Widow Sues Clerk Who Shot Her Husband During a Robbery

[1775usmarine]

After I win I would sue the wife for my legal fees and maybe slander.

 

[KLB]

Frivolous lawsuits?

Loser pays all attorney fees and court costs.

Problem solved.

No, her attorney should pay all of the above. Penalize the attorneys for bringing frivolous lawsuits and the number will shrink drastically.

 

[ultra...good]

Just when I thought I had heard it all. Suing the guy for protecting himself, he was partially at fault for the guys death because he did not have to kill him, he should have just given him the money.
This goes right up there with the burglar that sues the homeowner (and wins) because while in the process of burglarizing the house, the burglar hurts himself on the property.
The older I get, the more I read, The less likely I am to compromise one bit towards ANY liberal ideology. It breeds this crap.

 

[PGRChaplain]

Shoot the lawyer that filed the case??????????? Paintball Gun of course!

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Reminds me of the Kroger case. Bad guy tries to rob Kroger. Clerk shoots bad guy in the face. Bad guy dies. Mother of bad guy sues Kriger.

Anyone know the outcome of that one?

 

[PaxRomana]

Can the clerk sue the widow for reckless endangerment for not controlling her husband?

This.....Not a lawyer, but I am guessing the clerk could do this and probably be as likely to prevail as the widows suit. If nothing else, might convince the widow to drop her case.

 

[T4rdV4rk]

I don't understand what people think immunity laws are. Anyone can sue for anything and the person being sued had the burden to show they are immune.

We have an adversarial system. There is no all-seeing, all-knowing court clerk who reads civil complaints and "tosses out" cases not deemed worthy to proceed.

Further, all of these types of statutes have exceptions. Is the uber-clerk supposed to know what cases the exceptions apply to and which ones they do not at the moment the case is first filed?

Ultimately, the parties have to present their evidence and argument and if a judge decides that there is immunity, the case will be dismissed.

Is this true? Wouldn't the person making the accusation of guilt be required to prove that the person is in fact guilty? I am not a lawyer and from some posts of yours I think you might be a legal professional so I will defer to you.

In logic, the person making the claim (accusing in this case) bears the burden of proof. Innocent until proven guilty right?

 

[dbrier]

That is correct, but you still have to hire a lawyer and tell your side of the story.
If you don't do that, the court only has one side of the story and you can be found guilty (or at at fault) in absentia.

 

[drifter197]

I wonder how the lawyer justifies taking that case to himself.

MONEY!!! the only Justification he needed. just look at Washington to many lawyers (lawmakers) making a lot of money off the american people.

 

[churchmouse]

The thug tried to rob the place and got a well-deserved case of lead poisoning. Unfortunately, his thugette widow is able to use the legal system to rob the store clerk and there's not a %#$#@ thing he can do about it. Our country would be SO great if we could just get rid of politicians and lawyers, which are usually one and the same.

the loss of a few more thugs would be nice as well.

 

[daddymikey1975]

Anyone besides me try to Google the attorney ?? Small time guy with no website. Lil

He's probably fresh out of law school

 

[Spike_351]

the clerk could probably counter sue....of course IANAL.

 

[Spike_351]

this dumb ***** is probably as worthless as that piece of **** husband of hers.

 

[Cemetery-man]

I was talking to one of the local LE at a gun safety course and he told me that if you ever have to defend yourself with lethal force, call 911 first and then your lawyer next.

He said that my right to defend myself could mean a trip to jail, court appearances and costly lawyer fees. Then when the court finds the shooting justified, the BG and/or his family will try everything in their power to make you pay for your decision to pull that trigger.

 

[cobber]

I wonder how the lawyer justifies taking that case to himself.

Payments on his condo at Aspen?

 

[Thegeek]

Counter sue for the emotional distress of being forced to take another human life.

If I were the clerk, I'd sue the widow because she didn't urge her deadbeat POS husband to go out and get a effing job!!! I'd also include the price of ammo and the depreciation of having to have shot my firearm as well...

 

[KoopaKGB]

If I were the clerk, I'd sue the widow because she didn't urge her deadbeat POS husband to go out and get a effing job!!! I'd also include the price of ammo and the depreciation of having to have shot my firearm as well...

Not to mention the cleanup on aisle 1. Mop and bucket. Plus the store has to throw out any products that have been damaged in the shooting.

 

[Sainte]

I wonder how the lawyer justifies taking that case to himself.

He is a lawyer? All human decency is removed with an ice cream scoop in law school.

Unfortunately, they are a much needed reality in today's world. Too bad there isn't a review board to weed out frivolous lawsuits such as this before they even get a chance to be filed. Imagine the money we would save.

 

[Jack Burton]

the clerk could probably counter sue....of course IANAL.

Here is the benefit of counter-suing.

The lawyer who is working the original case is working on a contingency fee. He's hoping to scare up some settlement money from an insurance company or someone else just to make the lawsuit go away. The thug's wife has zero money outlay in this case. There is no pain to her at all other than the scorn of society, which I believe impacts her little to nothing.

But... if the storeowner sues the estate of the thug (wife) then she no longer gets a free ride. Now, it's true that the estate probably has little to nothing of value to sue for but that is not the point. The reason for the storeowner suit is to force the wife to feel actual pain. For her to defend herself, she now has to go out and get a lawyer -- at her cost.

No more free ride for Mrs. Thug. She pays the full freight for her decision.

Point out to her your willingness to drop your lawsuit when she drops hers, and her pain will just go away like magic. She'll jump like a rat abandoning a sinking ship.

 

[Spike_351]

Here is the benefit of counter-suing.

The lawyer who is working the original case is working on a contingency fee. He's hoping to scare up some settlement money from an insurance company or someone else just to make the lawsuit go away. The thug's wife has zero money outlay in this case. There is no pain to her at all other than the scorn of society, which I believe impacts her little to nothing.

But... if the storeowner sues the estate of the thug (wife) then she no longer gets a free ride. Now, it's true that the estate probably has little to nothing of value to sue for but that is not the point. The reason for the storeowner suit is to force the wife to feel actual pain. For her to defend herself, she now has to go out and get a lawyer -- at her cost.

No more free ride for Mrs. Thug. She pays the full freight for her decision.

Point out to her your willingness to drop your lawsuit when she drops hers, and her pain will just go away like magic. She'll jump like a rat abandoning a sinking ship.

now that sounds like an excellent plan.