burglar's family gets 270 grand

[Carry_24/7]

This is why we have to "wargame" situations in our heads (if you have not taken a formal shoot/don't shoot course within your lifetime).

Some folks say, "you don't know what you will do in a particular situation until faced with it." That is true only if you have never trained for the situation, and "mental wargaming" along the lines of the law is training.

[Stressfire]

Could someone clarify for me? Despite that the shoot was questionable, and I'll leave it at that, how is the family able to bring suit? Isn't there legislation of some sort that disallows criminals or their families from profiting from the commission of a crime?

Why is the family permitted to sue for damages that would not have been done had the deceased not committed a felony?

[Crazy88Fingers]

Apparently the jury felt the shooting was unjustified and the robber's family was a victim of a "wrongful death". Or something like that.

[Eghad]

If the guys had chosen not to shoot into the shed...the family would have made nothing.

The two guys were the luckiest men on earth the grand jury no billed them.

If the perpatrator ceases to use force and desists or retreats or surrenders you have sucesfully defended yourself. It is morally wrong to pump the perpetrator full of lead and take a life just because you can. We expect the law of the land to honor our constitutional rights to keep an bear firearms. We as responsible gun owners should in turn honor the spirit of the laws that let us defend ourselves. I would submit that the spirt of that law is not taking another life when it is not necessary.

[kilimanjaro]

Some states do indeed have laws that prevent the filing of a civil suit when a crime was being committed, apparently not this one.

[Patriot86]

Grand Jury's ignore things more often than you think. It seems to me more often than not people in righteous shootings are hassled by the courts while others slide by. I will try to find the article tomorrow but this happened in Waukegan IL about three years ago.




Armed guy robs a convenient type store at gunpoint, gets the money from the clerk and runs outside then proceeds to flee on a bicycle. The clerk then went for a stashed gun, ran outside and popped the guy right there in the street while the criminal was trying to peddle away. The guy died and the store clerk was NEVER convicted with any crime whatsoever last time I checked. My memory might be fuzzy but I thought that the grand jury refused to indite. I can't seem to find a link to the story that is still good and has a lot of details but I will search a bit more tomorrow and post one if I can find it.

[Mr. James]

Originally Posted by Eghad

If the perpatrator ceases to use force and desists or retreats or surrenders you have sucesfully defended yourself. It is morally wrong to pump the perpetrator full of lead and take a life just because you can. We expect the law of the land to honor our constitutional rights to keep an bear firearms. We as responsible gun owners should in turn honor the spirit of the laws that let us defend ourselves. I would submit that the spirt of that law is not taking another life when it is not necessary.

Well said. Precisely so.

[Stressfire]

It is morally wrong to pump the perpetrator full of lead and take a life just because you can.

Agreed. Just doesn't sit well that the family (or anyone) should stand to profit from the albeit unsuccessful commission of a crime.

In all likelihood, however, the case will be appealed out the wazoo.

[Patriot86]

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.ht...&f=23&t=327706

A good copy of the story I was talking about in Waukegan over on the AR15 forums.

According to police, Brandon Starks, 20, of North Chicago entered People's Market grocery store at 901 8th St., near Lincoln Avenue, around 7 p.m. armed with a gun and demanded money from the store clerk.

Soon after Starks left the store, the clerk went out and shot Starks several times as Starks tried to leave the scene on a bicycle, said Waukegan police Cmdr. Wayne Walles.

Starks was shot twice in the upper body and once in the lower body before collapsing in front of a house in the 800 block of 8th Street.

No charges have been filed against the clerk pending an investigation by the Police Department and the Lake County State's Attorney's Office, authorities said.

Walles said the clerk did not own the gun he fired at Starks with and did not present a firearm owner's Identification when interviewed by police.

[Crazy88Fingers]

Patriot86, the robber in your story was armed with a gun (I wonder if he had his FOID) so he is still a threat from a distance. Even if fleeing, it would only take him a fraction of a second to turn around and be an imminent threat again.

I've seen other stories where people shoot robbers, armed with guns, in the back and they were considered justified.

[Patriot86]

The robber was actually shot outside, in the street, yes he could have turned around and fired but If memory serves he was shot while peddling away. I believe the grand jury declined to indict him. Regardless of that, the point is I am showing their is no rhyme or reason behind grand jury decisions. They are not always based on what is lawful and what is not.

[shaunpain]

An interesting post, and also a great mental game.

I think the shooting was totally unjustified, but it appears that these men only had one gun between the three of them so maybe aren't too well versed in the inner workings of gun laws. An interesting counter argument might be that I'm sure in many countries today, and in our own country probably 100 years ago, you can be shot to death for almost anything. I know it is non withstanding, but if you're going to "do the deed" you must be fully prepared to deal with the consequences.

You poke the bear a couple of times, he might just bite your head off.

[Tom Servo]

Soon after Starks left the store, the clerk went out and shot Starks several times as Starks tried to leave the scene on a bicycle, said Waukegan police Cmdr. Wayne Walles. (...) Walles said the clerk did not own the gun he fired at Starks with and did not present a firearm owner's Identification when interviewed by police.

So, the clerk killed a man who no longer presented a valid threat, using a gun that wasn't his, to protect a meager amount of money that wasn't his?

Good thing I wasn't on that grand jury.

[MLeake]

Tom Servo, I agree with you, and it's probably good for him that I wasn't, either.

I don't know the background or the area, but that won't stop me from wildly speculating... ok, maybe not all that wildly.

I suspect this probably happened in an area that is getting really fed up with robberies; and I suspect the decedent had a prior record. Those two can combine for grand jury or jury nullification, in circumstances where one would otherwise expect the accused to be toast.

[Catfishman]

The three men were accused of keeping an armed vigil over the auto lot and firing on the first burglars they saw.

What the hell else were they supposed to do?
Get robbed until they were out of business or dead?
'hold them at gunpoint' in the dark? Really? That's just what I want to do. Hold an unknown number of armed, drugged robbers at gunpoint in the dark.
It's easy to criticize after it's over but think about what the business owners knew and when they knew it.

[JohnKSa]

What the hell else were they supposed to do?

How about something that didn't net them a civil judgement against them for over a quarter of a million dollars?

What's the point of adopting a strategy to defend property that costs you far more than the property is worth?

[Catfishman]

How about something that didn't net them a civil judgement against them for over a quarter of a million dollars?

Something?

Exactly what?

Avoid your own property after dark?

Hold an armed robber at gun point in the dark?

It's not the business owners fault that liberal juries in liberal states like to give away other peoples money. Get it done working people successfully avoid jury duty and leave it to people who weren't doing anything anyway.

He should let the lawyers win. He should fight this to the last penny if necessary. Have them go after the character of the little girl's grandparents. Obviously they have none if they are suing the victim of their son's crime. The are trying to steal from him also, using a courtroom.

[JohnKSa]

You're attempting to create a false dilemma by making it sound like their options were far more limited then they actually were.

It was fine for them to be on their own property after dark, and holding someone at gunpoint was not the only alternative to shooting any intruders they saw.

Where they went wrong was using deadly force in questionable circumstances when it was absolutely clear that they didn't really have to. Deadly force is a last resort. If you obviously have other options then it's a very, VERY bad idea to shoot someone. That's whether you look at it from a legal standpoint, from a moral standpoint, or from a common sense standpoint.

He should fight this to the last penny if necessary.

I seriously doubt that he gave in easily. Would you simply give up a quarter of a million dollars without a fight? Besides, unless he's a fairly wealthy person, my guess is he's already down to his last penny. He owes $270,000 besides his own legal bills.

[ClayInTx]

From the news article:
The jurors declined to comment after the trial.
"It's been a long two weeks," one said before getting on an elevator.

This indicates that the jury was anxious to just get out of there and back home. However, I have to agree with the jury, but see my comment below.

by Patriot86
Another example of our insane legal system. Thank god here in Illinois, if you shoot someone lawfully in your home you are somewhat shielded from lawsuits.

Patriot, the guy was not in a home; there’s a difference.

More comment by me:
Here in Texas it’s legal to shoot the BG if he’s running away with your TV on his shoulder, even out in the road. We may use lethal force to protect property. BUT, I’m not about to shoot someone who is no threat of injury or death to me, my family, or a third innocent person (that third person part can get real sticky, however). The BG was no threat of injury or death, or so goes the news article and I have no evidence to refute them with (nor will I go looking--it ain't my fight).

Also in Texas, if cleared of criminal charge you are cleared of civil charge. Some other states have the same law. But I’ll lay money that a shyster lawyer can figure a way around that in some cases.

Now to the money award:
Most states have remitur; a legal proceeding by which a judge can decide the jury over-did an award for damages.

A case to consider is the woman who sued McDonalds about the hot coffee; the jury awarded a couple of million, IIRC, but the judge reduced it to a couple hundred thousand. The media made a big deal about the millions but never mentioned the remitur, which came about quite some time later.

Before the case discussed here is over a judge just might reduce the award to a fraction. I don’t know if a judge can cancel all of the award, I don’t believe he can.
Why shoot someone over a couple of hundred bucks when it might end up costing you a couple of million?

[youngunz4life]

clay you made some good points, but I do not think the road bit is legal as you are off your property. Are you sure about this? I thought someone in TX just got off but they Barely got off when they shot an intruder in the road...that instance was a fleeing intruder though.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by Catfishman

Get it done working people successfully avoid jury duty and leave it to people who weren't doing anything anyway.

Our legal system is built around the participation of interested citizens as jurors and people who "successfully avoid jury duty" are part of the problem rather than being part of the solution.

[mehavey]

Soon after Starks left the store, the clerk went out and shot Starks several times as Starks tried to leave the scene on a bicycle,...

Were I on the jury, and were the facts as presented above, I would vote to convict.

Killing someone is (near) slam-dunk justified only when in reasonable fear of life/great
bodily harm of yourself, others, your home or your business (as in arson/rampage).

Killing after the fact as was (apparently) done here during pursuit when that threat no longer
exists... Well, you're going to have to talk awfully fast, and worry about guys like me on the jury.

(Postscript: Times of post-disaster rampage and looting/looters would change the equation --
just so the gentle reader knows I haven't gone bunny-hugger soft here.)

[brickeyee]

Isn't there legislation of some sort that disallows criminals or their families from profiting from the commission of a crime?

Not if they are the victim of the crime.

[ClayInTx]

younggunz,

The “road bit”

Yes, if he’s carrying your property.

No if he’s just getting gone with nothing.

[Musketeer]

The guy was armed with a knife, technically he is not a threat until within arms reach.

Tangential to te thread but it has already been established that a man armed with a knife can, from a standstill, deliver a mortal wound to a target 21' away in 2-3 seconds. Technically an assailant with a knife is a threat, period.

This particular shooting looks bad though.