46 PM
He didn't call for a fair catch as I remember it. Once he makes the decision not to call it, and to catch the ball, he must be given the opportunity to catch the ball and "set" before he can be hit..........just like a defenseless receiver.

I think you are correct in regards to the calling on the field. But I think this is a rule that needs to be changed as well. PRs shouldn't be considered defenseless, because they can always call a fair catch to protect themselves.

thunderkyss
11-24-2012, 05:02 PM
I think you are correct in regards to the calling on the field. But I think this is a rule that needs to be changed as well. PRs shouldn't be considered defenseless, because they can always call a fair catch to protect themselves.

It's not about "not hitting" him. You can hit him just like any other receiver in the act of catching the ball.

You can not hit a player in the head if he is in the act of catching the ball.

Hits to the head are illegal to defenseless players.

Had he caught the ball and took a step, there would have been no penalty on Brandon Harris, because the "runner" has the opportunity to brace himself, tuck his head, or roll with the blow.

76Texan
11-24-2012, 05:18 PM
A kick or punt returner in the act of fielding the ball is considered a defenseless player.

The rule forbid a hit to the head or neck area either with a helmet or with a forearm.

It was bang bang, but it sure looks like Harris led high with his helmet.
I believe it was unintentionally, but that's the rule.

infantrycak
11-24-2012, 05:29 PM
In the act of fielding a kick or punt is #4 on the list of definitions of a defenseless receiver. As fiddler said you don't have to wait for him to catch it, you just can't hit him in the head and he did. If he had come in 8 inches lower with exactly the same timing it would have been a clean play.

EllisUnit
11-24-2012, 05:35 PM
He didn't call for a fair catch as I remember it. Once he makes the decision not to call it, and to catch the ball, he must be given the opportunity to catch the ball and "set" before he can be hit..........just like a defenseless receiver.

That rule is kinda iffy to me,,,,the PR caught the ball, i mean is this just a personal opinon rule or they need to change it to where they have to take 1 step before you hit them.

infantrycak
11-24-2012, 05:51 PM
That rule is kinda iffy to me,,,,the PR caught the ball, i mean is this just a personal opinon rule or they need to change it to where they have to take 1 step before you hit them.

Steps have nothing to do with it. The penalty was hitting a defenseless player in the head.

CloakNNNdagger
11-24-2012, 06:02 PM
per the rule:

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are: [. . .]
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
[. . .]
(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

For the rule in its entirety: http://nflcommunications.com/2011/12/27/definition-of-a-defenseless-player/

EllisUnit
11-24-2012, 06:08 PM
Steps have nothing to do with it. The penalty was hitting a defenseless player in the head.

i know that but he had time to call fair catch. IMO its a dumb rule simply for that reason, the guy has enough balls not to call fair catch then i think he should be able to take a hit regardless of if its helmet to helmet. Just my opinion.

76Texan
11-24-2012, 06:14 PM
i know that but he had time to call fair catch. IMO its a dumb rule simply for that reason, the guy has enough balls not to call fair catch then i think he should be able to take a hit regardless of if its helmet to helmet. Just my opinion.

It's ironic that you just complain about the education system :)

badboy
11-24-2012, 06:32 PM
i know that but he had time to call fair catch. IMO its a dumb rule simply for that reason, the guy has enough balls not to call fair catch then i think he should be able to take a hit regardless of if its helmet to helmet. Just my opinion.Like it or not the NFL is trying to reduce head injuries and concussions. Tacklers just need to hit lower.

dream_team
11-24-2012, 07:10 PM
It's not about "not hitting" him. You can hit him just like any other receiver in the act of catching the ball.

You can not hit a player in the head if he is in the act of catching the ball.

Hits to the head are illegal to defenseless players.

Had he caught the ball and took a step, there would have been no penalty on Brandon Harris, because the "runner" has the opportunity to brace himself, tuck his head, or roll with the blow.

I get what you're saying and the refs got the call right on the field. But I'm just saying I think they should change this rule because PRs in actuality are not "defenseless". They can call a fair catch to avoid a hit. They can protect themselves if they want to.

dream_team
11-24-2012, 07:11 PM
i know that but he had time to call fair catch. IMO its a dumb rule simply for that reason, the guy has enough balls not to call fair catch then i think he should be able to take a hit regardless of if its helmet to helmet. Just my opinion.

I agree with you there. Wish there was a way to rep from Tapatalk.

thunderkyss
11-24-2012, 07:13 PM
i know that but he had time to call fair catch. IMO its a dumb rule simply for that reason, the guy has enough balls not to call fair catch then i think he should be able to take a hit regardless of if its helmet to helmet. Just my opinion.

I agree with '76 :kitten:

That player probably doesn't see it as an issue either. He probably thinks just like you. He could have called fair catch. He didn't, so the play is still live. He can juke & return the ball, or a defender could come in & decleat him.

However, this has nothing to do with that. This is about the NFL covering their butts. They are currently being sued by a couple hundred former players. In truth, the NFL should probably ban all hits to the head. However, I think they've reached what should be an acceptable compromise by only banning hits to the heads of defenseless players. A player who is not preparing to get hit. He's either catching a ball, or throwing a ball.

Once that player secures the ball & begins to advance the ball by dodging danger, hit him in the head. Well, you can't use the crown of your helmet as a weapon and launch yourself into him, but other than that, it's still football.

EllisUnit
11-24-2012, 08:22 PM
I agree with '76 :kitten:

That player probably doesn't see it as an issue either. He probably thinks just like you. He could have called fair catch. He didn't, so the play is still live. He can juke & return the ball, or a defender could come in & decleat him.

However, this has nothing to do with that. This is about the NFL covering their butts. They are currently being sued by a couple hundred former players. In truth, the NFL should probably ban all hits to the head. However, I think they've reached what should be an acceptable compromise by only banning hits to the heads of defenseless players. A player who is not preparing to get hit. He's either catching a ball, or throwing a ball.

Once that player secures the ball & begins to advance the ball by dodging danger, hit him in the head. Well, you can't use the crown of your helmet as a weapon and launch yourself into him, but other than that, it's still football.

Wish i could say i'm surprised :choke:

Dude this is powderpuff league. Heaven for bid players used to play with no face masks and made maybe 5K a year. The NFL is going to run the game into the ground, fans will lose interest in the game. The game will go under eventually with all these new girl football rules.

I mean really dude we have everyday Americans that barely skim by and put there selves at a greater risk everyday to feed their families. I have worked in the oilfield for 6 years now, have seen a guy catapicated, seen a guy lose both legs, seen a rack of drill pipe break the stands and fall on 4 guys killing all of them instantly while on their lunch break. And for what 80,000 a year ??? Give me a break give me a job making 1 million dollars a year with the risk that NFL players take compared to all the guys i work with daily and they would take it in an instant.

Infact you have to sign a waiver before working here AND most places in the oilfield saying if you lose your life while on the job that the company is not liable. Lose a leg or a limb and they will give you 10K but lose ur life and ur family is Fuc***.

Safety my ass

thunderkyss
11-24-2012, 09:07 PM
Wish i could say i'm surprised :choke:

Dude this is powderpuff league. Heaven for bid players used to play with no face masks and made maybe 5K a year. The NFL is going to run the game into the ground, fans will lose interest in the game. The game will go under eventually with all these new girl football rules.

I mean really dude we have everyday Americans that barely skim by and put there selves at a greater risk everyday to feed their families. I have worked in the oilfield for 6 years now, have seen a guy catapicated, seen a guy lose both legs, seen a rack of drill pipe break the stands and fall on 4 guys killing all of them instantly while on their lunch break. And for what 80,000 a year ??? Give me a break give me a job making 1 million dollars a year with the risk that NFL players take compared to all the guys i work with daily and they would take it in an instant.

Infact you have to sign a waiver before working here AND most places in the oilfield saying if you lose your life while on the job that the company is not liable. Lose a leg or a limb and they will give you 10K but lose ur life and ur family is Fuc***.

Safety my ass

I didn't say safety. I said covering their butt. You can blame NFL all you want, but the league would not be going this way if former players were not suing.

I'm sure the same thing happened with your company when the person was catapicated (??). Someone sued your company, or OSHA had a fit, & your company put rules in place to keep people from getting catapicated (??) again. Those rules may not be followed as closely as the NFL is following their rules, most likely because you don't have weekly televised broadcast of everyday work practices.

But let someone else get catapicated (??) & I bet they'll enforce their rules then.

Yankee_In_TX
11-24-2012, 09:12 PM
So it sounds like what I have been saying is correct - if Harris got there .5 seconds later probably no penalty because the player would have been 'set?'

infantrycak
11-24-2012, 09:14 PM
So it sounds like what I have been saying is correct - if Harris got there .5 seconds later probably no penalty because the player would have been 'set?'

NO - it has nothing to do with being set. It is entirely about the helmet to helmet contact. Harris could have hit him with the exact same timing directly in the chest and there would have been no flag.

NitroGSXR
11-24-2012, 09:23 PM
NO - it has nothing to do with being set. It is entirely about the helmet to helmet contact. Harris could have hit him with the exact same timing directly in the chest and there would have been no flag.

So why didn't they just call a helmet-to-helmet penalty?

thunderkyss
11-24-2012, 09:33 PM
So it sounds like what I have been saying is correct - if Harris got there .5 seconds later probably no penalty because the player would have been 'set?'

I don't know about .5 seconds later, but if the receiver would have made a football move (I don't know if that language is in the rules), or clearly made the transition from defenseless receiver to runner, that hit would not have drawn a flag.

But it's a judgement call. The first one in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l6ZgxzQg7g) is clear, the receiver is still in the act of catching the ball. He should not be hit above the shoulders. The second one, the flag is thrown by two officials, but it appears to me that the receiver has made the transition from receiver to runner. It appears he lowers his head to protect himself.

Yankee_In_TX
11-24-2012, 09:34 PM
per the rule:



For the rule in its entirety: http://nflcommunications.com/2011/12/27/definition-of-a-defenseless-player/

If that is the applicable rule the way I read it is that he is defenseless as long as he has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner, thus making a hit to the head illegal.

Seems to me once he has become set he is no longer a defenseless player and therefore can be hit.

If it was just a plane Jane helmet to helmet then they made the wrong call.

????

76Texan
11-24-2012, 09:36 PM
So why didn't they just call a helmet-to-helmet penalty?

Because it wasn't.
Notice the rule says "in the head and Neck area".
Harris was going "kinda" up.

infantrycak
11-24-2012, 09:37 PM
So why didn't they just call a helmet-to-helmet penalty?

They did. They said defenseless receiver. As CnD posted above, one of the things you can't do to a defenseless receiver is helmet to helmet contact.

NitroGSXR
11-24-2012, 09:44 PM
They did. They said defenseless receiver. As CnD posted above, one of the things you can't do to a defenseless receiver is helmet to helmet contact.

Well... what I meant was that I have seen referees call it a illegal helmet to helmet contact before. They called this one a defenseless receiver. Why is there variation in the wording of penalties that apparently mean the same thing?

thunderkyss
11-24-2012, 09:47 PM
Well... what I meant was that I have seen referees call it a illegal helmet to helmet contact before. They called this one a defenseless receiver. Why is there variation in the wording of penalties that apparently mean the same thing?

I think they are getting away from the helmet to helmet language & being more specific. Helmet to helmet is not a penalty unless it's against a defenseless receiver, QB, & there are some other extenuating circumstances like launching yourself into a player, or using the crown of your helmet.

Helmet to helmet happens all the time & imo, can't be a penalty in & of itself.

CloakNNNdagger
11-24-2012, 09:47 PM
Can anyone post a gif of the hit?

Yankee_In_TX
11-24-2012, 10:05 PM
Can anyone post a gif of the hit?

My recollection is it was a judgment call. Some fraction later they would not have been able to make that call.

76Texan
11-24-2012, 10:25 PM
If that is the applicable rule the way I read it is that he is defenseless as long as he , thus making a hit to the head illegal.

Seems to me once he has become set he is no longer a defenseless player and therefore can be hit.

If it was just a plane Jane helmet to helmet then they made the wrong call.

????

You're the lawyer , so I think you are very well qualified to read the rules, but also the reason for the rule.

The rule was made "supposedly" to protect a defenseless player.
So I would think as long as that guy is qualified as such, he should be "protected" by that rule.

Yankee_In_TX
11-24-2012, 10:33 PM
You're the lawyer , so I think you are very well qualified to read the rules, but also the reason for the rule.

The rule was made "supposedly" to protect a defenseless player.
So I would think as long as that guy is qualified as such, he should be "protected" by that rule.

Sorry, when I said 'wrong call' I didn't mean their shouldn't have been a penalty, I meant worded it incorrectly. But I was corrected when someone said they're trying to call the specific penalty rather than a generic 'helmet to helmet.'

My whole point was Harris knew better and shouldn't have made the hit, but damn, if he had gotten there half a second later it would have been a game changer (assuming there is still a fumble).

IDEXAN
11-25-2012, 08:36 AM
I'm confused to because he was supposedly flagged for the "defensely" receiver rule, but the penalty seems not to have been leveled for that but instead "helmet-to-helment" contact which is different ?
The truth is it was a tremendous play by Harris even though he and the team were penalized by the capricious officiating of the refs.

EllisUnit
11-25-2012, 08:42 AM
I didn't say safety. I said covering their butt. You can blame NFL all you want, but the league would not be going this way if former players were not suing.

I'm sure the same thing happened with your company when the person was catapicated (??). Someone sued your company, or OSHA had a fit, & your company put rules in place to keep people from getting catapicated (??) again. Those rules may not be followed as closely as the NFL is following their rules, most likely because you don't have weekly televised broadcast of everyday work practices.

But let someone else get catapicated (??) & I bet they'll enforce their rules then.

You have to sign a waiver with your new hire paperwork saying the company is not liable for loss of life, it is that way with 95% of all oilfield companies. i think the exception is off shore companies.

But that wasnt really my point, all these has been players who are now broke are suing the NFL, not a big surprise. Kinda like that burgular 5-10 years ago who fell on a knife in this ladies kitchen while breaking into her house and sued her and won. I mean we can all agree our legal system has become a big joke.

NitroGSXR
11-25-2012, 08:51 AM
I think they are getting away from the helmet to helmet language & being more specific. Helmet to helmet is not a penalty unless it's against a defenseless receiver, QB, & there are some other extenuating circumstances like launching yourself into a player, or using the crown of your helmet.

Helmet to helmet happens all the time & imo, can't be a penalty in & of itself.

Defenseless receiver seems to be a heckuva lot more general than helmet to helmet. I don't believe they called him for the helmet hit at all. I believe they called him for the reason cloak described... he wasn't "set" enough. Whatever they really meant... I wish they would tighten up the wording when it comes to penalties. Be consistent with what the calls are called.

76Texan
11-25-2012, 08:56 AM
I'm confused to because he was supposedly flagged for the "defensely" receiver rule, but the penalty seems not to have been leveled for that but instead "helmet-to-helment" contact which is different ?
The truth is it was a tremendous play by Harris even though he and the team were penalized by the capricious officiating of the refs.

The call was for hitting a defenseless player high in the head or neck area.
It's difficult to see the contact clearly to tell whether the helmets were in contact, but Harris definitely was going upward in motion with the helmet leading toward that area. But the helmets didn't even have to be in contact for the call to be made.

If Harris came a little later, the call could still be made, but not to a defenseless player. It will be up to the ref to "decide" whether the hit was high enough. Now since the offensive player is no longer in a defenseless position, the ref might be inclined not to deem it a high hit, especially with Harris trying to make a wrap up tackle rather than launching himself with intention to inflict some hurting.

thunderkyss
11-25-2012, 09:04 AM
but damn that was a good hit.

EllisUnit
11-25-2012, 09:05 AM
but damn that was a good hit.

hey something we can agree on.

IDEXAN
11-25-2012, 09:18 AM
but damn that was a good hit.
Actually it was probably too good. I really think that's what precipitated the
flag(s) more than anything else by the refs. Hey you got to know they were given specific instructions on Thanksgiving day with huge TV audiences in attendance to flag any plays that represented especially aggressive
or violent impact, and that's what Harris was primarily guilty of doing.

76Texan
11-25-2012, 09:30 AM
Don't forget that there's another ruled called the spearing rule.

Article 8(f) states in pertinent part:

"If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures . . ." (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, it is unnecessary roughness to "spear" (i.e., use the helmet as a weapon against any player) on any play, regardless of whether the player is in a defenseless position.

http://nflspearhead.blogspot.com/

Under that rule, if the ref deemed that Harris was going up with the facemask part of his helmet at the chin strap of the opponent, they can still call a penalty (just under a different rule.)

ralph
11-25-2012, 11:08 PM
But that wasnt really my point, all these has been players who are now broke are suing the NFL, not a big surprise. Kinda like that burgular 5-10 years ago who fell on a knife in this ladies kitchen while breaking into her house and sued her and won. I mean we can all agree our legal system has become a big joke.

Except that never happened. Urban legend.

ObsiWan
11-26-2012, 12:04 AM
Don't forget that there's another ruled called the spearing rule.

Article 8(f) states in pertinent part:

"If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures . . ." (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, it is unnecessary roughness to "spear" (i.e., use the helmet as a weapon against any player) on any play, regardless of whether the player is in a defenseless position.

http://nflspearhead.blogspot.com/

Under that rule, if the ref deemed that Harris was going up with the facemask part of his helmet at the chin strap of the opponent, they can still call a penalty (just under a different rule.)

A spearing call would have made more sense.

EllisUnit
11-26-2012, 03:53 AM
Except that never happened. Urban legend.

Well many of burgulars have sued the home owners of whom they were robbing and won. Just look it up, Kinda like VY who is now broke suing his book keeper.

infantrycak
11-26-2012, 10:28 AM
Well many of burgulars have sued the home owners of whom they were robbing and won. Just look it up,

Every purported story I have ever seen has turned out to be false. If you have some confirmed ones then by all means provide them.

Dread-Head
11-26-2012, 10:32 AM
He didn't call for a fair catch as I remember it. Once he makes the decision not to call it, and to catch the ball, he must be given the opportunity to catch the ball and "set" before he can be hit..........just like a defenseless receiver.

:thinking: Now let me see, special teams kicking team as I remember it:

a. When the ball leaves the tee you become a missle following that football.

b.The members of the kicking team assigned to block are moving obstacles you are to evade as you follow the ball to it's intended receiver.

c. As the ball gets closer TO the kick return man watch him. If he steps away from the path of the ball or raises his hand to signal fair catch, you mission is aborted.

d. If the return man FAILS to do EITHER of the aforementioned, the second that ball lands in his hands and he shifts his weight even a fraction of a millimeter it is YOUR job as a member of the kicking team...to break every bone in that muff-hugga's body!

Now in the play I watched:

a. The return man DID NOT remove himself from the path of the ball

b. The return man DID NOT wave for a fair catch

c. The return man DID make a catch

d. The return man DID shift his weight and prepare to advance the ball

&

e. (and this is the IMPORTANT part) Got his 3itch @$$ knocked the VUGG OUT by a member of the kicking team who was doing his DAMNED JOB!


For the sake of argument...I'd have to see the hit again, but I thought it was clean.

CloakNNNdagger
11-26-2012, 08:54 PM
:thinking: Now let me see, special teams kicking team as I remember it:

a. When the ball leaves the tee you become a missle following that football.

b.The members of the kicking team assigned to block are moving obstacles you are to evade as you follow the ball to it's intended receiver.

c. As the ball gets closer TO the kick return man watch him. If he steps away from the path of the ball or raises his hand to signal fair catch, you mission is aborted.

d. If the return man FAILS to do EITHER of the aforementioned, the second that ball lands in his hands and he shifts his weight even a fraction of a millimeter it is YOUR job as a member of the kicking team...to break every bone in that muff-hugga's body!

Now in the play I watched:

a. The return man DID NOT remove himself from the path of the ball

b. The return man DID NOT wave for a fair catch

c. The return man DID make a catch

d. The return man DID shift his weight and prepare to advance the ball

&

e. (and this is the IMPORTANT part) Got his 3itch @$$ knocked the VUGG OUT by a member of the kicking team who was doing his DAMNED JOB!


For the sake of argument...I'd have to see the hit again, but I thought it was clean.

Holy cow! Let me assure you that the trail of piss leading to your cereal bowl this morning was not mine!:backsout:

TexansFanatic
11-26-2012, 09:16 PM
Every purported story I have ever seen has turned out to be false. If you have some confirmed ones then by all means provide them.

Dead burglar's family awarded $75,000:

LINK (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-02-25/news/0302250038_1_harris-family-harris-family-harris-death)

Burglar sues California homeowner who returned fire:

LINK (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57540638-504083/burglar-sues-calif-homeowner-90-who-returned-fire/)

infantrycak
11-26-2012, 11:11 PM
Dead burglar's family awarded $75,000:

LINK (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-02-25/news/0302250038_1_harris-family-harris-family-harris-death)

Burglar sues California homeowner who returned fire:

LINK (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57540638-504083/burglar-sues-calif-homeowner-90-who-returned-fire/)

That is some great support for the assertion "many have sued and won."

You had to reach back a decade for the 1st one and it is a booby trap case. Every state prohibits booby traps.

The second story is sketchy as it sounds like he is being sued for shooting someone who was surrendering. Whatever the facts are it is only a suit, not someone who won.

TexansFanatic
11-26-2012, 11:25 PM
That is some great support for the assertion "many have sued and won."

It was actually more of a rebuttal to: "Every purported story I have ever seen has turned out to be false. If you have some confirmed ones then by all means provide them."

You are correct that the second example has yet to be fully litigated.

Regardless, you now have at least one example of a burglary victim who has had to pay for protecting his property and thus you can no longer say that every purported story has turned out to be false.

infantrycak
11-26-2012, 11:35 PM
It was actually more of a rebuttal to: "Every purported story I have ever seen has turned out to be false. If you have some confirmed ones then by all means provide them."

You are correct that the second example has yet to be fully litigated.

Regardless, you now have at least one example of a burglary victim who has had to pay for protecting his property and thus you can no longer say that every purported story has turned out to be false.

Nope. Booby traps are prohibited. I didn't take the post I responded to as referring to people protecting their property by committing a crime.

I was referring to urban legends like stepping on a skateboard coming in through a window or falling through a skylight onto a knife block.

TexansFanatic
11-26-2012, 11:52 PM
Nope. Booby traps are prohibited. I didn't take the post I responded to as referring to people protecting their property by committing a crime.

I was referring to urban legends like stepping on a skateboard coming in through a window or falling through a skylight onto a knife block.

There was no booby trap disclaimer stated earlier in the thread.

bshep86
11-27-2012, 12:00 AM
It was actually more of a rebuttal to: "Every purported story I have ever seen has turned out to be false. If you have some confirmed ones then by all means provide them."

You are correct that the second example has yet to be fully litigated.

Regardless, you now have at least one example of a burglary victim who has had to pay for protecting his property and thus you can no longer say that every purported story has turned out to be false.

EllisUnit did say "homeowners" and not "property owners," and business/property law is different than home laws.

The other part of it was that this wasn't some unintentional thing like "slipping and falling on a knife." The property owner was rigging a deadly trap to protect property. (I say deadly because we are a 110 volt standard county).

So the whole "slipping and falling on a knife" and this don't equate.

infantrycak
11-27-2012, 12:08 AM
There was no booby trap disclaimer stated earlier in the thread.

Whatever. If you or Ellis want to continue this conversation we can do it in the No Spin Zone.

TexansFanatic
11-27-2012, 12:49 AM
Whatever. If you or Ellis want to continue this conversation we can do it in the No Spin Zone.

Yeah, I'm gonna let it go because I've done a crapload of searching and I'm finding it impossible to find an example of a burglar who has won a judgment for an injury sustained during a break-in where there wasn't a booby trap.

Except for, maybe, Bodine v Enterprise High School (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/sugarman/Wendy_TortStoryFinal_ii.doc) , in which a burglar fell through a skylight and sued and won.

But the case is 30 years old and clouded in three decades worth of misinformation and spin.