Robber sues store he robbed - Page 5
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71

Thread: Robber sues store he robbed

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by billwot View Post
    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.
    (

  2.   
  3. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    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.

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Eastern North Carolina
    Posts
    268
    As i posted previously:

    Quote Originally Posted by billwot View Post
    Well, I'm pleased to learn that the Castle Doctrine in at least some states does protect the GG from civil action. Thanks to the several members that posted info about the specifics of those states.

    bill

  5. #44

    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.

  6. #45
    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

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by sb57fury View Post
    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.

  8. #47
    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.

  9. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by hopnpop View Post
    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.
    AL
    Proverbs 25:28 - A man without self control is like a city broken into and left without walls.

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    817
    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.

  11. #50
    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.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast