Starbucks Robbery... might sue

[ARqueen15]

I have to say thinking of someone saddled with all these legal expenses for what was clearly an act for the good to stop a robbery is deeply disturbing.

This individual could lose his job, go bankrupt (we have no idea how extensive his legal fees might be), and potentially be saddled with a judgement by a civil court for an award of damages to the criminal.

And it isn't like this is some case where the good samaritan provoked a confrontation or was in some situation where we could debate what fault the two parties had such as a road rage incident or some verbal argument. No this was a straight-up criminal act.

What world do we live in?

Yes, yes, I hear you....better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6....However I mean it won't take long for many people to do a half-a-second mental calculation and realize the cost/benefit in such a situation is to lay down, hand over your money, and be a good little victim. Just off the top of my head those people could come to two conclusions.....why be armed at all if this is the likely outcome? While others might conclude, well, if I leave any perp alive in a self-defense or stopping a criminal act, I'm going to get sued, possibly lose my job, and go broke...so I should just not leave them alive.

[OldMarksman]

I have to say thinking of someone saddled with all these legal expenses for what was clearly an act for the good to stop a robbery is deeply disturbing.

Don't be misled, or confused.

It is most unlikely that anyone will ever be prosecuted for an act that "was clearly ... to stop a robbery." The chances of a civil suit are slightly higher--that because of the lower burden of proof.

No plaintiff or prosecutor (the man is not out of the woods on the criminal aspect) is likely to contend that the initial use of force, even deadly force, was not justified in this case--it certainly does appear from what we can see in the video that it was immediately necessary.

No, that's not it at all.

The problem arises when we see the man repeatedly stabbing the man in the back as he tries to make it to the exit, and appearing to try to hold him down.

I can see no way in which a defense attorney could argue with a straight face that that had been necessary.

Heck, even when we have a case in which a perp has been shot in the back, the defense can bring in expert witnesses to explain how quickly a person can turn, and that there is no clear evidence that the defended intended to shoot the person in the back.

It is a fundamental legal principle in a defense of justification that the act is justified only insofar as the defendant used no more force than had been necessary.

Sometimes that is very much a matter of judgment, but I cannot see how the defense could make that case in this incident.

"Saddled with all the legal expenses"? That could be the least of the man's worries.

[Deaf Smith]

And at that point, the plaintiff would need only to show by a preponderance of the evidence that unnecessary force had been used.

Sorry Charlie. As it said in the news paper..

"Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer, who initially praised Jerri's actions in thwarting the robbery, reportedly called the idea of Jerri being sued "ludicrous." Legal analysts commenting on the case expressed doubt that the lawsuit would go anywhere, saying that "unreasonable malice" would be difficult to prove."

Only as long is it is not determined in criminal courtthat he used no more force than had been necessary in the incident.

And since it happened on July 21.. and it's now Sept. 22, I sure don't see any grand jury or any criminal charges. That's over.

He obviously did not use the blade in a manner taught by knowledgeable self defense experts.

Gee gosh. What would we do without those 'experts'. See that is the whole point, if he was not trained by these 'experts', and he was FIGHTING FOR HIS LIFE, then it would be reasonable for him to gig that guy till he stopped attacking him.

I seriously doubt he will be sued.

Deaf

[OldMarksman]

Gee gosh. What would we do without those 'experts'. See that is the whole point, if he was not trained by these 'experts', ...

Had he been so trained, and were he able to prove it, (1) he would have known how to not use deadly force improperly, and (2) he could show evidence of his having known that.

And since it happened on July 21.. and it's now Sept. 22, I sure don't see any grand jury or any criminal charges. That's over.

Don't jump to that conclusion.

We just had a murder trial here that involved charges made years after the incident, and after numerous legal reviews, state and federal, had concluded that the act had been lawfully justified.

...he was FIGHTING FOR HIS LIFE, then it would be reasonable for him to gig that guy till he stopped attacking him.

Yes indeed.

The issue is the continued stabbing, while trying to hold the man down, after the man had stopped attacking him, and while the man was trying to make it to the exit.

It would be bad enough if the evidence were limited to the forensic evidence of stab wounds in the back. Here we have a pretty clear video record.

If he is sued, and if I were his defense attorney, I would advise him to settleout of court with the lowest amount of damages that should be agreed upon.

If that does happen, we will not hear about it. Such settlements are confidential.

You will recall that Jerome Ersland was hailed as a hero who he used deadly force during a store robbery in Oklahoma City. The man he shot was a robber, and both the robber and the robber's accomplice were very bad hombres indeed. The initial use of the gun was certainly justified.

But Ersland is now serving a life sentence.

You have to stop using force when the imminent threat has ended.

Had the Starbucks robber died, Cregg Jerri would be in more trouble. As it is, the worst that can happen to him in criminal court would be a conviction for aggravated assault.

I, for one, would hate to face the expenses of a defense, civil or criminal, much less the cost of a settlement.

Does anyone have a basis for justifying the continued stabbing of the fleeing felon?

[Ton]

I can see no way in which a defense attorney could argue with a straight face that that had been necessary.

I think it would be fairly easy to explain why that was necessary, but it all does boil down to whether or not people going to buy what you are trying to sell. There will ALWAYS be liability involved in any sort of self defense.

In this case, I never observed what I would consider a definitive attempt to escape, I saw two men actively engaged in a fight that went to the ground. I observed what appeared to be the suspected robber turn to face the good Samaritan and land some sort of a blow behind his neck a fraction of a second before the fight went to the ground, as well as swing backward at him with the knife after the good Samaritan had taken him to the ground and punched him a few times. I would consider these very strong indications that he was doing more than just trying to escape and would continue to harm the good Samaritan if given the chance.

Anybody who was ever participated in martial arts, grappling, ground fighting, or wrestling knows the feeling of having just completed a poorly executed takedown, and how easily the situation can be reversed in a matter of seconds.

From the perspective of the good Samaritan: You have just stopped a robber who was armed with both a knife and a gun. This robber was larger than you and apparently younger than you. In the process of stopping this robber he has attempted to assault you and stab you several times, succeeding at least once. After you take the robber down in a feat which was more likely pure luck, he pushes you back up, attempts to stand again, and swings the knife back at you. You are able to push him back down again but in the process slip a little bit, your flip flops sliding everywhere on the tile floor, and find yourself in an even worse technical position. Your adrenaline is free flowing, you are exhausted, you are bleeding, you are scared. There is absolutely nothing holding this man who has tried to kill you down except for your body weight, and he is still fighting against you. You manage to get ahold of the knife. You don't know where the gun is. You don't know if there are anymore knives. You don't know if the robber is as burned out as you are. You don't know anything, except that if you don't make the right decision in the next few seconds you could end up dead, as this person has more than demonstrated his willingness to kill you and doesn't have anything to lose.

Yes, I think it is easily understandable. Does it look good? No, it's prison style stabbing, but understandable in the context.

With all of that being said, I think that the initial decision to confront a robber armed with a knife and a gun with nothing but a chair was a TERRIBLE choice, and not one that I would recommend to anybody. The robber in this case appears to be a complete moron (transformers mask, the WORST weapon handling I've ever seen in a real life scenario) and it's probably the only reason our good Samaritan isn't dead.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

About knife training - it's a great thing to have. Having taken my second such course as an old toot in my 60's, wrestling around with a younger man with knives is something I'll pass on. I injured my hand in the course of the class - and had to wear a for arm and handl supporter gadget for a bit and go to phys. therapy.

It was kind of interesting explaining it at work. Oh, did you fall down and go boom! No, I hurt in in defensive knife fighting class. That gets you a look depending on which side of the self-defense spectrum you are talking to.

Worse part was listening to my Sig. Other expressing her opinion on old fools rolling around with young guys.

The intervention debate is an old one. If you put your self-interest first, the good samaritan was foolish to say the least. He might have been watching too much TV and though the chair would be an instant kill or disabling move. If the guy had a real gun, he might just have been shot to pieces.

Has OldM. states, stabs are not instantly disabling into the body. Classes teach different targets. It's not so easy to get to them if you are grappling.

[OldMarksman]

I think it would be fairly easy to explain why that was necessary, ...

I disagree--not with a prosecutor plaintiff's attorney describing the video.

I saw two men actively engaged in a fight that went to the ground.

..and continued while one was running away, and was stabbed repeatedly in the back.

I observed what appeared to be the suspected robber turn to face the good Samaritan and land some sort of a blow behind his neck a fraction of a second before the fight went to the ground, as well as swing backward at him with the knife after the good Samaritan had taken him to the ground and punched him a few times.

Yep. So far, so good.

I would consider these very strong indications that he was doing more than just trying to escape and would continue to harm the good Samaritan if given the chance.

If we were to accept that kind of conjecture, many, many other violent crimes would have been deemed justified.

"Would...if given the chance" could perhaps be reasonably argued, had the stabber not been attacking the unarmed man from behind as he headed away.

The conditions of immediacy of a lethal threat and of jeopardy are weak, there. Not to mention the fact that the man on the ground is now unarmed.

Yes, I think it is easily understandable.

Of course it was understandable. But that does not make it lawfully justified.

Mister Jerri had either not been instructed in two things, or he had forgotten them.

One is how to use an edged weapon properly, effectively, and lawfully.

The other is when one must cease to use deadly force--or force of any nature, for that matter--in an encounter involving violence or criminal action.

On the latter, once the erstwhile defender had stopped the robber from attacking anyone and had in fact disarmed him, it was incumbent upon him to withdraw.

Lawful self defense is not a martial arts competition won by a takedown. It isa serious business in which the defender may use no more force than is immediately necessary, regardless of what may have transpired in the early moments of an encounter.

[OldMarksman]

California use of force law specifically states what has been the case in law in most jurisdictions for centuries: the defendant may use "only the amount of force that was reasonably necessary to protect [himself/herself/or other person]]".

Who decides that? It is not what what the defendant may have thought:

“When an alleged act of self-defense . . . is at issue, the question of what force was reasonable and justified is peculiarly one for determination by the trier of fact.” (Burton v. Sanner (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 12, 14 [142 Cal.Rptr.3d 782],original italics.)

That means the jury.

The standard of proof in a civil trial is much lower for the plaintiff than it would be for the state in a criminal trial:

• “Self-defense being an affirmative defense, it must, in a civil action, be established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Bartosh v.Banning (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 378, 386 [59 Cal.Rptr. 382].)• “In a suit for assault and battery, the defendant is not liable if that defendan treasonably believed, in view of all the circumstances of the case, that theplaintiff was going to harm him or her and the defendant used only the amount of force reasonably necessary to protect himself or herself.” (J.J. v. M.F. (2014)223 Cal.App.4th 968, 976 [167 Cal.Rptr.3d 670] [citing this instruction].)• “The right to use force against another has long been limited by the condition that the force be no more than ‘ “that which reasonably appears necessary, in view of all the circumstances of the case, to prevent the impending injury.”‘When the amount of force used is justifiable under the circumstances, it is not willful and the actor may escape liability for intentionally injurious conduct that is otherwise actionable. But if force is applied in excess of that which is justified, the actor remains subject to liability for the damages resulting from the excessive use of force. . . . When an alleged act of self-defense or defense of property is at issue, the question of what force was reasonable and justified is peculiarly one for determination by the trier of fact.” (Calvillo-Silva v. HomeGrocery (1998) 19 Cal.4th 714, 730–731 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 506, 968 P.2d 65],internal citations omitted

Emphasis added.

In other words, what is excessive is decided by someone else after the fact.

Should it come to that, the triers of fact would have the opportunity to view the video repeatedly, stab after stab after stab.

Several attorneys have opined that a suit in this case would be an "uphill battle". I so not know the basis for their belief--the video shows one stab wound after another meted out to an unarmed man who is on the ground and who had been heading for the exit.

It is the comparatively low threshold tor a standard of proof in a civil case, combined with the unpredictable nature of juries, the leads to the vast majority of civil suits being settled out of court.

If that is what happens here, I would consider Mr. Jerri quite lucky to have not been prosecuted in criminal court.

And that, of course, can still happen.

Mr. Jerri has two years for the sand in the egg timer to run out for a civil case; for criminal charges, its three years.

Should the man die as a direct result of the stab funs, there is no time limit.

[Ton]

..and continued while one was running away, and was stabbed repeatedly in the back.

We must have watched a different video. I never saw the robber running away. I saw him try to counter the citizens attack (poorly) and continue fight until the video cut out. A fight is not by any stretch of the imagination over because somebody has gone to the ground on their hands and knees.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think one thing that is difficult to address is that when you think someone is trying to kill you, it does tend to get you highly adrenalized. In that state, it can be difficult to make good decisions about when the threat has ended and most people tend towards the "FINISH HIM!" school of thought.

The problem is every shot or stab has to be justified. If stabs 1-14 were justified and you stab 15 times, you have a serious problem. I don't know any easy answer for how to address that; but I can tell you that one factor ends up in a lot of example cases.

[OldMarksman]

I never saw the robber running away.

Alright, trying to get away, toward the exit, while being restrained and attacked.

A fight is not by any stretch of the imagination over because somebody has gone to the ground on their hands and knees.

That has absolutely nothing to do with lawful self defense.

The lawful objective of the defender is to stop the attack--not to "end" a "fight". He must then stop using force, as immediately as possible.

The laws of self defense and the strategies of martial arts are not the same.

As Marc MacYoung puts it,

"... the goal of self-defense is not to win; winning is the realm of fighting...."

"... If you are engaged in physical conflict for any other reason or using excessive force, it is not self-defense. It is something else. THAT is what you will be judged by.

"..Even if he swung first, you cannot continue to attack when he has turned and is attempting to escape.

"You cannot continue to kick and punch someone who has fallen to the ground. .......

"Any and all of these situations do not meet the standards of 'self-defense,' but are instead acts of aggression on your part. No matter how justified you think they were! Or how in the heat of the moment, they seemed to make perfect sense! ...

"All of these actions will be viewed not by how you felt they were appropriate, but how they compare with the standards of self-defense.

"The goal of self-defense training is clear, it is to get you out of a dangerous situation as quickly and effectively as possible while using a level of force that is appropriate to the situation.

"This, not that the laws are so screwed up, is the reason why so many people are arrested for 'attempted self-defense'.

"The law is well acquainted with how people use violence to get what they want. What the law is just as acquainted with is how often people try to hide their misconduct under the guise of self-defense!

"Putting it in the most juvenile terms, by acting in such a category you aren't the "good guy" anymore. While it may seem silly to phrase it this way, as many people have discovered the hard way, not being the good guy has severe legal and social repercussions."

I hope you have found this helpful.

[johnwilliamson062]

In every knife use demonstration by Michael Janich that I have seen on television, Michael has gone to great length to show how to use the blade for slashing key tendons, to render the attacker immediately incapable of continuing the attack.

I do not recall ever seeing him demonstrate stabbing, and it is my recollection that he cautions against it.

One reason for that may well have to do with effecting an immediate stop.

Another may well have to do with the difficulty of determining how much damage would really be required, and therefore how much would be justifiable.

I agree totally. I also suspect, from a civil standpoint, it is probably better to have shot the gun out of a bad guys hand than have shot him center mass. To a juror if not a lawyer. Both slashing tendons and shooting the gun out of someones hand takes many times the skill of just going for center mass. The key tendons with a knife also generally involves some sort of disability or control of the target. For instance, it is quite difficult to exert the force necessary on the wrist to reliably cut the tendons without immobilizing it. It isn't his knife, so it would be foolish to assume it is sharp.

My understanding is, when it comes to deadly force, it is either justified or not. Shooting or stabbing or slicing anywhere is almost certainly classified as deadly force.

I think the video stopped before all relevant footage was shown and you can't clearly see if the guy is still fighting or not once they are on the ground. As pointed out it certainly seems to me like the robber is headed for the door before they get to the ground. Once the adrenaline starts flowing...

The guy was wearing sandals and they weren't tactical chacos. It is hard for me to think he was looking for a fight. Though I'd bet it wasn't his first rodeo.

One of these situations where, in hindsight Monday morning, letting the robber proceed may have been a better decision.

Who robs a Starbucks? I only see people pay with apps and credit cards around here.

Guy will probably be bankrupted if they sue though. That is simply the way it works. Maybe someone will raise some money to help out with legal bills.

[zincwarrior]

So the real moral of the story appears to be, don't get involved.

[Sharkbite]

So the real moral of the story appears to be, don't get involved.

Not for someone else's money, thats for sure. To stop the B/G from killing an innocent, sure

[Big Shrek]

In Florida, this story had a different ending due to the laws in question.
Bad Guy robed a Dollar General, good guy shot him point-blank,
which killed the scumbag. Family wanted to sue, but due to the
Anti-Criminal Laws in place, they were unable to sue.

You could not pay me enough money to live in California.
Or NY, NJ, IL, MI, or any other Blue State, for that matter.
The loss of liberties is too high a price to pay.

[Seamus Mc]

For what it's worth, this happened in Fresno, not San Francisco. Fresno is a lot more like Oklahoma than SF.

Seamus

[armoredman]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

In most states with an "immunity from civil liability" statute, the defendant, once suit has been filed, precent evidence to the judge in a civil court that the immunity proven allies.

Pardon me, but could you explain that line a bit further? Are you saying that the presumed defendant in a civil suit over a DGU that was never charged could present that as fait accompli that the DGU was in fact, justified? I live in Arizona where we have that law both as a law and a Constitutional amendment, so am curious of your interpretation thereof. Thank you for your insight in this thread - I will assume that you are in the legal profession in some way, of course.

[OldMarksman]

In Florida, this story had a different ending due to the laws in question.
Bad Guy robed a Dollar General, good guy shot him point-blank,
which killed the scumbag. Family wanted to sue, but due to the
Anti-Criminal Laws in place, they were unable to sue.

No law prevents a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against a citizen, anywhere.

What can happen is that, if an actor is charged or sued, and if there is a statute that provides immunity from prosecution and immunity from civil liability if the use of force was justified under the law, and if the actor is able to provide a preponderance of the evidence that the action had been justified under the law, that actor can provide that evidence to the criminal and civil courts. Should the judges(s) be satisfied, they can stop further proceedings at that point.

Florida is one of several states that have such a statute.

[OldMarksman]

Are you saying that the presumed defendant in a civil suit over a DGU that was never charged could present that as fait accompli that the DGU was in fact, justified?

Absolutely not--quite the contrary.

Sorry for the typos in the post from which you quoted. The original is being corrected.

Read this:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=529029

Thank you for your insight in this thread -

You are most welcome.

I will assume that you are in the legal profession in some way, of course.

Do not so assume.


I never practiced law.

In the course of a long and very varied career, I spent probably thousands hours working directly with attorneys, ,including members of prestigious local and Washington DC law firms, in various fields of law. I have taken more classes in some kinds of law than most law school graduates take in school.

I prepared material for use in litigation; I worked in ensuring corporate compliance with numerous laws and regulations; and I helped in responding to investigations.

Understand, however, that a bout all that will do for one for a subject such as this one is to equip one to understand what is meant by laws and court rulings and so on.

The practice of law can become very complex. If one were to go to most any law firm, even one that advertises widely, and ask how, for example, things work under the civil immunity laws in your state, they would have do some research. Most likely, they would consult with attorneys who are knowledgeable of that specific subject.

I am retired.

[Nanuk]

Live in a state that offers immunity to civil suit for self defense.

[jmorris]

Had he been so trained, and were he able to prove it, (1) he would have known how to not use deadly force improperly,

Is that kind of like dead guys don't sue or more like he could have killed the guy with a single stab vs him living after 17+\-.

Looks like a lucky bad guy to me and older Good Samaritan as well. That could have turned out fatal for either in an instant.

[OldMarksman]

Live in a state that offers immunity to civil suit for self defense.

For those who do, that would be helpful--provided that the actor is able to present to the court sufficient evidence that he acted lawfully.

[Nanuk]

For those who do, that would be helpful--provided that the actor is able to present to the court sufficient evidence that he acted lawfully.

In North Dakota it is not so complicated. Once the DA rules it was SD it is done. And yes I have experience with the criminal justice system here.

I do agree in this case 17 stab wounds seems excessive on face value.

[OldMarksman]

Is that kind of like dead guys don't sue ....

Not at all. The estates of decedents can sue, and they do it all the time.

...or more like he could have killed the guy with a single stab vs him living after 17+\-.

I really do hope that your are joking.

First, the stabber was most certainly not justified in killing the robber, except in in the brief moment in which he faced an imminent threat of death, and unless there were evidence that the killing per se had been intentional.

Second, a person trained in knife defense would not have stabbed at all, if he had any alternative. Stabbing is not an effective defensive tactic.

That has been covered in previous posts above.

[OldMarksman]

In North Dakota it is not so complicated. Once the DA rules it was SD it is done.

I most seriouslydoubt that.

TheDA may conclude that the stare has insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable down that a crime has been committed.

But the standard of proof for civil liability is a preponderance of the evidence. That is a long held and fundamental precept of jurisprudence.

and, of course, nothing is "done" on the basis of one DA's determination. The next DA can change things.

And yes I have experience with the criminal justice system here.

Civil liability does not fall within the purview of the criminal justice system.