Posted on 03/31/2014 6:30:00 AM PDT by marktwain
Sad but true, this is the way it works in the United States. Two men entered a convenience store, pointed their guns at the clerk, and robbed the store. As they exited the store, an armed citizen confronted them. The robbers pointed their guns at the honest citizen and he shot and killed both of them.
Now the family of one of the dead robbers wants “justice.” They want to sue the honest citizen. And leave it to the media to give the families of armed robbers a forum.
In what has become a cliché, the mother of an armed robber takes to the airwaves to say, “He was a good boy.” This family then has the nerve to say the robbers didn’t deserve to be shot; that an honest citizen had no right to fire at two “boys” who pointed their guns at him. The family then goes on to say that while their boy was a known drug user, he likely only robbed the store so he could get money to pay his child support. It is a seven-minute video, but it should make your blood boil:
And Now They Want to Sue…
(Excerpt) Read more at usconcealedcarry.com ...
“If they manage to sue, they should lose and end up paying all the court and legal costs.”
They would need to do a bigger robbery to get the money.
Just think of what a nice splash pattern she’d make after being dropped from a huey say at 2000ft on to a parking lot.
Ahhhh. Now this "news story" makes a little more sense to me. The lawsuit has nothing to do with the self defense shooting of two armed thugs. This is a move to challenge the Castle Doctrine law again. This is suppose to be an activism case brought on by a radical attorney no doubt.
In keeping with one of the core promises of liberalism - there should be no consequences for behavior choices, including theft and violence.
The lawyers who filed this case should be jointly liable for all attorney fees and costs. It is frivolous.
Better they should follow their peeps to hell.
The clean up (the mess) and damages would be covered but not any legal costs associated with an incident (unless it was in the insurance company's best interest to recover damages). We debated it a bit and he made a good point. You might not want your home owners policy covering your legal position. If you are found "at fault" for any part of the damages, the insurer may be able to deny some portion of a claim they may owe you otherwise. There may actually be a conflict of interest. In other words, if a civil suit were to find that you used excessive force in your defense, they may not have to pay for the mess or damages (bullet holes, broken doors, windows, etc.) associated with the incident. They may be motivated to root against you.
It was hypothetical consideration and casual conversation. But it was an interesting angle. With all the changes in laws today, I am not sure how relevant any of this would be.
Let me take a”Wild”Guess?The Robbers were Black so this is ALL about RACISM???
What makes you think these people pay taxes or even file a tax form?
You would have to include the labor cost of loading the bullets into the "magazine" as well. $30 for the bullets, $50,000 to load them.
Armed Citizens and the Modern Frontier
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/05/armed-citizens-and-modern-frontier.html
There are some products out there, not exactly insurance...
As I understand it, each dependent is worth 3 or 4 thousand per year and if you’re low income and not paying any taxes anyway, this comes back as a check. There’s a lot of incentive for these people to file a return. In fact it’s a huge racket to the tune of billions each year.. and that’s on top of the welfare checks and services they get each month.
Why is this a story? A gunman who is shot in the act has no standing to sue under PA law. Once again, the media proves to be the villain.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Of course I realize that....
I will 'raise' you a dash of sardonicism and irony to go along with the cynicism and sarcasm. All which are favorites of mine...
OF course the TRUTH is the bottom line and it gets harder all the time to try and keep it 'light'
Like they say 'it is an art to (somewhat) maintain your sanity while those around you are being overtaken' - or something like that......
Should'a shot the "friends" too!
In certain circles, being robber is an acceptable line of work.
It wouldn't be the castle doctrine protecting him.
that’s what the DA at the end of the video said...
I didn’t quite get that either.
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.