This is a discussion on Convicted thief sues store he robbed within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Bet the judge won't even hear the case....
Bet the judge won't even hear the case.
God is love (1 John 4:8)
The man is in jail. He probably filed the suit on his own. He's asking for "only" 125 K.
The contingency fee on that is scarcely enough money for a lawyer to bother with if it has to go to trial, and it isn't enough to bother with given the long long odds of prevailing.
Another possibility is that he may have had an insurance company pay his medical bills and that company is now looking to recover their expenses. (The thief's insurer may not have initially realized that his medical expense was from an illegal activity, or the contract may have required them to pay anyway.)
Can't blame them for trying to recover, but the company's legal department is wasting their time and resources. Maybe they just hope to squeeze out something in a settlement. Could happen. The insurer for Nick's might find it easier to pay off something, rather than fight; though given the situation, I doubt that they would cave. But, who knows what an insurance company will or won't do. Anyway, the guy in jail won't see a single cent.
Everyone likes to kick the lawyers in the head, until they are the one hurt by their doc, or hauled into court in rural Arkansas (see yesterday's thread on this one).
Sure wish CW practiced closer to where I am. I'd keep his number in my wallet.
Clerk should have shot him in the dome!
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
I love it - he robs a place, gets shot, gets convicted, goes to jail and then blames the people he robbed for ruining his life!
I agree that every one of the people who was in the store that day should file a civil suit against the scumbag for $1,000,000 for pain and suffering. And he thought his life was ruined before that!
Cogito, ergo armatum sum. I think, therefore I am armed. (Don Mann, The Modern Day Gunslinger; the ultimate handgun training manual)
Nick's Short Stop Party Store needs to develop a new policy. They need to file a counter suit for harrassment against both Zelinski and his lawyer for no less than 10 times the amount Zelinski's sueing for. If a lawyer has to defend his actions or risk loseing a sizable amount of cash they might slow down on nonsence lawsuits.
They dont want this to go to court, they want to settle out of court, a quick easy buck is what they are after. The sad thing is most likely it will be settled out of court with only the lawyer seeing any profit.
personally i wish the real victims would file a counter-suit.
If there's a decent judge he'll throw the case out. If it's a corrupt judge, he'll take a kickback from the defense lawyer.
Sig 226, 228. Glock 19, 23. Smith Model 60,and 1911. XD45 Tactical. Mossberg 930 SPX.
How we behave as gun owners is important. Posturing and threatening does not serve us well in the public eye.
Oregon leaves it all to whim, more or less. All of the victim-first laws must be spelled out in plain language and codified into law, else the system assumes you need calisthenics and have just been issued lipstick.
Sounds like a quality recipe. Add "Stand Your Ground," "Castle", "presumed innocent" and other simple statements into law, and you begin to have something workable, something that works for all of us, instead of merely for the abusers of the system.In Florida, there is an absolute bar in the law to recovery for this sort of lawsuit.
... [criminal] could not recover a single penny.
... he's liable for the legal expenses ...
... [for jailed criminals] No phone, no commissary, no recreation.
I'm no lawyer, but this is what MI law says:
ENROLLED HOUSE BILL No. 5548
AN ACT to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled “An act to revise and consolidate the statutes relating to the organization
and jurisdiction of the courts of this state; the powers and duties of such courts, and of the judges and other officers
thereof; the forms and attributes of civil claims and actions; the time within which civil actions and proceedings may be
brought in said courts; pleading, evidence, practice and procedure in civil and criminal actions and proceedings in said
courts; to provide remedies and penalties for the violation of certain provisions of this act; to repeal all acts and parts of
acts inconsistent with or contravening any of the provisions of this act; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” (MCL 600.101
to 600.9947) by adding section 2922b.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
Sec. 2922b. An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another
individual in compliance with section 2 of the self-defense act is immune from civil liability for damages caused to either
of the following by the use of that deadly force or force other than deadly force:
(a) The individual against whom the use of deadly force or force other than deadly force is authorized.
(b) Any individual claiming damages arising out of injury to or the death of the individual described in subdivision (a),
based upon his or her relationship to that individual.
Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect October 1, 2006.
It doesn't sound to me like this guy has a case. My interpretation of this is that neither the BG or his family has any civil recourse. Did I interpret this wrong? Are there any MI lawyer's here.
"I did the thing I feared the most. Excuse me while I cheer. Now here I stand a stronger soul and all I lost was fear." ...Anonymous
Originally Posted by gasmitty
Zeilinski's lawyer says his client is asking in excess of $125,000 for pain and suffering and emotional distress.
Sorry about missing the fact that he actually amazingly enough does have representation. It still could be a health insurer just trying to recover what they paid for his care after being shot, and just playing the game in the hopes of getting something, better than the zero deserved.
As others have pointed out, there "oughta" be a law, and maybe already is one.
You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
Maybe this guy is representing himself, but remember, "One who represents themself in a court of law has a fool for a client."
The sad thing is, there will be someone sympathetic to this guy and want to award him money for his "pain and suffering".
Like the Buford T. Justice character once said, "What the hell is the world coming to?"
"A Smith & Wesson always beats 4 aces!"
The Man Prayer. "Im a man, I can change, if I have to.....I guess!" ~ Red Green
It should be legal to shoot lawyers just on general principle.Zeilinski's lawyer says his client is asking in excess of $125,000 for pain and suffering and emotional distress.
If the judge doesn't just throw this out immediately, he should be voted off the bench. Somehow I doubt either will happen.