Robber sues store he robbed


Castle Doctrine laws protect you against criminal charges being filed against you. Unfortunately, they offer no protection from civil actions.

I have read in Ayoob's columns many times that if you shoot somebody, no matter how justified, you WILL be sued. Our CC instructor (40 years as a LEO) said the same thing.

Your best bet is to kill the BG, and hope he has no living relatives or dependents.

bill


WRONG! In Michigan, if no criminal charges are brought against you, you cannot be sued. The bill below was signed into law and took effect on October 1, 2006
Most other states that have the "Castle Doctrine" laws now give the same immunity.


STATE OF MICHIGAN
93RD LEGISLATURE
REGULAR SESSION OF 2006
Introduced by Reps. Moore, Jones, Pavlov, Baxter, Marleau, Casperson, LaJoy, Shaffer, Stakoe, Hune,
Hildenbrand, Garfield, Hansen, Newell, Nofs, Polidori, Robertson, Rocca, Sheltrown, Kahn, Mortimer,
Elsenheimer, Taub, Hummel, Kooiman, Drolet, Gosselin, Farhat, Acciavatti, David Law, Espinoza and
Gleason
ENROLLED HOUSE BILL No. 5548
AN ACT to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled “An act to revise and consolidate the statutes relating to the organization
and jurisdiction of the courts of this state; the powers and duties of such courts, and of the judges and other officers
thereof; the forms and attributes of civil claims and actions; the time within which civil actions and proceedings may be
brought in said courts; pleading, evidence, practice and procedure in civil and criminal actions and proceedings in said
courts; to provide remedies and penalties for the violation of certain provisions of this act; to repeal all acts and parts of
acts inconsistent with or contravening any of the provisions of this act; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” (MCL 600.101
to 600.9947) by adding section 2922b.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
Sec. 2922b. An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another
individual in compliance with section 2 of the self-defense act is immune from civil liability for damages caused to either
of the following by the use of that deadly force or force other than deadly force:
(a) The individual against whom the use of deadly force or force other than deadly force is authorized.
(b) Any individual claiming damages arising out of injury to or the death of the individual described in subdivision (a),
based upon his or her relationship to that individual.
Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect October 1, 2006.
Enacting section 2. This amendatory act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 93rd Legislature
are enacted into law:
(a) Senate Bill No. 1046.
(b) Senate Bill No. 1185.
(c) House Bill No. 5142.
(d) House Bill No. 5143.
(e) House Bill No. 5153.
(
 

Hey agksimon and billwot: You have to check your state laws; several if not many states have that provision in their CC/PP laws--if you are not guilty under the prevailing law, you are excused from any and all civil liabilities. Some states are just redefining and fine tuning their laws to incorporate this feature as part of a more sane approach to what this is all about--protecting you and not making the scum rich.
 
Robber sues store

I think most laws are about the same. " Once the threat against you is no longer a threat , you cannot use force against them." Therefore if a criminal is leaving the scene, you are not allowed to shoot them.
I don't agree, but the law is the law.

Hope I didn' t offend anyone.
 
I used to live in Florida I remember it has a 3 step law. I now live in Tennesee and wish Tennesee and Alabama had that same law.
I also remember you can carry a gun in your car with out a permit but it has to be in a snaptight holster and stored in your glove box.
I worked in a convience store not too far from cracktown and had to open around 5 am , at that time a loaded 357 kept me company when I went down there
 
I used to live in Florida I remember it has a 3 step law. I now live in Tennesee and wish Tennesee and Alabama had that same law.
I also remember you can carry a gun in your car with out a permit but it has to be in a snaptight holster and stored in your glove box.
I worked in a convience store not too far from cracktown and had to open around 5 am , at that time a loaded 357 kept me company when I went down there

Back in 2009, the Florida Appeals Court ruled that if you were attacked and the person was still in a place you had a right to be, attacker loses. Because you have no idea if the attacker might come back seconds later.
 
So, when the BG starts to run away from you, yell HEY really loud. The BG may instinctively turn around. Then you shoot.
Or have a drop gun to put in his hand after you kill him.
 
Sounds to me like the threat was over if the D-bag was trying to flee. If there was no one between him and the door/exit, and he was actually "fleeing", then deadly force would not be authorized. The clerks were justified in using deadly force while their lives were in danger, but if he was headed for the door and shot in the back.... not good for the clerk.

I'm a MI resident and am under the impression that we ARE covered both criminally and civilly. The difference in this case is that, the way it's written, the threat was already over. This sounds more like a retalliation shooting. "My life's not in danger NOW but was a minute ago, and for that, I'm going to shoot you". As much as our emotions may justify that, the law doesn't. I wish, for the clerk's sake, that he could have shot the robber WHILE actively threatening someone.

Then again, maybe there was another innocent between the BG and the door. If it was believed that the BG would do harm to the person between him and the exit, then there's a chance in it being considered justified. Otherwise, unfortunately, this doesn't look good for the clerk.

My thoughts exactly.
 
first each state has its own laws which can be quite different. second i would be in contact with a very knowledgeable lawyer. third my father-in-law maintains that in situations like this shooting it is best to make sure that the judge hears only one side of the story. yours. but that is his opinion. while not knowing all the facts and state laws that apply in this case one view says if he was leaving so was the threat. however the fact that he was still armed a reasonable person might conclude that he still might turn and kill someone and this was a chance to nutralize the threat. either way my sympathies are with the victoms and not the punk. the punk is lucky he did not land up on a cold slab with a toe-tag. and i hope that the courts see this lawsuit for what it is,garbage. and someday i have little doubt the punk will land up in the cold-storage room.
 
Once a Felony happened, I think SC Law would NOT allow a Civil Suit.....No matter where he was shot. He could kill someone on the street, if he hadn't been shot. He had already proved that he was a danger to society.
 
Hey Glock Fan and the rest of my forum friends: Here in SC I believe you are immune from all lawsuits criminal and civil where your presumption of imminent danger are upheld. Also in SC there is a code that discusses your use of citizen's arrest and the fact that you can do whatever it takes to keep a perp under arrest including taking actions (that include his death) that prevent his escape. I believe the word "nighttime" is included in the code but a case like this could be argued. I tend to agree with you Glock on the shot to the back, but if I knew that the code allowed it and I just witnessed what happened, I am pretty sure this perp would not be suing anyone.
 
The best defense against being sued is suing the bad guy and his family for the emotional distress his attack on you caused. If you kill him, sue his family for emotional distress, drywall repairs, carpet cleaning, ammo costs, wear and tear on your weapon, hearing damage, and, generally for bringing the POS into the world. Lot's of hungry ambulance chasers out there that would take the case on a "No Cure, No Pay" basis:biggrin:
 
Hard to disagree with shooting a lawyer but as a lawyer acquaintance once said to me, someone has to hire them and that, in many civil cases is the one who deserves shooting. Besides, shooting the lawyer would make you the same as the bad guy who started the whole thing.
BTW...I KNOW you weren't really serious but a lot of pantie wearing, bed-wetting, hand-wringing, guilt-ridden girly-men and scrawny middle-aged women with bad haircuts (typical liberals) would take you absolutely seriously...
All the best
 
Shooting lawyers

Of course it's a Shakespeare reference...To you, me, and, 99.999% of the folks on this site and others like it. To the gun-grabbing crowd, it's clearly a threat against a wonderful and necessary segment of society and proves the need for more restrictive gun laws. Gotta remember...The liberal thought process is different from that of normal people...
 
Wow! Just can't make this stuff up. In some states the perp is barred from a civil suit if the shooter is not indicted.
 
Of course it's a Shakespeare reference...To you, me, and, 99.999% of the folks on this site and others like it. To the gun-grabbing crowd, it's clearly a threat against a wonderful and necessary segment of society and proves the need for more restrictive gun laws. Gotta remember...The liberal thought process is different from that of normal people...

Of course, it's always good to actually know what the reference means before one uses it.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" is a line from Shakespeare's Henry VI play. It was spoken by **** the Butcher" (take note of these character names) in response Jack Cade's rambling about how to create anarchy in the otherwise orderly society and cause that society to "worship me their lord."

**** the Butcher was a follower of anarchist Jack Cade, whom Shakespeare depicts as "the head of an army of rabble and a demagogue pandering to the ignorant," who sought to overthrow the government. Shakespeare's acknowledgment that the first thing any potential tyrant must do to eliminate freedom is to "kill all the lawyers"

Shakespeare isn't making an Elizabethan lawyer joke. Anarchy and vicious street violence serve the purposes of Jack Cade, **** the Butcher's aspiring fuhrer. The Rule of Law impedes Cade's rebellion -- and lawyers, judges and juries embody the law.

Cade speaks the language of populist rebellion, but his "self-determination" is ultimately a terrible pun. He will dispense with money, feed the population, dress everyone in the same clothing. But his goal is power and personal rule. Just before **** the Butcher's call for mass judicial murder, Cade states his intended policy goal: He wants the people to "worship me their lord."

So, when one utters that phrase in alignment with it, they are in essence proclaiming themselves to be a supporter of anarchy and "a demagogue pandering to the ignorant."

Just thought you'd like to know.

[Filtering out a common surname seems a bit puritanistic. Are there people on this forum who have prurient response to a name of a character in a Shakespeare play?]
 
If bad guy is still in my presence, he is still a threat. Even if he is turned around and not facing me. Now, if I run him down, down the road and shot him in the back, it most likely would be legally wrong (OK, it would be legally wrong, unless I was on the jury) but may or may not be morally wrong depending on your beliefs.
 
Ya know the really sad part about all this is the the felon will probably win the lawsuit. Even in most states that have adopted a "castle doctrine" the felon was in retreat when the clerk shot him and technically was no longer a threat. Thats the law unfortunately. Did he deserve what he got? you betcha no argument there.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,543
Messages
611,260
Members
74,964
Latest member
BFerguson
Back
Top