JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
If a judge actually allows this case to move forward, he should be removed from the bench. Unbelievable that criminals are able to sue their victims. Why are politicians not passing laws preventing lawsuits by people who are committing felony offenses?
 
If a judge actually allows this case to move forward, he should be removed from the bench. Unbelievable that criminals are able to sue their victims. Why are politicians not passing laws preventing lawsuits by people who are committing felony offenses?
Because everybody has rights - even criminals.

Not sure whether, as a fact of law, the lawsuit should go forward, but if it does and a trial court judge doesn't throw it out, then I would complain. Everybody gets their day in court - usually.

That said - to the criminal "victim":

2004-06-28-toobadsosad1.jpg
 
That's not necessarily true. There are cases that get tossed out before they ever get to the courts as they are seen as being "frivolous" or something to that effect. I agree a judge should review the charge made by the little butt-hurt criminal, but I think in so doing, he'd be in a position to not punish the actual victims in this case (the Pizza place and the employees) by forcing them through a trial that will only waste their time and money. Getting tossed out up front does happen, and I hope it happens here.
 
Good time to point out that many people who have used their weapons to defend themselves during an attack or other violent felony... have wound up defending themselves in civil court against a suit brought by the attacker or the attacker's family. And it's coming out of your pocket, unless you have a hefty liability policy and even then it's gonna be miserable.

Particularly onerous is the attacker who is rendered disabled by the (i.e., our) defensive response. All of a sudden this person will manufacture all kinds of 'lost wage" and unusable "talents" previously unused or realized but claimed anyway. (unrealized before the crime, that is.)

This is why I highly recommend having a good use of force toolkit available, ranging from avoidance/retreat to open-hand to less-than-lethal to deadly force. Few things are properly suited to a deadly force response and before shooting we want to make sure we are as justified as the circumstances allow, and that no other available options could have been sufficient.
 
I would agree with a narrowly defined law - something to the effect that a criminal could not sue a victim of his violent crime for injuries the criminal incurred as a result of the act of the crime.

But in general saying that a criminal can't sue someone is non-starter in my book.
 
I would agree with a narrowly defined law - something to the effect that a criminal could not sue a victim of his violent crime for injuries the criminal incurred as a result of the act of the crime.

But in general saying that a criminal can't sue someone is non-starter in my book.

That's kind of the direction I was going, but may not have expressed that very well. I do agree that even criminals deserve due process under the law, but counter-suing someone who either defended themselves against the accused or captured them seems to stretch beyond the bounds of 'due process' in my book - that's not justice, it's taking advantage of a system that allows far too many frivolous lawsuits.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top