Victim Sued By Criminal

[Gottahaveone]

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]

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]

I'm calling bluff Valorius. Without pictures, you're just dragging us along.

What are you asking for pictures of?

 

[LibShooter]

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.

 

[Beaux Nehr]

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.

However, silly macho posts on internet can be found by lawyers and bite you in the butt.

 

[Kleanbore]

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]

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]

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]

You can take the law into your own hands. Or you can call the cops.

Just remember not to do both.

 

[Kleanbore]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Kleanbore, thank you for the vote of confidence.

 

[DCR]

+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]

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]

[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]

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]

...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]

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]

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.