Lawsuits from Criminals

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Foiled Burglar Sues Store Employees for 'Emotional Distress'
Sunday, June 11, 2006

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — A man who was beaten by employees of a store he was trying to rob is now suing.

Police say Dana Buckman entered the AutoZone in Rochester, New York, last July, brandished a semi-automatic pistol and demanded cash.

That's when employees Eli Crespo and Jerry Vega beat him with a pipe and held Buckman at bay with his own gun.

Buckman escaped when they retreated into the store to call 911, but he was arrested a week later. He pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and was sentenced to 18 years in prison as a repeat violent felon.

Now Buckman is suing the auto parts store and the two employees who beat him, claiming they committed assault and battery and intentionally inflicted emotional distress.

We really need a federal law (and matching law in each state) that simply states that you forfeit the right to sue for any harm you suffer while intentionally committing a felony.

I'm tired of home owners being sued by criminals who hurt themselves while committing crimes. Add to that ranchers afraid of illegals because of lawsuits and average people deathly afraid of "I'll sue!" and I'm ready to do something about it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Jasmin 0]

Unfortunately we've got the same problem here.

We're so focused on the rights of the criminals that I'm dying to know what happened to the rights of the victims???

The gene pool needs a heavy dose of chlorine...

xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

[Gawain 0]

Quote

We're so focused on the rights of the criminals that I'm dying to know what happened to the rights of the victims???

But, but, but...you stated near, the exact opposite in the Guantanamo thread, right here.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately we've got the same problem here.

We're so focused on the rights of the criminals that I'm dying to know what happened to the rights of the victims???

The gene pool needs a heavy dose of chlorine...

Apparently the rights of poor misunderstood criminals are more important than the rights of victims who made the mistake of being law abiding citizens in the wrong place at the wrong time. We have the exact same problem here in Canada.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Jasmin 0]

Quote

But, but, but...you stated near, the exact opposite in the Guantanamo thread, right here.

On the contrary, if you read the newspaper article at the top of this thread you'll find this line:
He pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and was sentenced to 18 years in prison as a repeat violent felon.

Unlike the guantanamo bay detainees, this man has been convicted after being read his Miranda rights, given the right to his choice of legal representation and more to the point, given his day in court and with that, a possibility of appeal.

Over 110 death row inmates in the US have had their convictions overturned due to new evidence that exonerated them. GB is a process that two of its own prosecutors described as being "rigged, fraudulent, and thin on evidence against the accused." So in a system less sturdy and fool-proof than the system that wrongly convicted and sentenced 110+ people to death, there is no avenue of appeal, despite death-penalty charges being involved? That makes me uneasy.

edited to add:I fear we are risking becoming the very thing we are fighting...

xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

[narcimund 0]

Quote

edited to add:I fear we are risking becoming the very thing we are fighting...

The hopeful always say this in the future tense as if it weren't already far too late.

I suspect people will always make similar comments in the future tense no matter how bad it gets.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

We're so focused on the rights of the criminals that I'm dying to know what happened to the rights of the victims???

But, but, but...you stated near, the exact opposite in the Guantanamo thread, right here.

Ummm I guess you didn't see the part about his pleading GUILTY. He is a convicted felon. The detainees in Guantanamo are NOT.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

We really need a federal law (and matching law in each state) that simply states that you forfeit the right to sue for any harm you suffer while intentionally committing a felony.

An interesting idea. Seems fair enough, on balance.
There are many states with Republican majorities in their legislatures; there are a lot of Republican governors; Congress has been Republican-controlled for over a decade, and a Republican president has been in office since 2001. I wonder why this hasn't been done yet?

Quote

I'm tired of home owners being sued by criminals who hurt themselves while committing crimes.

You're tired of it? I realize there are a smattering of such cases that are filed here and there, but most are recognized as frivolous and dismissed long before trial (also known as "laughed out of court"). That's what I predict may happen with the Rochester NY case, too. Is there some epidemic of such cases that I'm unaware of?

Quote

Add to that ranchers afraid of illegals because of lawsuits and average people deathly afraid of "I'll sue!" and I'm ready to do something about it.

There is something you can do about it. Write directly to your Congressman, your US Senator, your state Representative and your state Senator urging them to sponsor such legislation. Organize petition drives targeted at these legislators. Write letters to the editor of mainstream newpapers and internet news sites.

But bitching about it here is starting to annoy me. I warn you, I'll sue.

[smiles 0]

The federal government has to come to it's senses here in B.C. Canada. First-degree murder charges have been laid in the largest serial killer case in Canadian history.

27 women have disappeared from Vancouver's Downtown Eastside between 1995 and 2002.
The prime suspect, Port Coquitlam pig farmer Robert "Willy " Pickton, has been in custody since his arrest in February 2002. In British Columbia Supreme Court in New Westminster on January 30th, 2006,

Pickton pleaded not guilty to 26 of the 27 charges. Canada does not have the death penalty, so Pickton faces multiple consecutive life sentences if convicted.

The number of at-risk women missing from Downtown Vancouver since 1978 stands at a shocking 68. DNA from 31 of those women was found on the Pickton property by investigators.

---the Robert Picton trial where, there are some 15-20 lawyers involved all paid by me and thee the taxpayers. And this raises two coupled issues the government should but likely won’t face.

The first problem is the right to a jury trial, a right all of us have in capital cases. But how do you get jurors able to and prepared to give up two years of their life no matter what you pay them – What about their jobs? Their families? Their personal lives? The only way a jury trial can be avoided, apart from getting all the lawyers for the defense to agree, which they won’t, is for Parliament to pass a special piece of legislation, declaring Regina v. Picton to be tried by judge alone, for this case only, and having the jam to pass it “notwithstanding “ the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It’s not as if this would deny Picton justice for that would be to say that a judge sitting alone is not competent.

Would such a law run counter to the Charter the rights to which are subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society? Is it not reasonable to assume that if the matter was submitted to the Supreme Court it would rule that, on balance, a jury trial of 2 years or plus was an appropriate one for Parliament to assess, deal with and change to a trial by judge only? Could it not be said that the accused's rights were being dramatically curtailed?

Could it not be argued that it’s impossible for a jury to deal with the mountains of evidence they will hear? Could it not be said, on Picton’s behalf, that it would be in his favour to have a judge only who will understand and give appropriate weight to the masses of evidence before him and be better able to judge the presumption of innocence Picton is entitled to?

One of the reasons Parliament must act is because these lawyers, all paid by the day, are on a gravy train ensuring that any of them not now rich, will be.

It must be said then, unpleasant it is to do so, the longer the trial goes on, the more the lawyers get. No lawyer would ever admit this but swift justice is not in their interests.

Lawyers always bellow like stuck pigs when this sort of thing is suggested. Too bad. Lawyers, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, are human beings subject to human frailties, one of which is making as much money as possible. Every word uttered in this “voir dire” (the trial within a trial to determine the admissibility of evidence) is money in the wallet of each lawyer in the courtroom who will all say that both the the Crown and accused are entitled to the most thorough examination of every jog of evidence adduced”. They say that with great solemnity though it’s hard to explain how they can do so with a straight face!

Why must we have 20 something charges? Is it not possible for the Crown to select, say, 5 cases which, in their vast experience, look like certain convictions (unless they screw up, of course, as happened in the Air India case with considerable help from the trial judge)?

While it wouldn’t reduce the trial by 4/5ths it would cut it back considerably. I understand the need for closure for so many victims’ families but surely in a case this large, they would understand.

We know how much of our justice system depends upon the Common Law – shouldn’t it, from time to time also demonstrate Common Sense?

SMiles

eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.

[Tink1717 2]

Haven't seen you on here for a while. How are you Tom?

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Now Buckman is suing the auto parts store and the two employees who beat him, claiming they committed assault and battery and intentionally inflicted emotional distress.

It is _NOT_ a crime to defend yourself in America. Guy shouldn't stand a chance. The judge should dismiss this case quickly.

We are all engines of karma

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

It is _NOT_ a crime to defend yourself in America. Guy shouldn't stand a chance. The judge should dismiss this case quickly.

There's a severe difference between civil law and criminal law. Even if someone isn't criminally liable, they maybe found liable in civil court.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

It is _NOT_ a crime to defend yourself in America. Guy shouldn't stand a chance. The judge should dismiss this case quickly.

There's a severe difference between civil law and criminal law. Even if someone isn't criminally liable, they maybe found liable in civil court.

As evidenced by this case:
[rul "http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=489989&category=ALBANY&BCCode=LOCAL&newsdate=6/9/2006"]Insurance to Defend Homeowner[/url]

While the insurance aspect is sure to raise hackles, I'm simply pointing out that he was aquitted by a jury, but still faces civil lawsuits.

Besides, even if a lawsuit is dismissed, it is expensive as hell to defend yourself from it. A lot of people are bankrupt after being found not guilty and not liable.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Unfortunately we've got the same problem here.

We're so focused on the rights of the criminals that I'm dying to know what happened to the rights of the victims???

The gene pool needs a heavy dose of chlorine...

I'm thinking we need something a little stronger than chlorine.

Lead, copper and cordite sound about right to me.

A lot of people seem to support "rehabilitation through reincarnation," and it gets harder and harder to disagree.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

We really need a federal law (and matching law in each state) that simply states that you forfeit the right to sue for any harm you suffer while intentionally committing a felony.

An interesting idea. Seems fair enough, on balance.
There are many states with Republican majorities in their legislatures; there are a lot of Republican governors; Congress has been Republican-controlled for over a decade, and a Republican president has been in office since 2001. I wonder why this hasn't been done yet?

Because there aren't any daddy warbucks lobbying (and paying) for it.

Quote

Quote

I'm tired of home owners being sued by criminals who hurt themselves while committing crimes.

You're tired of it? I realize there are a smattering of such cases that are filed here and there, but most are recognized as frivolous and dismissed long before trial (also known as "laughed out of court"). That's what I predict may happen with the Rochester NY case, too. Is there some epidemic of such cases that I'm unaware of?

While one is too many, especially for the person being sued, I would in fact classify it as an epidemic. Why is it so common? Becuase (some)lawyers will take any plaintiff and sue anyone for any reason or no reason at all. Why? Because they get paid no matter how quickly it is thrown out.

You have to remember that all too often it is less expensive for an innocent (and not liable) person to settle out of court than it is to defend the case and win. Which unfortunately rewards ridiculous lawsuits and encourages them to continue to be filed.

Quote

There is something you can do about it. Write directly to your Congressman, your US Senator, your state Representative and your state Senator urging them to sponsor such legislation. Organize petition drives targeted at these legislators. Write letters to the editor of mainstream newpapers and internet news sites.

Been there, done that, doing it again, but I have to tell you calling them on the telephone is far more effective.

Quote

But bitching about it here is starting to annoy me. I warn you, I'll sue.

Now that's the American Spirit.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We really need a federal law (and matching law in each state) that simply states that you forfeit the right to sue for any harm you suffer while intentionally committing a felony.

I'm with you on state laws banning this, but not a federal law. This is something that should be left to the states, as it deals with police powers.

Here in Cali, there are some "limited" protections. If a felon sues in civil court against a victim, and the case is found to be without merit, a special section of the code allows punitive damages against the felon.

I undertsand that there is a petition circulating that seeks to prohibit felons from suing victims.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Becuase (some)lawyers will take any plaintiff and sue anyone for any reason or no reason at all. Why? Because they get paid no matter how quickly it is thrown out.

Not to get too nitpicky, but in a contingency fee case, a plaintiff's attorney only gets paid if his client gets paid, i.e., if the case settles for some money without filing suit or prior to trial, or if there's a trial and verdict in favor of a plaintiff. But if a lawsuit gets filed and is thrown out, the plaintiff's attorney gets paid nothing, despite however much time and money the attorney might have invested in the case. Because of that, 98% of plaintiff's lawyers are actually pretty picky about the cases they take on. It's generally the horseshit filed by the other 2% (or by plaintiffs representing themselves because no lawyer would take thier case) that tend to get written up in the news.