Bank robber sues banker who shot him


PDA

Yohan
April 17, 2003, 04:35 PM
http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/0/036575-9940-103.html

Robber sues clerk who shot him during holdup


Associated Press
April 17, 2003


MUNCIE, Ind. -- A convicted robber is suing the convenience store clerk who shot him as he fled after a holdup.

Willie Brown, 44, claimed the clerk acted "maliciously and sadistically" in firing five shots as Brown ran out of Zipps Deli with money from the store's cash register.

Two bullets struck Brown's back and side, and he was arrested in a nearby home a few minutes after the holdup on March 15, 2002. Brown pleaded guilty to robbery in February and was sentenced last week to four years in prison.

In a lawsuit filed recently in Delaware County Circuit Court, Brown claimed "there was no need for the use of deadly force" when the clerk fired at him.

Brown, who seeks unspecified damages, said the shooting had "prevented him from transacting his business" and that he continued to "suffer nightmares as the result of this assault upon his life."

The clerk, Paul Grant, and his father, Richard B. Grant, the owner of Zipps Deli, were named as defendants.

Chief Deputy Prosecutor J.A. Cummins said he was aware of Brown's lawsuit but "found no criminal wrongdoing in what the clerk did in defending himself."

Brown was convicted of robbing an employee at a pizza restaurant in 1991. He also has two prior convictions for burglary.

:fire: :fire: :banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "Bank robber sues banker who shot him" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
safado
April 17, 2003, 04:44 PM
A sign of all that is wrong with our legal system---especially if he wins.

John G
April 17, 2003, 04:46 PM
The lesson here: "Dead men don't sue."

braindead0
April 17, 2003, 04:50 PM
But the clerk was in the wrong!

Willie Brown, 44, claimed the clerk acted "maliciously and sadistically" in firing five shots as Brown ran out of Zipps Deli with money from the store's cash register.

He shot the guy in the back and sides, now I'm not saying this robber deserves any money from it... and the subject of this thread shouldn't say bank robber...

cslinger
April 17, 2003, 04:57 PM
was in the wrong and deadly force was not warranted based on the info provided.....but.....

As far as I am concerned if you rob, assault, break into etc. you pretty much should has to forfeit your right to safety. I mean if I broke into my neighbors house I would do so fully expecting to be at least maimed. That was my choice.

The clerk was wrong but it just bugs me that some jerkweed could very well win a settlement over this.

Maybe the clerk should be punished in some way but the jackoff who robbed him should certainly not benefit from this. At the most he should have his medical bills paid since the shooting may have been unwarranted.

ares88
April 17, 2003, 05:13 PM
In today's climate. The shooting could be considered not warranted. How ever, was it really not justified? This man accepted an unkown outcome to gain a few bucks that were not his. What is the clerk guilty of breaking the popular social contract of, "don't resist and you will be fine"?

Define "fine". Is fine freaking out every time you see someone that looks remotely like the robber? No I am not saying to prevent social anxiety, you should try to kill people.

Boats
April 17, 2003, 05:20 PM
The Defendants should demand summary judgement and failing that demand a jury trial. A counterclaim should also be launched for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the cost of the cash taken, the costs of the time required to testify at the criminal trial, and for the conversion of five bullets which were deli property prior to the shooting, now irretrivable when the Plaintiff took them.:neener:

RustyHammer
April 17, 2003, 05:34 PM
Dead men tell no tales .... :fire:

El Tejon
April 17, 2003, 05:44 PM
Indiana has a strong assumption of risk defense and then there's a Hoosier jury pool which is rated #49 in size of awards (think only Utah was smaller).

Interesting to see how this plays out. Does the deli clerk have insurance???

Byron Quick
April 17, 2003, 05:54 PM
How exactly was this shooting "wrong" except in that the clerk did not shoot him dead on the spot?Chief Deputy Prosecutor J.A. Cummins said he was aware of Brown's lawsuit but "found no criminal wrongdoing in what the clerk did in defending himself."

The shooting might be "wrong" by the laws of the state where you live. According to the Chief Deputy Prosecutor of the state where the clerk lives , it was not wrong.

Standing Wolf
April 17, 2003, 06:00 PM
Brown was convicted of robbing an employee at a pizza restaurant in 1991. He also has two prior convictions for burglary.

Always use enough caliber to get the job done.

El Tejon
April 17, 2003, 06:09 PM
Bryon, don't forget that Problem #2 has many levels. The Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for Delaware County has decided that there was no criminal Problem #2 (there is no grand jury requirement here). However, there may be an administrative Problem #2 (for your carry license) and there is a civil problem #2. There will be other Problem #2s as well.

Using a firearm can often only initiate not solve your problems. You are not Batman out to seek vengence upon crime and eeevil-doers. SELF-defense.

critter
April 17, 2003, 06:10 PM
Yup. The clerk should be punished. Give him a case of ammo, a new, high-end gun and a certificate good at a good shooting school.

It is crazy as all get-out to say that the clerk would be justified in shooting if the crook was still facing him but not justified just 'cause the crook had time to turn his back.

Crime is (SHOULD BE!) a high-risk activity, known to be that by the perps and ANY harm done to the perp during the event (INCLUDING his attempt at escape!) should be charged to HIS (THE PERP's) account which was set up when he decided to do the crime! The clerk may (probably did) prevent harm to who knows how many other clerks the perp would have otherwise robbed in the future.

Enough already of these bleeding heart liberals who molly-coddle the crooks. READ MY TAG LINE!

Byron Quick
April 17, 2003, 08:48 PM
Using a firearm can often only initiate not solve your problems. You are not Batman out to seek vengence upon crime and eeevil-doers. SELF-defense.

Which is exactly why I believe that the laws governing self defense should be drastically broadened.

You can sue someone who shoots you in a self defense setting in Georgia...you just can't find a lawyer who will take the case on a contigency basis. Cash on the barrelhead is their motto.

El Tejon
April 17, 2003, 09:03 PM
Bryon, O.K., so how would you "drastically broaden" the laws governing self-defense? What would you do differently?

blades67
April 17, 2003, 09:07 PM
The guy gets hit in his side, turns to catch more bullets in his back. All of which could have been avoided by simply not robbing the Deli in the first place.:scrutiny:

Byron Quick
April 17, 2003, 09:16 PM
You might not consider this under the realm of self defense but basically this: You are in the process of committing or escaping after committing a violent felony...it's open season on you for all and sundry. There should even be a substantial bounty paid for killing you and a lesser one for capturing you alive.

As far as specifically self defense goes: no requirement to attempt to escape, armed status of assailant is absolutely irrelevant...verbal intent to kill is sufficient. If you don't want to be killed then don't assault people even with a slap.

El Tejon
April 17, 2003, 09:20 PM
Bryon, there's already at least a couple of jury instructions that instruct similiar to what you related regarding "open season" (well, kinda). All of this goes to Indiana's assumption of risk defense instruction and comparative fault statute.

JW2
April 17, 2003, 09:22 PM
Brown, who seeks unspecified damages, said the shooting had "prevented him from transacting his business" and that he continued to "suffer nightmares as the result of this assault upon his life."

Best quote I've heard all day. Prevented him from transacting his business of robbing people? :uhoh:

SC_shooter
April 18, 2003, 08:36 AM
The clerk should have made sure he ended that thug's career. Obviously the clerk needed more practice and better shot placement.

This is a travesty and shows everything wrong with the courts.

Monte Harrison
April 18, 2003, 08:48 AM
Does Indiana not have a "fleeing felon" provision?

El Tejon
April 18, 2003, 09:13 AM
Monte, what do you mean by that??? Sorry, just want to make sure you are answered correctly.

cordex
April 18, 2003, 10:35 AM
Saw this joker on TV last night.
Claims that he pled guilty only because he didn't want his record of past burglary, robbery and armed robbery to be brought up.
:scrutiny:

Redlg155
April 18, 2003, 10:48 AM
Dang...don't they have a "Three Strikes" law there?

If not then they definitely need one.

I'm betting the clerk using a bigger gun next time.

Good Shooting
Red

4v50 Gary
April 18, 2003, 11:01 AM
Solution? Change the law. Make it like Nevada where you can use deadly force to protect your property. The life of a thief should not be of importance to society. Besides being cost effective, it would reduce crime since the "risks" start to outweigh the benefits.

BTW, China (Workers' Paradise) now has a "deathmobile." It's a truck or van that goes from prison to prison. They strap the convicted down, administer a lethal injection, carry out the carrion and (to borrow an English term) "motor" along to the next prison.

Sorry, I'm a sick pup.

Safety First
April 18, 2003, 11:20 AM
I understand the mindset that if someone is fleeing and shot in the back,that the person shooting is not doing so in self-defense.
But A) if you have my money,valuables and are fleeing with them, I want them back, and you assumed the risk of being shot when you took them. B) if you have harmed me,my wife or any other of my family and just because your back is turned (while you are fleeing) does'nt mean I should just let you continue to escape. I mean for crying out loud,who is to say you will not return and repeat the same offense at a later time. I'm sorry, but the argument that I should wait and let the police handle it (and risk the offender not being caught) does'nt fly for me. I know this is a debate that could go on until the cows come home. But once again it seems as if the law is coming down on the side of the violent criminal and blind to what has happened to the victim.:barf:

Bobarino
April 18, 2003, 07:18 PM
a very similar incedent happened here in WA several years ago and the clerk, who shot an armed robber in the back as he fled, was cleared of all charges. i don't know if a civil lawsuit was filed, but the law in WA says that the victim can assume that as long and the suspect is still on the premisise, the crime is still considered to be in progress and the the threat still present. so as far as the law is concerned, the clerk was justified. i was pretty surprised to learn this especailly in WA state. its usually pretty liberal.

Bobby

Preacherman
April 18, 2003, 11:06 PM
Here in Louisiana, we have an anomaly - a largely Democratic state politically, that is totally pro-gun except for the New Orleans sheeple. Back in the '90's, car-jacking became a popular new form of crime, so the legislature promptly passed a law stating that one's car was an extension of one's home, and authorizing the use of lethal force to stop a car-jacking, even if the assailant displayed no weapon. After a few car-jackers died in their tracks (a couple of them shot in the back while trying to get away) without any charges being filed, and universal approval of the shooters, the incidence of car-jacking decreased dramatically... :D

Nightfall
April 18, 2003, 11:36 PM
*sigh* Everyday I loose a little bit of hope for human society.

IMHO, every criminal in the process of a violent felony should be considered a deadly threat until dead. The fact that there is even such a thing as a violent 'repeat offender' is ridiculous. They should all be dead!

Study Butte
April 19, 2003, 12:03 AM
I'm with Nightfall on this and can't really add anything.

45-auto
April 19, 2003, 12:30 AM
Here's how this plays out for me.

If I just got robbed, how am I supposed to know the robber isn't gonna stop in the door on his way out, make sure nobody else is approaching, then cap me off with the Jennings .380 he had tucked in the waistband of his filthy jockey shorts?

I understand this society is going soft and will shortly be too much like Great Britain. But if somebody robs you, you should be able to pursue them and kill them, provided you do it immediately after they rob you.

If that happened a whole lot there would be fewer robberies.

Instead, we're starting to see this kind of lawsuit. If the court doesn't just toss this one out, then the judge should be put in a cell with Bubba the Human Pile Driver and left to rot.

Waitone
April 19, 2003, 09:50 AM
Bryon, O.K., so how would you "drastically broaden" the laws governing self-defense? What would you do differently?I'll give you a place to start. How 'bout saying that if Joe Citizen is involved in a shooting and it is later determined that it was a legal shooting, then Joe Citizen CAN NOT be dragged in court on civil charges.

Robbing a convenience store should be a high-risk profession. Working in a convenience store should not be a high-risk profession.

El Tejon
April 19, 2003, 10:41 AM
Wait, so if no criminal prosecution, then barred in civil court? Apply to unintentional shootings (mistake, negligence or accidents)?

Interesting, but I'm not sure it would pass muster with state Constitution.

280PLUS
April 19, 2003, 10:49 AM
but he probably didn't want to tear up the new counter...

:neener:

1badmagnum
April 19, 2003, 01:34 PM
guess the clerk needs some firearms trainning classes,as the robber is asking for the money,I'm grabbing my piece and gonna make sure I hit him from the front.

shoot a guy in the back shesh,and like the first reply stated,dead folks dont sue,and their story is full of holes lol :):)

Matthew Courtney
April 19, 2003, 09:42 PM
The way to prevent suits like this is easy. When a suit is lost and the plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the defendant's legal expenses, the plaintiff's attorney has to. Attorneys will think long and hard about filing frivolous suits when they have to foot the bills. If an attorney cannot pay assessed costs within 120 days, they lose their license for a year.

45-auto
April 20, 2003, 10:33 AM
Matthew Courtney wrote:

The way to prevent suits like this is easy. When a suit is lost and the plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the defendant's legal expenses, the plaintiff's attorney has to. Attorneys will think long and hard about filing frivolous suits when they have to foot the bills. If an attorney cannot pay assessed costs within 120 days, they lose their license for a year.

I see that as a very workable approach to the problem of frivolous suits filed on a contingency (spec) basis.

We do all understand, do we not, that the trial lawyers contribute very heavily to the Democrat Party? Trial lawyers have a vested interest in a society where nobody is responsible for their own actions.

Byron Quick
April 20, 2003, 10:51 AM
Lord, imagine the howls if such a law was passed! The agony. The justice.

You know... that law passing and another forbidding any member of the bar from ever holding legislative office would go far in curing the republic's ills.

Byron Quick
April 20, 2003, 11:10 AM
Wait, so if no criminal prosecution, then barred in civil court? Apply to unintentional shootings (mistake, negligence or accidents)? El Tejon



I'm not positive about this and I've been communing with Senor Jose Cuervo just lately...but didn't Jesus talk about lawyers straining at gnats and swallowing camels?

No, sir, there is a difference between an intentional shooting which results in no criminal charges and unintentional shootings from mistake, negligence or accidents which result in no criminal charges. The intentional shooting which results in no criminal charges should be automatically barred from civil suits. The unintentional shootings which may or may not result in criminal charges should not necessarily be barred from civil court.

I personally believe that a negligent killing is more heinous than premeditated murder. Consider...a person guilty of premeditated murder killed a particular person for a particular reason or reasons. On the other hand, a person guilty of committing a negligent homicide is liable to kill anyone at anytime...for no reason at all. Who is more danger to society? The killer who kills for a reason? Or the killer who kills at random without meaning to do so? Personally, I'd rather live next door to the premeditated murderer. As long as I researched his reasons and avoided them...I'm OK. Against the negligent killer...there is no defense whatever.

El Tejon
April 20, 2003, 11:29 AM
Bryon, O.K., I assume that you mean intentional self-defense shootings which are not prosecuted are barred civilly. Would this not pressure the prosecutor in some cases to file a questionable case so that a civil suit could proceed to make the "victim" whole?

As to unintentional, so how does the potential plaintiff ascertain whether it was intentional or unintentional except by litigation? This happens today with home defense shootings in declaratory actions against the insurance provider.

Byron Quick
April 20, 2003, 11:46 AM
Bryon B y r o n :) Would this not pressure the prosecutor in some cases to file a questionable case so that a civil suit could proceed to make the "victim" whole? Perhaps, in some people's republics, on the other hand perhaps it would give the potential shooters the impetus to obtain the training to ensure that making the "victim" whole is entirely beyond the means of any earthyly agency...including lawyers.

As to unintentional, so how does the potential plaintiff ascertain whether it was intentional or unintentional except by litigation? This happens today with home defense shootings in declaratory actions against the insurance provider.

Well, basically it's like this...you tried to rob me, break into my home, etc. and I intentionally tried to blow your butt into eternity. Unfortunately, I failed, or we would not be having this discussion. However, since the powers that be saw no need to prosecute me for my failure, you need to take your failed criminal butt and think up some other way to survive.


I must admit that I am ignorant of what you mean by declaratory actions against the insurance provider. If you mean home insurance then I must say I believe any such would be overruled by the Georgia statute authorizing lethal force against any person who forcibly enters a resident who does not in fact reside therein. Such person need not be armed.

I've been watching wrongful death suits following shootings here in Georgia for over 20 years. I am not aware of a single one that has been successful after the authorities declined to prosecute the shooter. A friend of mine was prosecuted for murder after what I believe was a self defense shooting. The prosecution could have probabley gotten a conviction for voluntary manslaughter but they went for broke and lost. The dead man's family filed suit for wrongful death (they had money and paid cash to the lawyer). They won. My friend was in his early twenties and had no assets. He declared bankruptycy...they got exactly $0.00. On the other hand, his lawyer made out pretty good. And we lost, because a good shooter has shied away from firearms since.

El Tejon
April 20, 2003, 11:57 AM
Sorry, Byron, was that an intentional or unintentional???:D

The victim's estate could still sue (depending on state law).

What I mean by declaratory actions is that insurance carriers sue their insureds to obtain a court order to declare the carriers not responsible for pay outs for intentional acts not covered by the insurance contract.

The question of recklessness is always present here. Thus, the victim could sue stating that what the home owner did was accidental or reckless and not intentional.

Nothing against your proposed law. Just thinking of unintended consequences.

Ryder
April 20, 2003, 12:04 PM
I see this as a defense shooting. He was defending the next victim from this guy.

Byron Quick
April 20, 2003, 12:10 PM
The question of recklessness is always present here. Thus, the victim could sue stating that what the home owner did was accidental or reckless and not intentional

Check Georgia statutes: If you forcibly enter a Georgia residence and you do not reside there then it is open season on your butt.

Regardless of age, sex, national origin, creed, or sexual orientation.

Also go to TFL and do a search on kidnap. Check out the woman who was kidnapped in Tennessee by her ex-boyfriend who killed her mother during the abduction. Ex-boyfriend stopped outside of Rome, Georgia to gas up. The woman got free of the duct tape while he was paying for the gas...and got his gun. And met him as he was coming back to vehicle. He ran and she chased him down...shot him in the back as he ran away. Then she continued to empty the gun in his entirely defenseless quivering body. People on the thread were going on about the "bad" shoot and how she was in "so much trouble."

Bull. I said then...before the fact. This is Georgia, friends. Yes, according to Georgia law...that's murder. But the fact is, she won't be arrested, she won't be indicted and she won't be tried.

It was no billed by the grand jury.

And his family, if they tried...didn't find a single lawyer in the Georgia bar who would take the case for a wrongful death suit. Wonder why? Georgia lawyers like to get paid, that's why.

God, I'm glad I live in Georgia.

Byron Quick
April 20, 2003, 12:27 PM
Granted, it's probably a good thing I don't live in Indiana or Maryland or some such. Not that there is much danger of that.

Texas, South Carolina, or Alaska are about the only places besides Georgia that have to worry about putting up with me. Maybe Arizona, Idaho, or Nevada.

dairycreek
April 21, 2003, 02:32 PM
The robber might have a case in court! When I read the original post the following phrase jumped out at me "Two bullets struck Brown's back and side"! When I took the course associated with my concealed hand gun permit some years ago this exact type of situation was discussed in depth. What if the robber has turned to leave the scene of the robbery and is shot in the back ? In Oregon, given that the robber was actually leaving, it would present a situation in which deadly force could not be used! The District Attorney who taught this part of the course presented a number of cases in which this exact situation was described. Shooter lost every time. The DA said, only being partly funny, that if you were going to shoot someone never do it in the back. Obviously, we don't know all of the details of the situation described. But, it may not be as open and shut as it appears. FWIW!

Shalako
April 21, 2003, 05:35 PM
But, as has been mentioned, what if the perp turns at the door to shoot you? So its, ready aim, f... oh safety on, he turned his back, ok safety off he's pointing his gun at me again, well ok safety on again he's got his back to me now, wait here's my chance, ok nevermind, oh....

Sounds like a game of friggin 'Red Light-Green Light" with my life in the balance. --> Maybe, if you just use a big enough caliber and aim for the shoulder, it will spin him around so you can get some frontal shots in there...

:rolleyes:

P95Carry
April 21, 2003, 06:15 PM
Very late to this thread .. I will add this tho ........

IMO it should be automatic that a perp forfeits all normal rights by commiting a felony ....... which includes normal rights against bodily injury ..... plus he forfeits the right to sue.

May be idealistic but I believe it strongly .... BG's get too much leverage these days .. if they wanna live dangerously then it should be in the knowledge that they can get taken out ... simply for their actions.

I do not remember any mention of him being armed in the original report ... if he wasn't then I wonder what threat he used to get cash .... if he was however armed, by any means ... then he was at some point presenting a threat ..... in my ideal world .. he has thrown away his normal rights!

4 eyed six shooter
April 21, 2003, 06:45 PM
It's sad that a criminal is even able to sue anyone in the commission of a crime. I guess the bottom line is not to shoot unless there is no other choice.

waynzwld
April 22, 2003, 12:17 PM
One way is to yell at the perp as he is leaving, "you forgot something!" Hopefully he will turn around and you can cap him in the front then.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bank robber sues banker who shot him" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!