Bank robber sues banker who shot him

[Yohan]

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.

:banghead:

 

[safado]

A sign of all that is wrong with our legal system---especially if he wins.

 

[John G]

The lesson here: "Dead men don't sue."

 

[braindead0]

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]

I agree the clerk

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]

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]

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.

 

[RustyHammer]

Dead men tell no tales ....

 

[El Tejon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Bryon, O.K., so how would you "drastically broaden" the laws governing self-defense? What would you do differently?

 

[blades67]

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.

 

[Byron Quick]

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]

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]

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?

 

[SC_shooter]

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]

Does Indiana not have a "fleeing felon" provision?

 

[El Tejon]

Monte, what do you mean by that??? Sorry, just want to make sure you are answered correctly.

 

[cordex]

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.

 

[Redlg155]

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]

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.