Robber sues store he robbed

[FN1910]

Since the robber was fleeing then I agree that he should be awarded something for his pain and suffering. If I were on the jury I would award him $5 for all his problmes. Then on the counter suit by the people he held a knife to their throats I would award each on of them $1,000,000 for their pain, suffering and emotional distress. Also the business owner should get back any money or property the robber stole. That way it is a win-win situation for everyone.

 

[HK4U]

I might charge the one that shot him 100 dollars for allowing him to get out of there alive.:biggrin:

 

[GeneM]

Did the BG deserve it? Yes. Was it legal? Doesn't sound like it.

 

[HK4U]

Did the BG deserve it? Yes. Was it legal? Doesn't sound like it.

Is it legal? It all depends on the laws of the particular state. Here in Texas. Absolutely.

 

[billwot]

I have to ask how is he paying the attorney fees? He must have little to no money otherwise he would have never been robbing the store in the first place.

Almost certainly the attorney is doing the case on a contingency basis. He will keep a major portion (1/2, maybe 2/3) of the settlement, assuming he convinces the jury that his client is indeed a "victim".

bill

 

[Scarecrow]

if you rob some one you deserve to get shot.

 

[Cobra]

I agree with Glock Fan. Even though I think the BG got what he deserved, (and deserved even more) it's going to be hard/impossible to convince a court/jury that it was a justifiable self defense shooting. The BG will go down for the RA .... and the store owner will most likely lose in court.

 

[JJFlash]

I agree with Glock Fan. Even though I think the BG got what he deserved, (and deserved even more) it's going to be hard/impossible to convince a court/jury that it was a justifiable self defense shooting. The BG will go down for the RA .... and the store owner will most likely lose in court.

I also agree with this sentiment. While of course it depends on the laws of the particular state, this shooting is definitely questionable, if only from an ethical perspective. I would have agreed wholeheartedly with the BG being shot while actually threatening someone, but shot in the back as he's leaving? Nah...

Also, what was the shooter waiting for? The guy brought a knife to a gunfight and could have easily been taken out at any time.

 

[hopnpop]

big assumption

Also, what was the shooter waiting for? The guy brought a knife to a gunfight and could have easily been taken out at any time.

Not necessarily "easily taken out at any time". I'm assuming the shooter was keeping bystanders and safe directionality of fire in mind. I think in many cases it's better to not take the shot than to take a risky one in the direction of bystanders/innocents. We don't know the shooter's abilities, or what cover or lack of cover existed between the shooter and the BG... I think it's one of those "had to be there" situations. Without being there and seeing all of the details and conditions, it's impossible to determine what could or could not have been done differently or better. Lots of factors to take in.

 

[PascalFleischman]

Hey y'all: gotta agree with Glock Fan--you cannot shoot the perp in the back; as much as all of us would like to and I could not agree more, the threat is over and the use of a weapon is not called for anymore. As most have said, many states eliminate civil liability as a possibility in their CCW laws--in this case you get into the issue of whether the store owner had any business shooting and if he should not have the CCW/no civil liability goes out the window. Another example of how very very careful we all must be in examining our responsibilities, as set forth in the law, when having a gun in our possession.

Here are my thoughts on the situation. Take it how you wish, but I think a perp that is still on your property should still be shot in the back. Here's why:

1) He just robbed you in your house and/or place of business.
2) If you are contemplating armed action, the perp is most likely armed
3) If you just got robbed, he is running out the door still armed.
4) If he's still armed, there is a potential that your friends/family/customers/suppliers are outside the door and could encounter an armed robber
5) You could be just the first of many on a list of targets to get robbed

That being said, you are obviously in imminent fear for your life. Once the guy turns his back to leave, he is no longer an imminent threat to you, but then becomes an imminent threat to others.

In most C.D. states, imminent threat to the lives of others is a defensable use of deadly force. In our TN Carry class, we were taught that a shot in the back is still justifiable if the perp is within the confines of your building because you don't know his next intentions. Is he running out the door or to your child's bedroom? If he's running out the door, is there someone outside that he can attack?

I say, "Pool ze treegor oonteeel eet goes 'CLEECK'"

 

[JJFlash]

#1 sounds like revenge. I'll give you 2,3,4 assuming he's armed. #5 sounds like "crime prevention" which is a job for LE, not a store clerk.

 

[hk boy]

it would be hard to sell the jury that the robber is the victim--IMHO

 

[junglebob]

This may be hard for people to believe, but Illinois law doesn't allow someone committing a felony, or his family, to sue someone who kills or injures him defending themself or someone else.

As for the perp being shot in the back, maybe he turned around quickly.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey JungleBob: Kindly explain your last statement in your recent post. How do you get shot in the back if you turn around quickly?
Hey JJFlash: We agree again. No matter what anyone wants to say that justifies "shooting in the back", unless your are on the jury or the prosecutor, you have no say that matters--they are the ones who make or break this scenario and if you are going to shoot someone in the back or for that matter anywhere at any particular time, you had better keep that in your mind as part of your scenario even if you are scared to death over dealing with an armed perp with your CCW.

 

[hopnpop]

shaky

Think I wouldn't want to be the one in the hotseat while 12 of my peers work THAT out. IMO, in most instances where someone''s shot in the back, they're retreating and do not still pose an imminent threat. No matter how right I would FEEL in shooting someone who'd just threatened/robbed me, here in MI, deadly force may be used to preserve life, but not property. I agree with whoever said that the BG posing a threat after exiting isn't your problem. He, upon exiting, is no longer posing a threat to you or a loved one, but is posing a threat to society...which is LE's problem. It seems to stop being a case of "shooting because I had to" and becomes a case of "shooting because I could". That's not something you'd want to be in court debating. ...Again, IMO.

 

[JJFlash]

Not necessarily "easily taken out at any time". I'm assuming the shooter was keeping bystanders and safe directionality of fire in mind. I think in many cases it's better to not take the shot than to take a risky one in the direction of bystanders/innocents. We don't know the shooter's abilities, or what cover or lack of cover existed between the shooter and the BG... I think it's one of those "had to be there" situations. Without being there and seeing all of the details and conditions, it's impossible to determine what could or could not have been done differently or better. Lots of factors to take in.

I hear what you're saying here, but I stil think this is somewhat a no-brainer for me. BG has a knife? I'll fix any shooting issues (like "line-of-fire") by getting where I need to be in order for Mr. "I got a knife" to meet Mr. XD. Then BG can choose to immediately see the error of his ways or...

I understand there are many issues regarding this episode that I dont' know about and it's conceivable something might have prevented me shooting. But my point was: the guy had a knife and you shot him in the back? Something doesn't jibe here.

 

[kelcarry]

Sorry junglebob for my question. I'm old and I got turned around myself when I answered. Obviously you mean the perp was facing the gun and turned quickly at the same time as the gun went off.

 

[Bongo Boy]

In AZ - no civil case if cleared of criminal liability (& no bystanders harmed)... I'm surprised that case sustained life in the system - should be tossed and the robber shot again. :to_pick_ones_nose:

Then shoot the ambulance-chasing lawyer who perpetuated such a ridiculous claim.

Justice in its finest hour. Yes. I think it makes just about everyone sick to see this crap, but I get the impression this crap is rampant. No wonder folks are enraged when such nonsense even takes a minute from the court's time.

My dad, like I'm sure so many others' Dads, used to often repeat a favorite phrase..."Four walls is 3 too many." Compare jail cell to firing squad if you don't get the symbolism. Emotionally, at least, if you don't find an appeal to a man walking up to a dick with a 1911 and...pressing...the trigger, then you don't get it.

 

[Bongo Boy]

Here are my thoughts on the situation. Take it how you wish, but I think a perp that is still on your property should still be shot in the back. Here's why:

1) He just robbed you in your house and/or place of business.
2) If you are contemplating armed action, the perp is most likely armed
3) If you just got robbed, he is running out the door still armed.
4) If he's still armed, there is a potential that your friends/family/customers/suppliers are outside the door and could encounter an armed robber
5) You could be just the first of many on a list of targets to get robbed

That being said, you are obviously in imminent fear for your life. Once the guy turns his back to leave, he is no longer an imminent threat to you, but then becomes an imminent threat to others.

In most C.D. states, imminent threat to the lives of others is a defensable use of deadly force. In our TN Carry class, we were taught that a shot in the back is still justifiable if the perp is within the confines of your building because you don't know his next intentions. Is he running out the door or to your child's bedroom? If he's running out the door, is there someone outside that he can attack?

I say, "Pool ze treegor oonteeel eet goes 'CLEECK'"

Beautiful. He just dicked with me, is likely to dick with others, and may very well turn in a second and dick with me again. Aim.Press trigger.

I think the rule needs to be...if you're in my house...you're friggin dead...comin' or goinl. It's MY decision at this point as to how much a threat you are. That is the spirit of the castle...my last domain. Is there some reason we want to protect these people? Don't think so.

I'm gonna argue that,when I was lucky enough in my total froght and ignornace and fear for my famiily's life, when your face came off and splashed all over my new front door, I was saddened and horrified. But, jeeeez, you were reaching over your shoulder with your gun I thought you had. Tough luck. I was trained...you weren't.

 

[kelcarry]

Hye Bongo Boy: You have seen it many times on many posts on this forum; depending on your state, shooting someone in the back is going to leave open a lot of questions and second-guessing by prosecutors and juries. Do not get me wrong, I would applaud you for doing so and cleaning some of the scum off this earth, but I am just sayin----