Robber sues store he robbed - Page 6
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 71

Thread: Robber sues store he robbed

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    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.

  2.   
  3. #52
    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

  4. Shoot the lowlife lawyer that talked the bg to file the lawsuit.

  5. #54
    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

  6. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by dsb1252 View Post
    Shoot the lowlife lawyer that talked the bg to file the lawsuit.
    An obvious Shakespear refferance.

  7. #56

    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...

  8. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Saltcreek View Post
    Not true everywhere. In Ohio, Castle doctrine protects you from criminal charges AND from civil lawsuits from the bad guy OR his family.
    Just what I was thinking about Ohio.

  9. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    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.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  10. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by RayMarotta View Post
    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?]

  11. #60
    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.
    Due to the increased cost of Ammunition I will be forced to discontinue warning shots as of now! USAF Chief Master Sergeant, Retired, 1979-2005

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 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