Robber sues store he robbed - Page 7
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 71

Thread: Robber sues store he robbed

  1. #61
    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.

  2.   
  3. My understanding of the Michigan Castle doctrine law is that you cannot be held liable in a civil court if use of deadly force is authorized. Here is the difficulty:
    It remains up to a court to decide if deadly force was authorized. Even if no criminal charges are filed. Civil liability is another seperate matter and does not relate to criminal liability in any way.

    In a self defense shooting there are always going to be 2 elements: criminal and civil liability.

    If criminal charges are filed against a defendant in a self defense shooting and he is found guilty (deadly force not authorized) then civil liability will likely follow. If the defendant is found not guilty or charges are not filed then the possibility of civil liability still exists. The reason for this is the different standard of evidence between civil and criminal court.

    In criminal court you must be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" civil matters use a significantly lower standard called "preponderance of the evidence" meaning place all evidence for the defendant on one side of the scale, all evedence for the plaintiff on the other and whichever way the scale tilts is how the decision will go.

    The decision to file criminal charges is up to the prosecutor, if the prosecutor believes he can get a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" or feels like there may be some political benefit in filing charges he may file. On the other hand if it is politically inconvenient to file charges he may not. Perhaps it should not be this way but that is the reality.

    I suspect that the Plaintiff's attorney in this case thinks that a jury in a civil case may decide in his client's favor and, as has been mentioned on this forum, find that because the plaintiff was in flight (or appeared to be) the shoot was not justifiable from a civil standpoint.

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Tallahassee Florida
    Posts
    1,876
    This wouldn't be an issue if someone had been a better shot . . .

    "It's easier to avoid conflict than it is to survive it" - SGB

  5. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Arnoldsville, Ga
    Posts
    463
    Only in AMERICA.

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    He was shot in the arm and back. That indicates to me that he was turning when the clerk fired, and the clerk probably kept firing until the threat was neutralized. That's how we would all do it, right? Shoot until the threat stops?

    Read some of Ayoob's columns in Combat Handguns. It's next to impossible to stop shooting in time if the target is turning. You shoot until the threat stops, and if the target is still moving, he's still a threat.
    Bob Mueller
    Blog | Facebook | Flickr

  7. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Mustang View Post
    My understanding of the Michigan Castle doctrine law is that you cannot be held liable in a civil court if use of deadly force is authorized. Here is the difficulty:
    It remains up to a court to decide if deadly force was authorized. Even if no criminal charges are filed. Civil liability is another seperate matter and does not relate to criminal liability in any way.

    In a self defense shooting there are always going to be 2 elements: criminal and civil liability.

    If criminal charges are filed against a defendant in a self defense shooting and he is found guilty (deadly force not authorized) then civil liability will likely follow. If the defendant is found not guilty or charges are not filed then the possibility of civil liability still exists. The reason for this is the different standard of evidence between civil and criminal court.

    In criminal court you must be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" civil matters use a significantly lower standard called "preponderance of the evidence" meaning place all evidence for the defendant on one side of the scale, all evedence for the plaintiff on the other and whichever way the scale tilts is how the decision will go.

    The decision to file criminal charges is up to the prosecutor, if the prosecutor believes he can get a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" or feels like there may be some political benefit in filing charges he may file. On the other hand if it is politically inconvenient to file charges he may not. Perhaps it should not be this way but that is the reality.

    I suspect that the Plaintiff's attorney in this case thinks that a jury in a civil case may decide in his client's favor and, as has been mentioned on this forum, find that because the plaintiff was in flight (or appeared to be) the shoot was not justifiable from a civil standpoint.
    You are absolutely correct about the civil lawsuits under the castle doctrine. No matter what the result of the criminal charges are and the ruling that is wa justified under the castle doctrine a civil suit can still be filed. This applies in every state so do not think that you are immune just because you live in such-and-such state.

    When the civil suit is filed you will be forced again to defend yourself and show that your actions were legal. If you are successful and a jury decides with you then you will be awarded legal fees from the plaintiff and good luck collecting them. During the trial you will have the decision from the criminal case on your side and it is unlikely but possible that that you will lose. It is the high probability that you will win and the possibilty of having to pay your legal fees that prevent most of the civil lawsuits from being filed. Most lawyers will try to talk the victim/family our of trying to file the lawsuit and require them to post the fees upfront. Few will take such a case on a contingency basis.

    As Doc said the castle doctrine does not prevent you from being sued as most people think and try to tell everyone that it does but just places a very high burden of proof on the plaintiff and an extra penalty if they lose. Remember that you can be sued for almost anything, all it takes is someone to write it up and the filing fee.

  8. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Bongo Boy View Post
    Beautiful. He just dicked with me, is likely to **** with others, and may very well turn in a second and **** 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.
    I couldnt agree with you more bongo.Mi laws need to be more like Texas!

  9. Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    During the trial you will have the decision from the criminal case on your side and it is unlikely but possible that that you will lose.
    In criminal court you can be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" but you are never found innocent "beyond a reasonable doubt". Instead, you are found "not guilty" which is decidedly different from innocent.

    A "not guilty", dropped charges or no filed charges may not help you in civil court as much as you might think. Your (civil) defense attorney may attempt to have the case thrown out on the basis of justified use of self defense but the judge may decide he wants a jury to weigh the evidence.

  10. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    Head shot would have resolved the issue.

  11. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by SGB View Post
    This wouldn't be an issue if someone had been a better shot . . .
    My thoughts exactly, and had the clerk done nothing......this piece of crap would've done the same thing again somewhere else. And everyone should not be eligible for a defense attorney, way too many cut and dry felonious situations.
    Ruger LCP and Springfield XD-9 subcompact

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 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