Robber sues store he robbed

[FN1910]

A guy robbed a store in Clinton Township, Michigan and now he's suing the owners because one of the clerks shot him.

With all the talk about Castle Doctrine making you immune to lawsuits and when you are allowed to pull the trigger etc. you need to read about this. Makes you want to throw up and whup someones rear end.

Robber sues store he robbed - KTNV ABC,Channel 13,Las Vegas,Nevada,News,Weather,Sports,Entertainment,KTN V.com,Action News .:.

Police say Scott Zeilinski held a knife to the throats of several clerks during the November 2007 robbery.

After stealing money and cigarettes, Zeilinski tried to flee.

That's when a clerk shot him in the back and arm.

Zeilinski's lawyer says his client is asking for at least $125,000 for pain and suffering and emotional distress.

"What about the stress brought onto the 17-year-old involved? what about the stress to the family? what about the fear for their life that they were put in by this guy?"

Since the robbery, the store owner has spent thousands of dollars on security so the employees can feel safe.

They say they hope nothing like this ever happens again.

[ClearSightTactical]

This is pathetic.

[lcperson]

Depends on the state, in Florida if its a legal shooting, and the above probably would be, you can't be sued by the criminal or his representatives. If you hit an innocent bystander that is another matter. If the shooting is found to be justified you can't be prosecuted or sued.

[Wreckmaster]

Depends on the state, in Florida if its a legal shooting, and the above probably would be, you can't be sued by the criminal or his representatives. If you hit an innocent bystander that is another matter. If the shooting is found to be justified you can't be prosecuted or sued.

Here in the state of Missouri, we too are covered both criminally and civilly.

[Saltcreek]

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

bill

Not true everywhere. In Ohio, Castle doctrine protects you from criminal charges AND from civil lawsuits from the bad guy OR his family.

[Beretta8045]

The Self Defense Act

General Provisions of the Act

A person may use deadly force with no duty to retreat if:

1. They are not engaged in a crime
2. They are in a place they have a legal right to be
3. They honestly and reasonably believe deadly force is necessary
4. The deadly force is used to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of the person or another

MCL 600.2922b

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.

According to Michigan Law, he can't be sued if he believed deadly force was necessary and the force was used to prevent imminent harm to another person.

The article states the bad guy was trying to flee, so I'm betting his scumbag lawyer is arguing that he was no longer a threat and deadly force wasn't necessary. Thus, he doesn't have blanket coverage under the Self Defense Act.

Obviously the guy doesn't deserve a penny, and let's hope he doesn't get anything.

[HK4U]

Castle Doctrine may mean that the likelihood of the BG winning a law suit is very low but that does not mean that he will not attempt it. You can be sued for anything regardless of whether there is much chance of winning or not.

[AZSATT]

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.

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

[Glock Fan]

The one problem I have with the story is that the BG was allegedly shot in the back. That indicates that the BG was "running away" when he was shot. Many will disagree, but IMHO, shooting a BG in the back while he's running away does not justify SD. The shooter may be cleared of criminal charges, should be held responsibly to some degree for shooting someone in the back.

We'll see how this plays out in the SC judicial system.




gf

[clofwv]

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