Home Robbed that was on Journal News List Mapping Permit Holders

[CobraCarrera]

Journal News gun permit map used by burglars to target White Plains home?

Home was robbed and one of the perps was caught trying to get into the safe to obtain the legally owned guns...




A White Plains residence pinpointed on a controversial handgun permit database was burglarized Saturday, and the burglars' target was the homeowner's gun safe.

At least two burglars broke into a home on Davis Avenue at 9:30 p.m. Saturday but were unsuccessful in an attempt to open the safe, which contained legally owned weapons, according to a law enforcement source. One suspect was taken into custody, the source said.



The gun owner was not home when the burglary occurred, the source said. The victim, who is in his 70s, told Newsday on Sunday that he did not want to comment while the police investigation continues.



He should sue the hell out of her and the Journal News....She is worth millions anyway...

 

[bluebosss197]

**** her and **** her "news" establishment.

 

[Planter]

He should sue the hell out of her and the Journal News....She is worth millions anyway...

yep. I was hoping that would happen, and I knew it would. hopefully he sues, and wins. but knowing ouring liberal judges the way I do, the lawsuit will get tossed, or he won't win. :nonono:

 

[SVTPete83]

Yep. Sounds about right. I had a feeling that was coming. And we're not going to hear about all the homes that get robbed because they don't have guns and were not on the list!

 

[DaleM]

yep. I was hoping that would happen, and I knew it would. hopefully he sues, and wins. but knowing ouring liberal judges the way I do, the lawsuit will get tossed, or he won't win. :nonono:

I was hoping the old guy got to shoot and kill the intruders.

 

[EatonEggbeater]

Some of the law guys will know better, but I saw this coming.

The one thing the 'outed owners' need to do is show damages to back up a lawsuit.

The ironic thing (one the newspaper didn't see coming) is the fact that any break in near where the paper is circulated, the victim could also show damages leading to the papers article; even if they weren't on the list.

The victim could say that the reason his house had been targeted is that it was not on the list, same as anyone on the list could say.

Funny thing that by doing what they did, the paper could be accused of facilitating every break in done in the city because of this article.

Don't know how far it'd go, but it's certainly an experiment in unintended consequences.

 

[DaleM]

Some of the law guys will know better, but I saw this coming.

The one thing the 'outed owners' need to do is show damages to back up a lawsuit.

The ironic thing (one the newspaper didn't see coming) is the fact that any break in near where the paper is circulated, the victim could also show damages leading to the papers article; even if they weren't on the list.

The victim could say that the reason his house had been targeted is that it was not on the list, same as anyone on the list could say.

Funny thing that by doing what they did, the paper could be accused of facilitating every break in done in the city because of this article.

Don't know how far it'd go, but it's certainly an experiment in unintended consequences.

get with the perp and offer him 5% if he says the article lead to his targeting! MONAAAAAAY!

 

[Kobra Khan]

I was hoping the old guy got to shoot and kill the intruders.

He should be allowed to shoot them with the guns they were attempting to steal! :lol1:

 

[CobraBob]

It was inevitable.

 

[ColorMatched]

Never saw that coming...

 

[SLOW95]

I was hoping the old guy got to shoot and kill the intruders.

Yeah me too, I guess all stories dont have a happy ending!

 

[static74]

does anyone know how the list made its way to the news agency in the first place? or is that list public record?

 

[Sly Fox]

does anyone know how the list made its way to the news agency in the first place? or is that list public record?

Public record

 

[hb712]

Some of the law guys will know better, but I saw this coming.

The one thing the 'outed owners' need to do is show damages to back up a lawsuit.

The ironic thing (one the newspaper didn't see coming) is the fact that any break in near where the paper is circulated, the victim could also show damages leading to the papers article; even if they weren't on the list.

The victim could say that the reason his house had been targeted is that it was not on the list, same as anyone on the list could say.

Funny thing that by doing what they did, the paper could be accused of facilitating every break in done in the city because of this article.

Don't know how far it'd go, but it's certainly an experiment in unintended consequences.

They need to prove more than one thing. Here's a basic negligence prima facie case:

Duty - Did the newspaper owe the gun owners a duty of care? Maybe, but this isn't the hardest element to prove.

Breach - Assuming the paper owed a duty, did they breach it? Did they create a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm to the gun owners by publishing their names and addresses? Was it objectively foreseeable that criminals would target those homes in order to break in an steal weapons? I don't know, that's a tough one. Was the risk unreasonable? That's tough, too. The names and addresses are public information, the thieves could have gotten everything themselves. Very difficult to prove breach.

Causation - Can we prove both actual and proximate cause? Was the act of publishing the names and addresses the "but-for" cause of the break in? Asking the counterfactual question, but-for the newspaper publishing the information, would the burglary still have taken place? Maybe. We would need a lot more evidence to say otherwise. Proximate cause might be satisfied, but I can't even examine that without more info.

Harm - This one's the easiest, there was harm to property.

Basically, it's a really difficult case. There are probably defenses I am not aware of, and I've done no research into the specific legal questions. It would be really hard to establish a case for negligence.

 

[N2DAMYSTIC]

No big surprise here.

 

[EvergreenSVT]

hb712, smarter case would be to argue their action was willful and intended to harass rather than negligent.

 

[Alex01]

If it's public record they can't be sued for publishing it, or for how the information is used.

 

[Torch10th]

While it's public record, it's not like the information is just blissfully out there waiting for somebody to find a web link. To get that information, the news paper had to submit a freedom of information act request to the governing body that holds the records.

Up until that map was created, you couldn't just google "gun owners in Rochester" get get a list of who owns guns.

I'd lay bets that privacy laws concerning such records get drafted because of this.

 

[hb712]

hb712, smarter case would be to argue their action was willful and intended to harass rather than negligent.

Off the top of my head, I don't see a good way to prove the prima facie case for any action. Even if you could prove intent, how do you prove causation? Who knows, maybe the thieves will admit that they only decided to rob that house after the report and that they decided to go to that house as a result of the report.

 

[Alex01]

While it's public record, it's not like the information is just blissfully out there waiting for somebody to find a web link. To get that information, the news paper had to submit a freedom of information act request to the governing body that holds the records.

Up until that map was created, you couldn't just google "gun owners in Rochester" get get a list of who owns guns.

I'd lay bets that privacy laws concerning such records get drafted because of this.

I agree, it isn't as readily available, but the simple defense is that the thieves intent was to steal the guns, and they would have obtained the information through a different avenue to achieve that. I think the only way the paper will have to pay up is if the thieves say they got the idea/info after seeing the article.