[twoblink]

So this is disturbing to me..

They show a video from the local Stop-n-Rob..

A guy runs in with a pair of Bonsai Tree scissors, and tries to hold up the store.. A fellow employee sees what's going on, grabs a beer bottle, and crashes it over the head of the perp. The 2 employees then kick the cr@p out of the perp, until the cops arrive.

Well... (no surprise here) the perp is suing the 2 clerk for assault with a deadly weapon. The lawyer maintains that the 2nd guy wasn't in any danger, and so his actions would be considered assault..

:barf:

Anybody know if good Samaritan laws apply to the second guy? The laws here in Taiwan are a bit gray on this, but Taiwan does have good Samaritan laws as well. This is disturbing to me, as defending the life of your fellow co-workers can result in jailtime..

[Lucky]

That's why they have jurys, imo. The law can be ass-backwards and still be the law, but the jury can reach a verdict that doesn't follow the law.

Once upon a time a jury was arrested and thrown in jail for freeing a man who was preaching a religion different than England's official one, though the judge told them to reach a guilty verdict; but eventually they were let free and jurys have been free do disagree with the law ever since. (such is my understanding)

[geekWithA.45]

I can't speak to Taiwanese law, but American law inherits from English common law the concept that one may generally choose to defend another, if that other could claim self defense.

The reason it's risky to defend another is because as a bystander, you are dependent on whether the person being defended has clean claim to self defense. (ie: did not start or escalate the confrontation)

[hso]

Anybody know if good Samaritan laws apply to the second guy? .

Don't be stupid, you can't stretch Good Samaritan beyond it's scope protecting individuals for providing medical aid to a third party.

[Double Naught Spy]

twoblink, you left out significant information. Who were the "they" who showed the video? Where did the incident take place? What are bonsai scissors? The name sort of implies diminutive scissors so maybe the bad guy was threatening to cut off the clerk's cuticles if the clerk didn't give up the cash?

You seem to be confusing or intermixing criminal and civil law, in part, because the lawyer is using criminal terms to apply to a civil suit. You also seem confused in regard to believing that just because the lawyer made a statement with information that the statement accurately reflects both the relevant laws and the actions of what went on.

Yes, the second clerk did assault the bad guy (assuming all described is accurate) but that does not mean the assault was illegal or violated the bad guy's rights. Had the clerk shot the bad guy, it would be classified as a "justifiabel homicide." Sure it would have been homicide, but not illegal.

I think hso is right in that Good Samaritan laws don't pertain to this sort of incident, but the rendering of aid to folks who have been injured, but maybe some states include defense of another as a Good Samaritan law....I just don't know of any.

[CAS700850]

In Ohio, Defense of Others is available as a defense to criminal charges and civil claims. Basically, if the victim was justified to use force to protect himself, you can also use force (the same degree) to protect the victim. One fun case, cannot find the citation right now, involved an individual assaulting a detective thinking he was stopping an assault, when actually the bad guy was resisting arrest. Convicted the bad guy of resisting, but the jury set aside the Assault on an LEO charge, given that the detective was not readily identifiable as an LEO.

[joebogey]

Uh.. I think Ky has a Good Samaritan law and it involves more than medical aid, including the ability to act on the behalf of someone in obvious peril. (Such as the use of deadly force)
I may be wrong.
I keep looking for the law, but can't lay hands onto it just yet.

Just found it:

503.070 Protection of another.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person
against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other
person; and
(b) Under the circumstances as the defendant believes them to be, the person
whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS
503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable
when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person
against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual
intercourse compelled by force or threat; and
(b) Under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to
protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in
using such protection.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 32, effective January 1, 1975.

[Maxwell]

No good deed goes un-punished.

[TexasRifleman]

Don't be stupid, you can't stretch Good Samaritan beyond it's scope protecting individuals for providing medical aid to a third party.

Several states modifed their Good Samaritan laws to extend beyong medical aid after the whole Kitty Genovese thing. Easy with the "stupid" remarks.

[Lupinus]

Defense of others is valid legaly, where you are I'm not sure, but most places I know of it is. The main problem would likly rise also that once he was down they kicked him.

Also criminal and civil la are two very different things. Just like if someone points a gun at you and you shoot him you may be in the clear legaly but his family might sue you.

[dolanp]

I'm sorry to hear that Taiwan has been infected with the sue-happy culture as well. :(

The clerk probably will win IMO if he gets a decent lawyer.

[joebogey]

Also criminal and civil la are two very different things. Just like if someone points a gun at you and you shoot him you may be in the clear legaly but his family might sue you.

I think Ky has addressed that problem as well because of the premise that you might not help a person in need because of fear of a lawsuit. If the requirements of the statutes are met that I posted earlier, I think the state does not allow civil suit against the Good Samaritan. But the requirements must be met.
I'll have to see if I can find that one as well.

[twoblink]

Bonsai Scissors are little scissors, with a very very pointy tip.

The video was shown on the local news, released by the police.

OK, so I understand if the guy is down, and you are kicking him, that might be a reason.. But I think it was the "Hollywood style" beer bottle crash on the head that the guy is suing about.

The local 7-11 is where all this took place..

I think the lawyer is trying to say, the scissors didn't warrant enough "lethal force" (i.e. beer bottle over the head). I have no idea how a lawyer can stand there and say that when their client is ROBBING someone..

I'm hoping a the local judge will throw that one out.. he probably will. While Taiwan is becoming more and more "sue happy", thieves still don't get the Club Med treatment here like they do in some states back in the US.

[Herself]

Small (how small?) pointy things aren't "lethal?" What, people don't have nice fat veins close to the surface at their neck? I'd count bonsai scissors as about equal to the blunt-force trauma from a beer bottle, myself. Certainly in the U.S., the Transportation Security Agency feels small, sharp scissors are a dangerous weapon, and will not allow them to be carried by airline passengers. I'm not sure how they'd feel about bottles of beer -- we're still feeling the lingering aftereffects of Prohibition.

Other factors can affect the perception of danger, like disparity of size or age, even the agressiveness of the attacker. Those are generally taken into account.

It's not a sure thing. Continuing to act after the threat is neutralized isn't wise. But only those involved can know the extent to which they were in fear for their lives.

--Herself