Posted on 07/23/2004 7:07:35 PM PDT by Mulder
She'll wind up suing the store because they have the money. Remember, she's a victim so she deserves to win the lottery.
You sound like an attorney. I'm not, so I'll speak as a member of the jury.
From what I've read here (not the whole story of course) I'd give Beck the benefit of the doubt.If I had the power, I'd also instruct Denmark to thank Beck for saving her from the perp.
From the rear of the building, Beck fired at least six shots at Logan, who ran toward South Florida Avenue. Beck followed Logan and fired more shots as Logan ran toward Denmark's van, which had reached the intersection of Lenox Street and South Florida Avenue.
Beck is partially responsible for Logan's apparent attempt to carjack Denmark's van, because he was forcing Logan to run for his life, even though Beck himself was no longer in danger. He is also responsible for shooting a gun at an innocent bystander (even though he wasn't trying to hit her)--again, even though he himself was no longer in danger. Bottom line: had Beck not been firing at Logan, the preponderance of the evidence is that Mrs. Denmark would not only not have been harmed, she probably wouldn't even have become involved at all. That makes Beck civilly liable for damages to Mrs. Denmark. This becomes brutally obvious, simply by replacing Logan (a human being) with a wild animal of some sort (such as a lion.) If you think you wouldn't be fully liable for chasing a lion into someone else's backyard, and then shooting the homeowner in your attempt to get the lion, think again.
She does, as does Beck.
Dumb Statement of the Day Award goes to...
In Mrs. Denmarks position, I'd also thank Mr. Beck, and leave it at that.
However, Mrs. Denmark has the right to collect some damages from Mr. Beck, if she so desires. Obviously, most of the fault lies with Mr. Logan, and Mr. Beck should only be required to pay some percentage of the total damages due Mrs. Denmark, in proportion to his share of responsibility.
So, when the police chase some teenage speeder down the highway, causing him to smash into your car, you won't sue the police, right?
"...Mr. Beck's need to defend himself...does not give him the right to injure any innocent person. One person's need never justifies violation of the rights of someone else."
You're asserting that self-defense is a need, not a right?
California has a law on the books where an individual found to be acting in self defense can not be held criminally or civilly liable for injuries, including death, inflicted upon innocent bystanders. The perpetrator is charged with that crime as well.
The man shot an innocent person, he should be held responsible.
Not if I'm on the jury.
Not if he was defending himself or preventing the immiment commission of a forcible felony.
He gets a "yes" on both counts.
The thug that started it is responsible.
1) A speeder is not the same as an attempted murderer. 2) Criminals are now using the police non-pursuit regulations to commit more crimes and drive away faster and eventually kill more people. 3) Beck had already been shot. 4) There is no evidence to prove that the perp attempted the carjacking solely because of Beck. 5) some situations just plain suck, you will be victimized, and you can't cash in on them.
Maybe Beck should have just died like he was supposed to and this woman wouldn't have suffered like she did.
There is a big difference in a man defending his family from a violent felon; and a meter maid with a gun.
BTW, if Beck was a cop, they'd have already given him some kind of "cop-hero" award.
I don't get it. You can get charged with "accidentally" killing someone -- Manslaughter. But you can't get charged for "accidently" hurting someone?
They tried to charge him, but fortunately a grand jury wouldn't go along.
Personally, I don't believe people should be prosecuted for innocent mistakes made in good faith. Nor should they be prosecuted for defending their lives.
Legally, there ARE exceptions in the law for accidentally hurting someone under exigent circumstances or when you are acting as a good samaritarian, or when your actions are to prevent a greater evil from occuring. Clearly, all 3 were factors in this case.
Using your logic, the families of the passive passengers on flight 93 should be able to sue the estates of the active passengers on flight 93 since the former died after the latter took action.
I don't think the person did anything wrong, but he did shoot a bystander.
How good would your aim be after you'd been shot in the head?
Self defense is a right, but that does not justify exercising it in such a way so as to violate the rights of others, no matter how great the need. Such is true of all rights. One man's right to life does not justify his taking the heart of someone else, just because he needs a heart transplant.
If Denmark sues, I hope the jury considers that Mr. Beck probably saved her life.
"Logan opened the sliding door of the van but was shot before getting inside, police said."
Had this turd gotten in the van, you can bet she wouldn't be here to "whine about people taking the law into their own hands."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.