“Lawyer who sued 90-year-old Greenbrae shooting victim calls social-media criticism unfair”

Well, yes, he would, wouldn’t he? “By suing the 90-year-old Greenbrae man he allegedly tried to kill during a burglary, Samuel Cutrufelli lit a roaring grease-fire of vitriol on social media, much of it from gun-rights advocates.” Attorney Sanford Troy said of his client that “Mr. Cutrufelli is entitled to the presumption of innocence” and expects to get six if not seven figures from Jay Leone, the elderly man who shot him. “The prosecution says Cutrufelli entered Leone’s house, put a gun to his head, tied his hands with a belt and rummaged through his bedroom for valuables” before Leone managed to wriggle free and defend himself. Troy said the shooting arose from a drug deal gone wrong. Complicating his efforts, however, a jury has now proceeded to convict Cutrufelli on all counts after a few hours deliberation. [Gary Klien, Marin Independent Journal: Oct. 23, Oct. 26, Oct. 31]


  • Drug deal gone wrong? with a 90 yr old man? that doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

  • Hutzpah.

  • “Drug deal gone wrong? with a 90 yr old man? that doesn’t even pass the laugh test.”

    Oh, I’m sure the 90 year old man is on a lot of drugs. Drugs for his heart, lungs, liver, stomach, kidneys, prostrate… The “deal” was of course an effort to steal those, pretty much anything the pharmaceutical industry makes is used by someone to get high on after all.

  • I think there is some serious confusion with gun rights surrounding risk and penalty with people who say that “Mr. Cutrufelli is entitled to the presumption of innocence.” This is true when it comes to doling out a penalty. The risk occurs at the time and place of the criminal activity. The home owner RIGHTFULLY defends himself with deadly force and the perp trying to rob him of these would be on the receiving end of it. That’s the presumptive risk the crook takes in a society that allows a person to defend themselves and their property.

    To put it another way: The penalty for not wearing a seatbelt is a fine IF caught/convicted; the risk is eating some glass before tasting a little pavement and then taking a dirt nap. That’s a big difference