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.

so does this all mean that if someone breaks into my house, and my dogs attacks said person, and they kill the dog, they could sue for any injuries attained from the dog?

 the shrouded lord wrote:
so does this all mean that if someone breaks into my house, and my dogs attacks said person, and they kill the dog, they could sue for any injuries attained from the dog?

And also charge you for murder or manslaughter. See pregnant burglar killed by burglarded old man.

So basicaly if they just shot him or even beat him to death it would have been better than letting him live and go on to sue them.

Daemonhammer wrote:
So basicaly if they just shot him or even beat him to death it would have been better than letting him live and go on to sue them.

Policy for many businesses is let the robber do what they want to rob you and let them get away so they can be apprehended later and you do not end up a casualty and/or being sued. That is the better answer.

Daemonhammer wrote:
So basicaly if they just shot him or even beat him to death it would have been better than letting him live and go on to sue them.

Yes.

It is a funny situation, but if you are burgled its better to kill the intruder than to let them live to possibly sue for damages incurred.

Which ever you think is cost effective to yourself

 WarOne wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
so does this all mean that if someone breaks into my house, and my dogs attacks said person, and they kill the dog, they could sue for any injuries attained from the dog?

And also charge you for murder or manslaughter. See pregnant burglar killed by burglarded old man.

You mean the one where the homeowner shot her twice in the back while she was running away, and then executed her while she was bleeding out on the floor? I see no reason why a man shouldn't be allowed to kill people once they're no longer a threat; it's inhumane I tell ya! Taking away a man's rights to kill someone he's already stopped... for shame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:
So basicaly if they just shot him or even beat him to death it would have been better than letting him live and go on to sue them.

Yes.

It is a funny situation, but if you are burgled its better to kill the intruder than to let them live to possibly sue for damages incurred.

Define "better".

The law allows for reasonable force to defend yourself, someone else (and in some states, your property). Sometimes, reasonable force may include lethal force, but we need to stop pretending that we don't know that the word "reasonable" is there for a reason, guys. It's wholly possible for self-defense to escalate into murder.

 Ouze wrote:
The law allows for reasonable force to defend yourself, someone else (and in some states, your property). Sometimes, reasonable force may include lethal force, but we need to stop pretending that we don't know that the word "reasonable" is there for a reason, guys. It's wholly possible for self-defense to escalate into murder.

This. I'm all for the use of reasonable force to stop someone, but shooting someone in the back whilst they're on the floor (having been shot two times already) begging for mercy is not reasonable; nor is beating the gak out of someone as a group when the perpetrator is no longer a threat.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Like the one alleging a dark and mysterious supervillain forced him to commit the robbery?

The judge didn't throw it out because there's evidence he had burns on him. He's alleging they basically tortured him with hot soup. The defense is going to say they knocked over a pot of the stuff when they want crashing into the guy to apprehend him. The defense is going to win, and a few minimum wage workers are going to be out a lot of money unless the company steps up and pays for their defense.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is a funny situation, but if you are burgled its better to kill the intruder than to let them live to possibly sue for damages incurred.

Of course if there are any witnesses or camera recordings showing you executing the intruder after the use of deadly force was no longer justified you can look forward to spending the rest of your life in prison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
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.

Again, we're not talking about injuries sustained during the commission of a crime. The accusation is that the employees went beyond self defense and continued to attack him once he was no longer a threat.

They poured hot soup on him? That is...amazing? If someone robbed me, you can beat your azz he'd be getting burned with hot soup if it was handy! Hell, I'd beat him to death with a pumpkin if possible.

 Frazzled wrote:
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.

Depends on what evidence is available. If it's his word against the employees he's not going to get very far. If there's a camera recording of him being beaten after the attack is clearly stopped, or one of the employees takes a deal to testify against the others then they could be in trouble. But the point is that it should be decided based on the merits of his case, not just dismissed because he's a Bad Person who doesn't deserve any rights.

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 allowed to sue anyone? If they have a legitimate case then why should it be thrown out just because they're a Bad Person, or because some other Bad Person has done something that you don't like? And if they don't have a legitimate case then their lawsuit can be filed directly into the trash, just like every other obvious nuisance lawsuit.

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

There isn't, just like there isn't anything to keep you from randomly suing people from the phone book. Of course neither of you will get anywhere with your lawsuits, you'll just get them tossed in the trash until the court gets tired of you and tells you to stop. What I don't see is why we should be so terrified of random lawsuits that we need to block entire classes of people from the legal system just in case they might annoy someone.

ITT people honestly arguing to exempt people from the rule of law and right to have their case heard. It's only one of the fundamental of modern society, no biggie, right?

 Frazzled wrote:

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,

This is a bridge too far. US prisons have some major issues now, but lawsuits by prisoners are one of the prime ways that abuses by prison guards, inhumane treatment, etc are addressed and redressed. I don't think anyone wants to go back to the prison system of the early 20th century where warden's were kings, torture was common and cruel and unusual was the order of the day. One doesn't have to have a bleeding heart to see that prisoner lawsuits are vital part of the checks and balances (though it's still very much balanced against the prisoners) in the legal and penal system.

Nuisance suits should be thrown out with the bathwater, but don't toss out the baby too.

I can tell you gents that,from my own experience, if someone pulls a gun on you and you subdue them, crippling them up during the process because of the adrenaline rushing your system, the judge will most likely be on your side.
I wasn't on the stand 5 minutes in the trial for the armed robber I subdued before the judge got pissed at the defense for asking frivolous questions and the prosecution for not objecting to the line of questioning I was recieving about the hotel camera system.
At that point the trial was pretty much over and the defendant decided it was better to plea bargain and shut the hell up rather than try to be a dick and get some real big time.

^Well said, Relapse!

 timetowaste85 wrote:
^Well said, Relapse!

The judge definitely took both lawyers by surprise when he laid into them, and the defendant had an ,"oh, gak!" look on his face.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

HE IS ABUSING THE SYSTEM. NOW THE VICTIMS HAVE TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THEY DON"T HAVE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM BEING ED A SECOND TIME.

BLAME THE VICTIM!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarOne wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:
So basicaly if they just shot him or even beat him to death it would have been better than letting him live and go on to sue them.

Policy for many businesses is let the robber do what they want to rob you and let them get away so they can be apprehended later and you do not end up a casualty and/or being sued. That is the better answer.

Not if your one of the employees who may be killed in the process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
ITT people honestly arguing to exempt people from the rule of law and right to have their case heard. It's only one of the fundamental of modern society, no biggie, right?

You work at a pizza joint.
Robber comes in and tries to kill you but you disable him.
RObber sues you. Why not? No cost to him. he has nothing better to do.

You lose everything you have to pay for a lawyer to defend you.
You win (maybe). But now you're broke.

Nothing fundamental about it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
so does this all mean that if someone breaks into my house, and my dogs attacks said person, and they kill the dog, they could sue for any injuries attained from the dog?

Thats why you have apack of wiener dogs. While not as ... efficient as pigs, they'll take care of all the evidence. Even the bones. Because they are badass, and crotchety as heck.


And ravenous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I can tell you gents that,from my own experience, if someone pulls a gun on you and you subdue them, crippling them up during the process because of the adrenaline rushing your system, the judge will most likely be on your side.
I wasn't on the stand 5 minutes in the trial for the armed robber I subdued before the judge got pissed at the defense for asking frivolous questions and the prosecution for not objecting to the line of questioning I was recieving about the hotel camera system.
At that point the trial was pretty much over and the defendant decided it was better to plea bargain and shut the hell up rather than try to be a dick and get some real big time.

Of course you weren't paying the lawyer defending you, were you. You were a witness only no? Not a defendant.

 Frazzled wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I can tell you gents that,from my own experience, if someone pulls a gun on you and you subdue them, crippling them up during the process because of the adrenaline rushing your system, the judge will most likely be on your side.
I wasn't on the stand 5 minutes in the trial for the armed robber I subdued before the judge got pissed at the defense for asking frivolous questions and the prosecution for not objecting to the line of questioning I was recieving about the hotel camera system.
At that point the trial was pretty much over and the defendant decided it was better to plea bargain and shut the hell up rather than try to be a dick and get some real big time.

Of course you weren't paying the lawyer defending you, were you. You were a witness only no? Not a defendant.

Fraz, I'm not saying it's not going to cost anything, I was just relating my experience in a similar situation. The gunman I subdued with a joint lock was not able to walk and had to be carried out of the hotel.
At the trial, the judge totaly shut down the defense because of the questions I was being asked, and within minutes, that was the end of the case, as far as I was concerned.

 Frazzled wrote:
HE IS ABUSING THE SYSTEM. NOW THE VICTIMS HAVE TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THEY DON"T HAVE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM BEING ED A SECOND TIME.

Oh, so you were there and witnessed the whole event, and can confidently state that no excessive force was used and the employees did not go beyond the limits of self defense? Or is it your position that not inconveniencing Good People is more important than ensuring that the law is applied equally, even when a Bad Person is the victim? Because that's what you seem to be arguing here, that the robber's case should be thrown out regardless of its credibility, just so that the employees don't have to suffer any expense or inconvenience.

You work at a pizza joint.
Robber comes in and tries to kill you but you disable him.
RObber sues you. Why not? No cost to him. he has nothing better to do.

You lose everything you have to pay for a lawyer to defend you.
You win (maybe). But now you're broke.

Here's an alternative scenario:

You work at a pizza joint.
Robber comes in and tries to kill you but you disable him.
Once he is disabled, held at gunpoint, and the police are on the way you decide to beat him up to punish him for trying to rob you.
You face criminal charges of your own and spend a few years in a cell next to the robber.

Allowing the lawsuit to proceed (at least briefly, until it is thrown out due to lack of evidence) in your hypothetical situation is the cost of ensuring that all guilty parties are punished in my hypothetical situation. When you argue for throwing out all lawsuits from prisoners what you are essentially saying is that it's ok to commit a crime as long as your victim is a Bad Person.

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

I've met people who put corn on pizza. Those people have committed a crime against pizza, therefore criminals should eat pizza with corn on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
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.

Once again... he could rob a bank everyday, spend all the money on hookers and blow every night, and it doesn't mean he loses his ability to seek compensation when someone else inflicts an illegal or unwarranted injury on him.

And yeah, it'd be hard to get this case up, even assuming he has a legitimate claim in the first place, but that's got nothing to do with whether or not he gets to try.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
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.

Except the judge did throw out almost all of his claim, except one part.

From there we can conclude there is a chance the guy has a legitimate grievance and watch this thing play out, or we can start doing the usual rounds of conservative moaning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
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.

Umm... the guy isn't getting out of jail because of this. This doesn't impact his own sentence at all.

And when you say 'if yes, maybe he deserves something' then you're in agreement with the rest of the sensible people in this thread, who think that if the guy was completely contained and then additional violence was committed against him then he has a right to sue the people who inflicted that damage to cover his injuries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
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.

It's pretty well established the crime ends at some point between drawing the gun and the heat death of the universe. As such, it becomes a basic reality that if a subject is subdued and completely under control, you don't get to hurt him just for fun.

Whether this suspect suffered like that I'm not sure, and nor are you... that's why there's a trial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I can tell you gents that,from my own experience, if someone pulls a gun on you and you subdue them, crippling them up during the process because of the adrenaline rushing your system, the judge will most likely be on your side.
I wasn't on the stand 5 minutes in the trial for the armed robber I subdued before the judge got pissed at the defense for asking frivolous questions and the prosecution for not objecting to the line of questioning I was recieving about the hotel camera system.
At that point the trial was pretty much over and the defendant decided it was better to plea bargain and shut the hell up rather than try to be a dick and get some real big time.

Yes, it's extremely hard for a criminal to make their case in something like this.

So why is this thread full of people moaning about one part of this guy's cases sneaking past the first stage of the process?

 sebster wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
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.

Once again... he could rob a bank everyday, spend all the money on hookers and blow every night, and it doesn't mean he loses his ability to seek compensation when someone else inflicts an illegal or unwarranted injury on him.

And yeah, it'd be hard to get this case up, even assuming he has a legitimate claim in the first place, but that's got nothing to do with whether or not he gets to try.

Perhaps you're mistaking me for someone who said he had no right to seek compensation instead of me stating (clearly enough that even your argumentative self should be able to understand) that he has very little credibility. And yes, his lack of credibility leads me (as it will likely lead the jury) to question his story and his motivation. Or perhaps you just enjoy building straw men so you can knock them down. What ever.