Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't see why anyone thinks this is controversial. He isn't suing them for stopping the robbery, he's suing them for (supposedly) beating him once he was no longer a threat. If that did in fact occur then he absolutely deserves to win and the employees should be joining him in prison. This is a straightforward rule of self defense, you can use force to end a threat but if you continue to use force once the threat has ended you become the aggressor and get to spend some time in prison.

Sykes wrote:I'm not good at making good choices.

Maybe he chose to continue to resist.

I suspect his credibility is a bit less than those he was attempting to rob at gun point.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I think peoples' inclination is to take the side of, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Much like the father who beat the crap out of the guy he caught molesting his kid, and was not charged by police.


That's a very different situation because (as far as we know) the father violently removed him from his son and injured him in the process, but didn't continue the beating once he was lying injured on the floor and waiting for the police to arrive. If the father had walked off, retrieved his gun, and executed the guy it would have been murder even though the victim doesn't deserve much sympathy.



Frazzled wrote:
All I have to say is, are you out of your fething mind?


Exactly what part of that do you disagree with? Do you not understand how self defense laws work, or do you just think that people should be allowed to inflict whatever vigilante justice they feel is appropriate as long as the victim "deserves it"?

I'm sorry, but as long as the guy who pulled a gun on me is still breathing and not in police custody, he is still a threat.

So now a bunch of low wage workers have to shell out BIG BUCKS to defend themselves from a scheister attorney. How exactly is a prisoner allowed to push civil suits while in jail?
If there is no scheiester attorney, how exactly is the case supposed to be handled? This is travesty.


This is why the US legal system is utter nonsensical garbage.

Need to start making a public example out of criminals.

Agreed, first place to start would be by making them eat chain store pizza.

 Bullockist wrote:
Agreed, first place to start would be by making them eat chain store pizza.

Cruel and unusual

"I sentence you to $15 of Little Caesar's pizza".

 Bullockist wrote:
Agreed, first place to start would be by making them eat chain store pizza.

force fed with a tube?

I like it.

 Ouze wrote:
"I sentence you to $15 of Little Caesar's pizza".

Even with bacon I couldn't do it

 Frazzled wrote:
A Bad Actor cannot successfully overcome a self defense argument vs. non-police when he is armed with a firearm, was in the commission of a felony, and the GGs were unarmed.

Err, lol? So you're saying that once a person has been subdued, the crime has ended, and they are no longer a threat the former victims are free to inflict whatever damage they feel like doing as revenge for being a target? Remember, the accusation is not about using too much force to stop the crime, it's that the employees went beyond self defense and continued to attack the robber once he was on the floor waiting for the police to arrive.

 Frazzled wrote:
So now a bunch of low wage workers have to shell out BIG BUCKS to defend themselves from a scheister attorney.

And what exactly is the alternative? Automatically dismiss any lawsuits that you don't think are "fair"? If there's no credible argument that the employees did anything wrong then the case will be thrown out of court and the only person who has to suffer any real inconvenience will be whoever has to toss his paperwork in the trash. If there is a credible argument then they should have to defend themselves, because the alternative is letting people get away with crimes because it wouldn't be "fair" to make them pay for a lawyer.

How exactly is a prisoner allowed to push civil suits while in jail?

Why shouldn't they be able to? Being convicted of a crime doesn't mean that you lose all of your legal rights, and I see nothing wrong with the robber being in prison for his multiple crimes while the employees are in the adjacent cell for going beyond the limits of self defense and beating him for revenge. It's not like this case is going to get him out of prison, it's just going to add to the list of people who get punished.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
This is the same style of suing that exists when a robber falls through the floor of the house of a man who is renovating. If the judge lets him get away with it, the legal system has failed. Excessive force? He discharged a gun in a restaurant-likely at least semi-crowded if it was during regular hours. Plus he's obviously lying already about "being forced to do it" when he has 8 counts of it in the recent past, I'm sure he's lying about the excessive force as well. It's his word against everyone else there. Unless security tapes show excessive force, put him in solitary and lose the key. No loss to society there, as he's a stain on humanity.

Read your answer again. Realise that it pretty much boils down to 'he is bad and so I deem him no longer worthy of rights'. Realise that justice doesn't work that way for very fething important reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect his credibility is a bit less than those he was attempting to rob at gun point.

You can suspect he's a lizardman using this as part of an elaborate plot to take over all pizza stores on the east coast for all it matters.

The point is that the case has gone under review by a judge who's actually studied the evidence and heard testimony, and while most of the robber's claims were dismissed, the part about him being abused while being detained was deemed to be reasonable enough to go to trial.

 Piston Honda wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Agreed, first place to start would be by making them eat chain store pizza.

force fed with a tube?

I like it.

I dunno if you could manage to get deep dish pizza in a tube, but it would be fun to try.

Sebster, what kind of pizza should criminals be force fed?

 Bullockist wrote:

 Piston Honda wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Agreed, first place to start would be by making them eat chain store pizza.

force fed with a tube?

I like it.

I dunno if you could manage to get deep dish pizza in a tube, but it would be fun to try.

Sebster, what kind of pizza should criminals be force fed?

I vote anything with pineapple or sweetcorn on it

I'm not usually in favor of capital punishment, but am reconsidering my stance upon learning that apparently people put sweetcorn on pizza.

Sweetcorn on pizza is actually pretty nice, obviously depending on what else is on the pizza.

 sebster wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect his credibility is a bit less than those he was attempting to rob at gun point.

You can suspect he's a lizardman using this as part of an elaborate plot to take over all pizza stores on the east coast for all it matters.

The point is that the case has gone under review by a judge who's actually studied the evidence and heard testimony, and while most of the robber's claims were dismissed, the part about him being abused while being detained was deemed to be reasonable enough to go to trial.

Multiple offense criminal convicted of armed robbery and admits he makes bad choices opposed to victims of the armed robbery. My statement stands. Any halfway competent lawyer is going to destroy the perp's credibility in front of a jury.

Err, lol? So you're saying that once a person has been subdued, the crime has ended, and they are no longer a threat the former victims are free to inflict whatever damage they feel like doing as revenge for being a target? Remember, the accusation is not about using too much force to stop the crime, it's that the employees went beyond self defense and continued to attack the robber once he was on the floor waiting for the police to arrive.

I’m saying in Planet Real World ™ there’s no way they get convicted unless they go Reservoir Dogs on him. Efforts to stop his attack don’t count. His mere allegation is laughable on its face.

And what exactly is the alternative? Automatically dismiss any lawsuits that you don't think are "fair"? If there's no credible argument that the employees did anything wrong then the case will be thrown out of court and the only person who has to suffer any real inconvenience will be whoever has to toss his paperwork in the trash. If there is a credible argument then they should have to defend themselves, because the alternative is letting people get away with crimes because it wouldn't be "fair" to make them pay for a lawyer.

Utter nonsense. Prisoners should not be permitted to sue ANYONE while in prison. They should only be able to take legal action in regards to appeals. Nuisance suits by prisoners are well known and typically poured out by judges. Evidently they found a fellow traveller bleeding heart. This aint your Atticus Finch’s legal system,

Why shouldn't they be able to? Being convicted of a crime doesn't mean that you lose all of your legal rights,

Because your argument is not sane. Only in planet crazytown is this an acceptable option. There’s nothing to keep him from just randomly suing people in the phone book.

 Leigen_Zero wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

Spoiler:

 Piston Honda wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Agreed, first place to start would be by making them eat chain store pizza.

force fed with a tube?

I like it.

I dunno if you could manage to get deep dish pizza in a tube, but it would be fun to try.

Sebster, what kind of pizza should criminals be force fed?

I vote anything with pineapple or sweetcorn on it

I cannot exalt this post enough

 Frazzled wrote:
There’s nothing to keep him from just randomly suing people in the phone book.

Well, he's going to need to find someone to file his motions for him, and I suspect it's difficult to find an attorney willing to file a lot of frivolous lawsuits that are likely to result in sanctions.

Alternately, he might learn to file his own frivolous motions, and yes, they will get thrown out of court, but that's America, baby.
'

No he doesn't actually. Jail house lawyers can file them on their own.

 Frazzled wrote:
No he doesn't actually. Jail house lawyers can file them on their own.

Which, if I understand correctly, is just what this guy has done.

Exactly.

because he don't make good decisions...

why did the pizza place have soup?...

Had a loaded gun and fired it once? Yep, I consider him a threat as long as he is conscious.

I think people in the act of committing violent crimes SHOULD have all rights temporarily suspended for the duration of the crime.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
why did the pizza place have soup?...

Tomato soup?

 sebster wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
This is the same style of suing that exists when a robber falls through the floor of the house of a man who is renovating. If the judge lets him get away with it, the legal system has failed. Excessive force? He discharged a gun in a restaurant-likely at least semi-crowded if it was during regular hours. Plus he's obviously lying already about "being forced to do it" when he has 8 counts of it in the recent past, I'm sure he's lying about the excessive force as well. It's his word against everyone else there. Unless security tapes show excessive force, put him in solitary and lose the key. No loss to society there, as he's a stain on humanity.

Read your answer again. Realise that it pretty much boils down to 'he is bad and so I deem him no longer worthy of rights'. Realise that justice doesn't work that way for very fething important reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect his credibility is a bit less than those he was attempting to rob at gun point.

You can suspect he's a lizardman using this as part of an elaborate plot to take over all pizza stores on the east coast for all it matters.

The point is that the case has gone under review by a judge who's actually studied the evidence and heard testimony, and while most of the robber's claims were dismissed, the part about him being abused while being detained was deemed to be reasonable enough to go to trial.

Shrug, it's okay to have your opinion, even though its wrong. My post, if I need to go further into detail, is this:
-guy holds restaurant at gunpoint
-gun is discharged
-he is subdued
-claims excessive force was used on him
-people with low paying jobs are being sued for protecting themselves, and POSSIBLY went overboard during the heat of the moment (psychologically very easy to understand)
-robber has robbed multiple places already and has been caught lying, and due to his previous examples is pretty much demonstrating a lie again
-are there burns on his skin from soup?
-does a camera show levels over the top? If yes, maybe he deserves something. If no, lock him up. Some people are trash. This guy screwed his own life up by making bad choices, could have killed someone, then chose to continue trying to ruin those very same lives after he was arrested. If you think he "deserves" better than my suggestion to lock him up, then you need to seriously reconsider your views on morality and legality. Then again, maybe those two things mean something different on your side of the world.

Well thats probably why that part of the claim is up for review.

Hot soup is a whole nother level of conflict from beating the guy up with a pizza spatula.

it is a "System" let it process and sort it out like it should.

 Frazzled wrote:
No he doesn't actually. Jail house lawyers can file them on their own.

And there is nothing wrong with that; until he actually abuses the system. If he has a history of filing frivolous lawsuits, eventually he will be forced to have another attorney file his stuff for him, as have other lawyers of ill-repute. Again, that's America, baby.

The fact that some elements of his case were not dismissed out of hand speaks to the fact that it's possibly a case with some merit.

I do agree that if you come at someone with a gun, that the victims of the attempted robbery have significant latitude to decide when you are no longer a thread to them, and that scope definitely (in my mind) includes a standard-issue post-robbery-attempt assbeating.

There was a case where a pharmacist shot a attempted armed robbery recently, as I recall, and as the robber was laying bleeding out there the pharmacist strolled over and put another 2 in him; and was rightfully subsequently convicted of murder. But an asskicking is not murder, and unless this guy had some significant injuries I can't see much of a case here.

I would comment further on this but I am still wrapping my head around sweetcorn.....

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't see why anyone thinks this is controversial. He isn't suing them for stopping the robbery, he's suing them for (supposedly) beating him once he was no longer a threat. If that did in fact occur then he absolutely deserves to win and the employees should be joining him in prison. This is a straightforward rule of self defense, you can use force to end a threat but if you continue to use force once the threat has ended you become the aggressor and get to spend some time in prison.

Except its pretty well established that any injuries sustained during the commission of a crime are the responsibility of the perpetrator, up to and including loss of life.