Victim Sued By Criminal


PDA






gmark340
July 30, 2010, 06:46 PM
Sometimes people post about this jokingly, but when it happens it's no joke. Even if the suit fails, the defendant will have incurred the costs of defense and time. Citizen's arrests lack the limited immunity that covers the police so a criminal can always take a shot (no pun intended) and sue, hoping to be paid something for nuisance value, at a minimum, or to get the insurance coverage of the defendant, if any applies in the case of deliberate acts, to pay off.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ODD_CITIZENS_ARREST_LAWSUIT?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Jul 30, 3:13 PM EDT

Inmate sues man he's convicted of burglarizing

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) -- A Florida inmate is suing the man he's convicted of burglarizing, claiming the man and two others roughed him up during a citizen's arrest. Michael Dupree is serving a 12-year sentence for burglary and cocaine possession stemming from a 2007 break-in of a van in St. Petersburg. Dupree allegedly stole a bicycle locked inside and was apprehended after the owner, Anthony McKoy, saw him with the bike down the street.

Dupree said McKoy and two others pointed a gun at him, handcuffed him and placed a knee painfully in his back. He's seeking $500,000 for disabilities and distress suffered during the takedown.

Dupree filed the civil lawsuit on his own, without the help of an attorney.

After being served with the suit, McKoy said, "I thought it was a joke. I'm the victim."
---
Information from: St. Petersburg Times, http://tampabay.com
2010 The Associated Press.

If you enjoyed reading about "Victim Sued By Criminal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kleanbore
July 30, 2010, 07:32 PM
One very very good reason to not try to effect a citizen's arrest.

Where I live, arresting someone after he had committed a crime that I had not witnessed would land me in jail even without the issue of excessive force.

Add that to the fact that the person or persons effecting such an arrest (or the community, if the arrest was made by sworn officers) are completely liable for any injuries sustained by the detainee during detention and--well, its just not a good idea at all.

One has to wonder just what these guys were thinking.

Probably too much television....

JellyJar
July 30, 2010, 07:32 PM
Counter sue the criminal for $1,000,000.00 plus court costs.

Kleanbore
July 30, 2010, 07:46 PM
Counter sue the criminal for $1,000,000.00 plus court costs.Basis? You have to have standing and you must be able to substantiate an amount for damages. And suppose you did, and suppose you could? Think that guy has any money? No. Big waste of your time, emotions, and cash balance.

A lot of people seem to view civil suits as some kind of punitive undertaking in which one can scream "sue" and name the price and go in and wreak havoc. Not so. I have yet to ever meet either a plaintiff or a defendant who was satisfied with the process, the cost, or the results of a civil suit.

Now, if you get hurt, or lose income, go for it. But you won't be happy.

The burglar here won't be happy either, but the guys who put him in cuffs most surely won't. Matter of fact, they're lucky they haven't been charged with having committed crimes. Maybe the state law there wouldn't require that, but they would in a lot of places.

I cannot imagine any reason for a civilian to own handcuffs. They're nothing but trouble even if you do not get injured while tying to use them.

mljdeckard
July 30, 2010, 07:52 PM
Yep. Rule #1 of litigation. Never sue poor people.

Gouranga
July 30, 2010, 07:56 PM
In NC, this is not an issue as we have no authority to citizens arrest. You end the threat, period. In that case, hurling him out the front door if he is unarmed is allowed. Should be have a weapon though, he is toast.

G.A.Pster
July 30, 2010, 07:59 PM
This is why if you ever have to shoot someone you might as well emty the mag and insure they're dead, dead men tell no tales and file no lawsuits.

wishin
July 30, 2010, 09:06 PM
Fight it as a frivilous lawsuit and sue for legal fees.

Cosmoline
July 30, 2010, 09:08 PM
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. A suit is not a judgment. It's often a very long way from a judgment. And there are steps that can be taken to stamp out this sort of thing.

I did a pro bono case last year where the rapist sued his victim, believe it or not. On my motion, the court dismissed the suit and put him under a permanent restraining order barring him from any further suits without court approval. A number of states have approved similar procedures. Up here we also have a "loser pays" system that acts as a check against frivolous suits.

mljdeckard
July 30, 2010, 09:17 PM
I'm a BIG fan of loser pays.

Robert Wilson
July 30, 2010, 09:44 PM
Cosmoline, I have heard that inmates sometimes use lawsuits almost as a hobby. Do you know if there is any truth in it?

Kleanbore
July 30, 2010, 10:03 PM
This is why if you ever have to shoot someone you might as well emty the mag and insure they're dead, dead men tell no tales and file no lawsuits.Do not be misled. The forensic evidence tells tales, and estates file lawsuits. Remember the successful suit filed by the Goldman family?

However, that's all beside the point. There was no shooting in the case at hand--just a citizen's arrest. The suit apparently has to do with a claim of excessive force. Had anyone been killed, it would have been a suit for wrongful death. That in addition to obvious murder charges.

Buck Snort
July 31, 2010, 03:48 AM
This is why if you ever have to shoot someone you might as well emty the mag and insure they're dead, dead men tell no tales and file no lawsuits.
Sometimes we need to exercise prudent restraint with what we post on the internet. Everything we post can be reclaimed and (possibly) used against us in a court of law.

scythefwd
July 31, 2010, 06:27 AM
G.A.Pster - dead men don't tell tales... that is correct. They also don't file lawsuits, but their families do. On occasion, the families win.

Oyeboten
July 31, 2010, 06:36 AM
With the advent of Cell Phones, it is easy to be in communication with 911 Dispatch, while monitoring the on-going route or path or other developments relating to a suspect one has seen committing a burglary or other propety crime.

Intervening in property related Crimes, when it is not one's own Property, is easily kinda dicey unless working 'with' dispatch to keep them posted on what the suspect is doing, while the Cops are on their way.

Many problems can occur trying to forcibly detain a suspect.

mustang_steve
July 31, 2010, 07:01 AM
Never detain...he should have performed some recon while coordinationg with police.....let them know where the guy is.

NEVER detain....that is very risky water, and very likely to backfire. If you need to shoot, just shoot....but in this case they chased the thief down, which meant he was fleeing initially, so the use of a firearm was unjustified as they in essence prolonged the situation (in FL you CANNOT use a firearm to protect property, the car part of stand your ground is an occupied vehicle).

As messed up as it is, the crook has a fighting chance on this.

Bighouse Doc
July 31, 2010, 10:40 AM
Inmates do like to file lawsuits.

It is however rare, that attorney's represent them. I suspect they don't like to lose.

Most inmates hand write their own court papers in the prison Law Library.

Almost all of them are meritless get dismissed when confronted by a real attorney.

shootistpd27
July 31, 2010, 10:51 AM
Thank God that I live in Mississippi. Here we have the castle doctrine and according to state law, folks that are killed, or injured breaking into your castle are not allowed to sue. I know in Alabama if you have in any way, contributed to the situation for which you are suing, that you are not allowed to sue either. I hate to say it but it makes sense that if they break in, go ahead and make sure the coroner comes and gets them, dead men dont sue and make horrible witnesses against you. And no, this statement was not politically correct. All complaints should be addressed to your local waste receptacle.

valorius
July 31, 2010, 12:03 PM
One very very good reason to not try to effect a citizen's arrest.

Where I live, arresting someone after he had committed a crime that I had not witnessed would land me in jail even without the issue of excessive force.

Add that to the fact that the person or persons effecting such an arrest (or the community, if the arrest was made by sworn officers) are completely liable for any injuries sustained by the detainee during detention and--well, its just not a good idea at all.

One has to wonder just what these guys were thinking.

Probably too much television....
I think they were thinking, "Hey, that scumbag stole my bike, and i'm getting it back."

***...

I cannot imagine any reason for a civilian to own handcuffs. They're nothing but trouble even if you do not get injured while tying to use them.
Cops are civilians. And your sex life must be pretty boring.

With the advent of Cell Phones, it is easy to be in communication with 911 Dispatch, while monitoring the on-going route or path or other developments relating to a suspect one has seen committing a burglary or other propety crime.

Intervening in property related Crimes, when it is not one's own Property, is easily kinda dicey unless working 'with' dispatch to keep them posted on what the suspect is doing, while the Cops are on their way.

Many problems can occur trying to forcibly detain a suspect.
Where i live response time for a stolen bicycle call would be about, oh....they wouldn't even show up.

We had a pitbull running lose acting threatening and growling at kids last year, the cops were called by about 10 different households over and over for 4 hours. They never came.

We ended up dealing with the issue ourselves.

When you have seconds to act, cops are just minutes (or hours if you live in a bad area) away.

Sometimes men have to act for their own good, or they're not men at all, but sheep.

Shopping A Round
July 31, 2010, 12:19 PM
I'm calling bluff Valorius. Without pictures, you're just dragging us along.

Check out Gerald's Game by Stephen King where a situation with hand cuffs can go horribly.

http://member.tripod.com/~charnelhouse/geralds1.jpg

Sorry for off topic.

LibShooter
July 31, 2010, 12:29 PM
Thank God that I live in Mississippi. Here we have the castle doctrine...

I'm not sure the Castle Doctrine would help much if you chased a guy down the street, tackled him and roughed him. That's what happened here.

If the bad guy is running away, even with my stuff, I would consider that a successful conclusion to an interaction with the criminal element. The last thing I want to do is run after him to extend the interaction.

ONLY
July 31, 2010, 12:46 PM
I carry a pair of handcuffs in my truck for my job. Im not law enforcment but a bail agent. Would I arrest some one other than those who have missed court not no but h*ll no! That is asking for trouble. Now if you run into a situation where your out in the sticks like me and some one just commited a heinous crime against me or my family. There is alot of swamps around here.

Kleanbore
July 31, 2010, 12:48 PM
Posted by shootistpd27: Thank God that I live in Mississippi. Here we have the castle doctrine and according to state law, folks that are killed, or injured breaking into your castle are not allowed to sue. Irrelevant. The guy here was not injured while breaking in.

I hate to say it but it makes sense that if they break in, go ahead and make sure the coroner comes and gets them,...You don't want to do that. If you lawfully use deadly force, the perp may die, but he may not; 80-90% of people shoot by handguns survive. If the evidence indicates that you fired to kill after stopping the perp, you'll see both criminal charges and civil suits.

...dead men dont sue and make horrible witnesses against you. The estates of dead men sue all the time. Forensic evidence is likely more to be credible than the testimony of a burglar.

And no, this statement was not politically correct.Not only that (and that's not really important at all), but in the event that you ever get involved in a shooting in which the evidence is not very clearly in your favor, it can and will be used against you as evidence of a potentially criminal state of mind. That could be really important indeed.

A number of states, including mine, have enacted laws intended to protect those who acted lawfully in self defense from civil suits; such suits had presented a real problem for honest law abiding citizens. Such laws have reportedly dissuaded attorneys from taking on cases that some of them might have agreed to pursue in the past, and that's good. However, they are largely untested, and attorney friends of mine tell me that I do not want to be the one to establish the case law. Scary, eh?

IllHunter
July 31, 2010, 12:56 PM
LIbShooter, name pretty much tells your story, I think your response is weak cheese and leads to social deterioation. The criminal wins and you go home scared and frustrated. I say chase down the thief and get it back. Life will be better, I have my thing and the thief has a learning experience that is not rewarding or reinforcing to his lifestyle.

Kleanbore
July 31, 2010, 01:36 PM
I say chase down the thief and get it back.Sometimes OK, sometimes no. Don't use or threaten deadly force to recover property that has already been taken unless you live in a state that was once a republic and the conditions are appropriate. In some states, one would have to be in hot pursuit to be justified in using any force at all. Check the laws.

The defendants here may be lucky--in most places they could also face criminal charges.

The could also have been shot with their own gun. That's happened.

Gottahaveone
July 31, 2010, 01:40 PM
One of the core doctrines I was taught growing up is that you don't pick on weaker people, and that you stand up for yourself. Somebody takes something that I have worked and paid for, and I see them with what I know beyond any doubt is mine, I'm taking it back or getting whooped trying. The courts can deal with the legal ramifications of the theft later....

mgkdrgn
July 31, 2010, 02:51 PM
Suing is one thing.

Winning is another.

Collecting after winning is another yet.

Chances of this clown winning a suit, w/o a lawyer ... slim to none. He'll likely end up owing for all the court costs (dependent on the laws of that particular state) ... which he won't be able to pay. That will be "contempt of court" and he'll end up in jail. However, if that is where he is now ... no biggie, right?

valorius
July 31, 2010, 05:36 PM
I'm calling bluff Valorius. Without pictures, you're just dragging us along.
What are you asking for pictures of?

LibShooter
July 31, 2010, 05:41 PM
I say chase down the thief and get it back. Life will be better, I have my thing and the thief has a learning experience that is not rewarding or reinforcing to his lifestyle. Grab your nads and man up.

Folks who steal are sometimes armed. They are almost certainly more practised in practical fisticuffs than I am. The ONLY way I'm likely to prevail in a fight with someone like that is to use my concealed weapon. That is something I'm morally opposed to and legally prohibited to do in defense of a bicycle.

If you are convinced fighting over a bit of portable property will benefit society, go right ahead. I'll decline. My life, my pretty face... and my nads are more important to me than a Schwinn... or teaching a lesson to some bad guy.

Kleanbore
July 31, 2010, 07:21 PM
Posted by Gottahaveone: Somebody takes something that I have worked and paid for, and I see them with what I know beyond any doubt is mine, I'm taking it back or getting whooped trying. The courts can deal with the legal ramifications of the theft later....The courts will also take care of the legal ramifications of what you have done.

Once you have done it, you don't get a "do-over". It is essential to understand the meaning of the laws in your jurisdiction before you get yourself into real trouble in terms of criminal charges or civil liability or both.

Here's something relevant from the web page of a law firm:

If possession of real or personal property is in dispute, the universal rule is that force cannot be used. The dispute must be settled by a court.

With respect to personal property, the general view is that an owner may not commit an assault or battery upon the wrongdoer in order to recover property. A majority of jurisdictions recognize the right of an owner in hot pursuit of stolen property to use a reasonable amount of force to retrieve it. In some states, stolen property may be taken back peaceably wherever it is found, even if it is necessary to enter another's premises. In all cases, the infliction of an unreasonable amount of harm will vitiate the defense.

Because the comments here are very general and general rules won't help, I won't take the trouble to provide the link. One should find out what applies where one lives--beforehand. He will certainly find out afterwards.

Guns and more
August 1, 2010, 09:40 AM
The perp is acting as his own lawyer. In jail he has nothing better to do.
The U.S.A. is turned upside down. The victim is the criminal.
Isn't it time we said, "enough"?
Let's start with the politicians who let this happen. Kick them out as fast as we can.

MagnumDweeb
August 1, 2010, 11:13 AM
This just shows sometimes you have let some things go, my bike isn't worth the headache of a trial or a police investigation. If I was going to my truck and I caught someone trying to steal either some of my landscaping equipment or carpet cleaning equipment I stand right close to them and be polite about the fact they are stealing my stuff. If they then decided to put there hand in their pocket and make a threat about possesing a gun and they'll kill me if I don't give him my car keys, get in the car with him, he'll kill me(oh no forcible felony, kidnapping), and if I try to run away he'll shoot me in the back, oh no.

I'm just saying get good insurance and just accept you are going to have to let some things go in life, or get a good attorney and get a good story.

One keeps you clear of the legal and criminal field, the other puts you in the thick of it, and a lot of judges in Florida recently have been getting deemed idiots for their inability to properly understand even the basics of the law. When you start planting items and creating stories you start running the risk of legal liability and headaches. Is a bike really worth that?

If the guys that roughed him up had sad the guy got violent with them, reached behind his back claiming to have a gun and that if they didn't back off he'd shoot each one of them dead, take their wallets for their IDs, go to their homes and rape their wives and children, then it'd be another story about using lethal force now wouldn't it. I consider pointing a gun lethal force because there's no reason in my opinion to point a gun if you don't intend to use it.

The coward lives in peace, the brave lives in justice with all its follies.

ArmedBear
August 1, 2010, 11:15 AM
You can take the law into your own hands. Or you can call the cops.

Just remember not to do both.

Kleanbore
August 1, 2010, 11:50 AM
Posted by Guns and more: The perp is acting as his own lawyer. In jail he has nothing better to do.Common practice for centuries. John Wesley Hardin studied law in prison and became a practicing attorney after he got out.

The U.S.A. is turned upside down.There's nothing really unique to our country on this case, except perhaps that the guys being sued have not been jailed.

The victim is the criminal.Not in this case--according to the report, no criminal charges have been filed. For now, it's purely a matter of tort law.

However, a victim can surely become a criminal. Try shooting a trespasser and you'll see the inside of a jail cell. We have laws and judicial systems to administer and enforce criminal law as well as tort law.

Isn't it time we said, "enough"?To what?

Let's start with the politicians who let this happen. Kick them out as fast as we can.The "politicians who let this happen"?

The legal principles here were initially decided by judges who set forth many centuries ago to decide (1) how to resolve civil disputes such as property issues, contract disagreements, etc., and (2) what constitutes lawful behavior and what constitutes a crime. Applicable here are the laws relative to what one may and may not do when he sees property that has been taken by someone else. They had thousands of years of prior legal practices and pronouncements to draw upon, including Roman law, Mosaic law, the Code of Hammurabi, and if one goes back far enough, the Code of Ur-Nammu. Things have evolved over time, but today's politicians have made relatively few substantive changes to several centuries of established precedent in this area.

It may seem appropriate to some to allow someone who sees something and thinks "hey, that's mine" to take it back, and in some jurisdictions that's OK--provided he does not use or threaten force.

If he does the latter, all bets are off. The reason for that is to protect you and me from being knocked over when someone else incorrectly thinks we have wronged him and wants to take matters into his own hands.

I was intrigued by a statement on the web page of a law office that I saw the other day. It said something to the effect that most people who are arrested for assault have no idea why they are being arrested. Again, these guys currently face only a civil suit, and in that they are very lucky indeed.

If one wants to give up his right to own guns permanently, one of the quickest ways to do that is to use one, or threaten to use one, unlawfully.

belercous
August 2, 2010, 12:15 AM
Kleanbore is obviously an attorney, I have found nothing he has said to be untrue. Listen to him. You may not like what he says, but that don't mean it's untrue.

I agree with Mljdeckard; Never sue poor people (as they are judgement-proof) and I'm all for loser pays.

And what's the problem with Libshooter? Like liberals are automatically discredited or somesuch? I'm a liberal, and I advocate for C.C. My political persuasion carries a whole lot more weight with the left than does any right-winger, same with him. Kinda like how only Nixon could go to China. Don't alienate those who love guns just because you don't like other aspects of their politics, it's not a smart move. Ever hear of divide & conquer?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was a single-issue forum, to advance gun rights.

Demitrios
August 2, 2010, 12:47 AM
G.A. Pster says: This is why if you ever have to shoot someone you might as well emty the mag and insure they're dead, dead men tell no tales and file no lawsuits.

That's an easy thing to saywhen you've never even killed a man. But when it comes right down to it do you really think you could kill a person and sleep well at night, especially in this situation where he was already subdued? Always watch your words because there's always someone listening/watching. Christ knows I should heed my own advice.

ScramasaxDurango
August 2, 2010, 01:09 AM
Do you really think somebody's life is worth a bicycle, quite honestly? I mean, yeah, if somebody's in your house, that's one thing, but when they're already on the street fleeing, so they're not presenting an active threat to you, do you really think it's right to gun them down in the middle of a busy road, probably with bystanders and people in the line of fire? Because it sounds an awful lot like that's what some people are saying. Personally, shooting a man in the back never appealed to me much.


Aren't y'all familiar with "reasonable force"?

Frank Ettin
August 2, 2010, 01:38 AM
In any case:

[1] Sometimes criminals, or their surviving relatives, sue the victims.

[2] They may or may not win. Whether or not they win will depend on exactly what happened and how, and on exactly what the law is in the particular jurisdiction. It all may wind up being up to a jury.

[3] Whether or not the criminal wins, the whole thing may still cost the defendant/victim a bundle, as well as a lot of aggravation.

[4] If the criminal does win, the victim/defendant will probably have some assets and/or a job and/or some stature in the community.

[5] If the defendant/victim wins, he may have a claim for malicious prosecution. Of course, that claim is worthless unless the criminal has a bundle of money with which to pay any judgment the defendant/victim might win. Fat chance.

[6] Loser pays systems have a lot of merit. They are, however, worthless unless the loser has something to pay with.

The foregoing are just some pieces of the puzzle that perhaps ought to be kept in mind if one is considering using excessive force, or going overboard, or playing vigilante.

Kleanbore
August 2, 2010, 08:16 AM
Kleanbore is obviously an attorney, I have found nothing he has said to be untrue. Listen to him. You may not like what he says, but that don't mean it's untrue.Just to set the record straight, I am not an attorney. I did report directly to the Chief Counsel of a major business unit of a major corporation for about two years, and I worked very closely with attorneys for over twenty years designing and writing compliance policy for a living, among other things, but my educational background was in engineering, and much of my career centered in financial management. In the course of may career, I attended numerous courses offered to attorneys as Continuing Legal Education, and while some of them involved civil suits, etc. none had anything to do with disputes among individuals come of whom may have committed crimes. I do discuss matters such as these with attorney friends routinely.

Fiddletown is an attorney. We almost always, if not always, see eye to eye. Should anyone detect a difference of opinion, one should accept his point of view.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

06
August 2, 2010, 08:39 AM
I helped chase an armed robber down in Ellerbe, NC. He had disposed of the pistol somewhere in the chase-it was never found. I had a 45 in hand during the chase and capture. He never presented a pistol so I never brandished mine. When walking back I uncocked and the fellows with me commented that they never saw it or they would have tackled him much earlier. Oddly enough we caught him in front of town hall and the police rolled up just as he went down. Glad they showed as anger feelings were high.

Ryder
August 2, 2010, 08:04 PM
RE countersuit -

You have to have standing and you must be able to substantiate an amount for damages. And suppose you did, and suppose you could? Think that guy has any money? No. Big waste of your time, emotions, and cash balance.


They can be released if a cash judgement is pending against them for their crime? Must not be so or criminals would not attempt to sue the victim.

Frank Ettin
August 2, 2010, 08:13 PM
Kleanbore, thank you for the vote of confidence.

DCR
August 3, 2010, 01:55 PM
+1 to those who pointed out it's not worth it to countersue a destitute inmate. With rare exception, they have no assets to tap, and if they choose to work while in prison make about 10 cents an hour in the kitchen, laundry, license-plate stamper, etc.

We have a neat thing in ID, though: prisoners' accounts and personal property in the pen are subject to seizure and sale to satisfy judgments, costs and attorneys fees. I hear heart-warming stories about guards removing prisoners' personal TV's and radios to be taken to the county sheriff's auctions for sale. It has become a major deterrent, but sadly only for prisoners who possess such things; the destitute still can file suits with impunity.

Cosmoline
August 3, 2010, 02:12 PM
Cosmoline, I have heard that inmates sometimes use lawsuits almost as a hobby. Do you know if there is any truth in it?

Some do, though it's gotten a lot tougher in the past years. They do have access to law libraries of course and have a right to sue. That hasn't changed except in extreme cases like the one I mentioned. But what has changed are the logistical restrictions. Both much more restrictive security and the fact that states such as Alaska export many prisoners to private outfits in Arizona. It's hard for a prisoner to wage litigation in Alaska from a private prison in Arizona.

So as far as personal injury claims from prisoners, I've only seen a few dozen out of thousands of cases in the past decade. And those proved so difficult for the inmate to conduct even where he was represented by counsel that they were settled out low or dropped. I've got one right now that's about to be dismissed w/o prejudice because the plaintiff's counsel is finding it impossible to communicate with a prisoner client in a Washington state lockup. I've seen more action from the local jails, but in that case the inmate will usually be out before any major deadlines swing in. And it's vastly easier to keep in touch with what's happening in a case from jail than from prison.

Claude Clay
August 3, 2010, 02:40 PM
[6] Loser pays systems have a lot of merit. They are, however, worthless unless the loser has something to pay with.

so...pass law such that if inmate loses case he has to pay off the costs with money made by additional time in jail:

min wage $10.00---6$ per day token amount for his room & board, 1$ savings towards his release and 3$ pay back.

so if he sues & loses and the court costs were assessed at $3000.00;
at $15 a day 5 days a week he would be in jail an extra 40 weeks.

suppose parol is granted--the 40 week clock now starts ticking.
frivolous suits will decrease fast i bet.

Frank Ettin
August 3, 2010, 04:13 PM
It is my understanding that not all inmates in all prison systems work, and when they do, they get much less than the minimum wage. So this would be a substantial raise and probably more than the economic value of their labor. Thus the taxpayers would really pay.

And the cost of a lawsuit, court costs and attorney fees, if disposed of before trial is more on the order of $10,000 - $20,000. If it involves a trial, we're talking $50,000+.

LibShooter
August 3, 2010, 06:09 PM
...pass law such that if inmate loses case he has to pay off the costs with money made by additional time in jail...

That sounds a little like a debtors prison, too me. Those are bad.

I think a better idea is that all civil suits with inmates as plantiffs and private citizens or corporations as defendants should be postponed until the inmate is out of prison and off probation. That way the plantiff would be responsible for his own court costs and legal representation.

Carl N. Brown
August 3, 2010, 07:08 PM
Tennessee handgun carry class: recommendation was to consider a chase-off of a burglar as mission accomplished. Don't attempt a citizen's arrest, don't pursue.

We have had a few cases of folks detaining burglars at gunpoint for arrest by responding officers. One case of a burglar who struggled with a neighbor of the homeowner whose house was burgled with shot fired in the struggle, last shot fired at burglar driving away (wounding); grand jury refused to return a charge against the neighbor (very iffy). The neighbor is clear, the burglar faced charges.

Last I checked, in Tennessee a person who perpetrates or attempts to perpetrate a felony on the property of another person has NO legal standing to sue for accidental or intentional injury as the result of perpetrating or attempting a felony. That includes a burglar falling thru a roof or skylight that does not meet the building code.

belercous
August 4, 2010, 12:52 AM
Kleanbore; sorry I misjudged you, but you certainly could be an attorney. You seem to have a firm grasp on our laws & const., moreso than many of the people I went to law school with. And yes, Fiddletown knows about that of which he speaks, no argument with him.

Many jailhouse lawyers (inmates 3 degrees smarter than the rest) churn suits, it's a prison industry for a few. Better pay than working, and all they can do is win as they are expected to lose. No reason not to file. They are judgment-proof, so why not? They (the inmates, not the jailhouse lawyer) file pro se, in forma pauperis. No filing/court fees. Can't deny them their rights unless we want to amend the Const. Gotta take the good with the bad, as is everything in life. Most of these suits never get even heard, and for good reason, they have no merit. But that doesn't stop `em, just slows `em down. A bit.

Claude Clay's idea is debtor's prison. We eradicated that many years ago. Seems to me that there was something said about how best to judge a society. Something about how we treat the lesser members of it and how we much we love/treat our lord, they seem to be equal. But that's not me talking, it was someone named Jesus. Google it.

Kleanbore
August 4, 2010, 08:30 AM
Posted by belercous: Kleanbore; sorry I misjudged you, but you certainly could be an attorney. You seem to have a firm grasp on our laws & const., moreso than many of the people I went to law school with. And yes, Fiddletown knows about that of which he speaks, no argument with him.I appreciate the compliment. I'll file it mentally among a couple of nice comments from Fiddletown and a comment from a new attorney we had just hired who had had an important position in the Navy: after two meetings on a potentially worrisome legal issue within his area of considerable experience, he leaned back and looked at me and said "you sure do know your stuff."

What's worrisome to me is when coming across an attorney who clearly lacks the necessary understanding of the subject at hand. I've been able to recognize that, most of the time, but for someone who cannot, there's the risk of proceeding on the basis of poor advice.

More worrisome, of course, are people who believe that the time to consult an attorney is after the fact....

HOWARD J
August 4, 2010, 09:19 AM
In MI if you harm someone stealing your property from your garage or back yard ( includes your car ) you will go to jail.
You may use lethal force if you are attacked in your house, in your car or on the street where you have a legal right to be.
Around here they steal thousands of cars---if they catch them they are back on the street the next day ( unless they take the time to prove that they are part of a chop shop---they usually don't take the time)

Frank Ettin
August 4, 2010, 09:24 AM
More worrisome, of course, are people who believe that the time to consult an attorney is after the fact.... Don't be such a spoil sport. It's a lot of those folks who wind up making trial lawyers really rich.:D:D

belercous
August 6, 2010, 02:45 AM
Not so much a compliment as a statement of fact. I just calls `em as I sees `em.
I didn't mean to be derogatory on the lawyer thing, but it does take a bit of intelligence to be an attorney. You seem to be level-headed. And that's still not a compliment. People are expected to be to be reasoned. I've been let down on this strange presumption more times than not.

Now that it's dark, I need to go carry a gut-pile & some bones out to some bears.

Art Eatman
August 6, 2010, 10:46 AM
Enough...

If you enjoyed reading about "Victim Sued By Criminal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!