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; Zeilinski's lawyer says his client is asking in excess of $125,000 for pain and suffering and emotional distress. ... for being stopped as the criminal ...
... for being stopped as the criminal he was, caught in the act?Zeilinski's lawyer says his client is asking in excess of $125,000 for pain and suffering and emotional distress.
Judge: "Subtract the pain/suffering/distress his client caused the 20 customers in the store at the time, plus the caulking, gypsum board and paint to repair the walls x20, plus the lost wages of the people who had to jerk around with this case due to his sorry but being at any place at the wrong time, plus the judge's time, the clerks' time, the DA's time, the Grand Jury's time and the hoard of attorneys. To say nothing of the lifelong emotion distress of the person who defended against your sorry butt. Let's see, that comes to ..... kaching! ..... kaching! .... kaching! $2.8M actual damages, $10M suffering, $10M pain, and $1M distress ('cause the shooter's a tough cookie), plus your wages, couselor. Hmmm. That's some figure, there, counselor! Ahem. Bailiff?"
Michigan has castle doctrine which makes the defender immune from civil liability - the law the person a few posts above me just qouted. I don't think the criminal has a chance.
Miggy's link shows that this turd is serving sentence for UNARMED robbery. Contradicts the story. Possibly plea bargained?
If I am reading this right and all the facts are correct he is not suing the person who shot him. He is suing the store owner where he was "injured". Would the place of business be covered under this law?
Those who will not govern their own behavior are slaves waiting for a master; one will surely find them.