Foiled Burglar Sues Store Employees for 'Emotional Distress'


PDA






PinnedAndRecessed
June 10, 2006, 01:44 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198988,00.html

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.

If you enjoyed reading about "Foiled Burglar Sues Store Employees for 'Emotional Distress'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PinnedAndRecessed
June 10, 2006, 01:46 PM
Wonder what the lawsuit would have said had the employees shot the man?


Point is, convicts file lawsuits merely because they're bored, etc. We need to prohibit all lawsuits by convicts as frivolous.

longeyes
June 10, 2006, 01:52 PM
I believe the UK pioneered this kind of Through the Looking Glass lunacy.

No doubt he'll find a suit with a law degree to champion his righteous cause.

beerslurpy
June 10, 2006, 02:22 PM
The assault and battery is excused because of self defense.

I dont think you can suffer emotional distress from a battery that has actually taken place (with no further batteries threatened) but assuming it can, all of these harms arise from the pipe-beating that was justified by the doctrine of self defense.

In Florida, he would be able to file such a law suit, but I beleive it gets tossed out in pretrial AND the felon gets punished for doing it (they take away his jail perks). It seems like someone consulted a prison official to see what they could do to discourage this sort of thing. So such suits are rare in FL, as they should be.

WeedWhacker
June 10, 2006, 02:36 PM
We need to prohibit all lawsuits by convicts as frivolous.
Yeah, because God forbid we let any of those guys who we found with illegal shotguns with 17-inch barrels file any lawsuits!

Beware unintended consequences.

progunner1957
June 10, 2006, 02:39 PM
The employees who are being sued should countersue - two can play that game. I'm sure it was traumatic for them to have to beat the pi$$ out of this "rectum" in order to survive his attack.:D

ravinraven
June 10, 2006, 03:20 PM
...that the weapon of choice for any robber, thief, burglar is a trial lawyer.

rr

agricola
June 11, 2006, 07:24 AM
I believe the UK pioneered this kind of Through the Looking Glass lunacy.

hardly, the blame lies closer to home.

Manedwolf
June 11, 2006, 12:06 PM
If he'd tried to rob an Autozone, the perp should have realized he'd face battery...or an entire shelf of them. (Sorry!) :D

Seriously, this sort of thing just wastes the court's time. If they want to do tort reform, why not start with disallowing convicted felons from suing the victims for any sort of distress or incidental injuries? All it does is drag the victim back into it.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 11, 2006, 01:00 PM
As it currently stands, the professional code for lawyers strongly urges lawyers to take distasteful cases in order to make sure all views are represented in our society. One example of that occured not too long ago had a lawyer whose paying job was representing the NAACP, take a pro bono case representing the right of the local Klan to obtain a parade permit. The NAACP fired him from his job for that.

Lawyers however are not required to take suits that have no merit. The question then becomes, at what point do you want individual lawyers making this decision and at what point do you want a judge and jury to make a decision?

If you want to sue the United States for infringing your Second Amendment rights by not allowing you to openly carry your suppressed MP-5 to night school, should you not get a day in court if no lawyer thinks it is a case they want to take?

It is a tough call to make any way you cut it. Right now I think we accept a lot of law suits that plainly have no merit in order to insure that everyone gets their day in court. There are only two ways I can see to reduce that - one is to prohibit certain suits by statute. The other is to sanction lawyers for bringing suits without merit.

I think prohibiting by statute is probably the better way to go. The second way allows for a lot of judge-created rule that is only as good or as balanced as the judge creating it and can later be expanded. The legislature method has its problems but it has more checks to it and what is prohibited is written in black & white for all to see.

Malone LaVeigh
June 11, 2006, 04:19 PM
The article's unclear. First, it calls him a "burglar", when he is clearly an armed robber.

In the first two paragraphs, it states he was beaten after entering the store and brandishing.

Then it sounds like the beating happened outside of the store, because it says the employees, "retreated into the store to call 911."

It's possible that the beating happened outside of the store, and the employees were not exercising self-defense. We don't know enough from the article, but, unfortunately, the BP might have a case.

Either way, it sounds like they didn't beat him nearly enough.

SiG Lady
June 11, 2006, 05:54 PM
"...inflicted emotional distress."The a**hat was armed, for cryin' out loud! A few of us here in Oregon would've been glad to give him more than just a little "emotional distress" for his actions. :cuss:

Zedicus
June 11, 2006, 08:33 PM
Police say Dana Buckman entered the AutoZone in Rochester, New York, 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.


Perfect Example of why you should Shoot first, then Shoot some more till they quit twitchin...:fire:

evan price
June 11, 2006, 08:51 PM
They probably jumped him with the pipe, he dropped the gun, then ran like heck out of the store, they chased him into the parking lot hten turned and went back in. I used to work for auto parts stores and this sort of crap is depressingly common especially early in the morning or right before closing; my store was robbed twice (when I was off shift!)

los
June 11, 2006, 08:53 PM
I'm just glad his Attorney talked him out of filing a "slip and fall" claim. :rolleyes:

Lupinus
June 11, 2006, 09:38 PM
since we wont make it a law that victems can't be sued for actions taken to defend themselves I have a new idea.

Lets make a rule that any time a lawsuit is filed by the felon agianst his intended victems, when he looses the slimeball lawyer that takes the case has to pay all the victems legal fees. That oughta discourage a few of them.

Zedicus
June 11, 2006, 10:12 PM
Lets make a rule that any time a lawsuit is filed by the felon agianst his intended victems, when he looses the slimeball lawyer that takes the case has to pay all the victems legal fees. That oughta discourage a few of them.

Now there is an Idea....:evil:

Malone LaVeigh
June 11, 2006, 10:23 PM
The lawyer will usually have to eat their own legal fees, at least.

Edited to clarify...

Lupinus
June 11, 2006, 10:27 PM
yeah but if it is just some slimeball willing to fish for settlement dough their fees likely aren't going to be all that high. Making them have to pay the fees for a decent lawyer to defend the people being sued will make a lot more of them think before taking the case.

gezzer
June 12, 2006, 01:20 AM
Bwahahahaha, This is funny!!!!

Lawyer should be disbarred for wasting the courts and Auto Zones time.

Give him 1/2 the time sentence the ARMED robber got. Also reporter needs to be fired for being STUPID.:cuss: :cuss:

If you enjoyed reading about "Foiled Burglar Sues Store Employees for 'Emotional Distress'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!