Lady rescued from Kroger robbery now suing Kroger and rescuer.

[drillsgt]

I could use some money, I was forced to drive by an accident the other day and still can't stop thinking about it and it's keeping me up nights etc.

 

[roisigns]

What an ingrate!

 

[jgreiner]

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

 

[Valvestate]

So my question for her is, would she sue police if they shot the robber?

 

[kiddchaos]

It's all about the settlement money.
Some people suck.
It's not Kroger's fault.

 

[rvb]

This is exactly why I have such a poor attitude about using my gun to help others; it's for protection of myself, my family, and those I am close to, not strangers.

I carry because I want to do what I can to protect my family, and part of protecting my family includes being financially there for them. Being bankrupted by a lawsuit (outlaying significant costs even if it goes nowhere), is harmful to my family. If *I* have an out, I'm sorry but you are on your own.

I HATE having that attitude....
If my wife were being held hostage, would I want someone to come to her aid? Well yes. So there's the additional selfish part. But I would understand if no-one acted.

It's a real shame this is what we've come to as a society that the woman would see this good samaritan as a person to rob through the legal system....

I really want a different attitude about helping others w/ my carry gun, but then I see stories like this.....

-rvb

 

[jedi]

Somebody did the right thing in shooting the bad guy. Now they will have to defend themselves in court.
I just don't believe some of the things I hear anymore.

No good deed goes unpunished.

^This!

 

[eldirector]

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

So, I assume there is a difference between LEGAL jeopardy and CIVIL jeopardy?

Did some quick googling:
double jeopardy legal definition of double jeopardy. double jeopardy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that the right against double jeopardy precludes only subsequent criminal proceedings. It does not preclude ordinary civil or administrative proceedings against a person who already has been prosecuted for the same act or omission. Nor is prosecution barred by double jeopardy if it is preceded by a final civil or administrative determination on the same issue.

That just doesn't seem right at all. You can perform a completely legal act, and even save someone's life, and still get reamed for it. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

 

[rvb]

That just doesn't seem right at all. You can perform a completely legal act, and even save someone's life, and still get reamed for it. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Sure, I've said the same thing many times. Look at OJ, even. Aquited in criminal court, so as far as the world should be concerned he is innocent (we can all have our opinions!), but then he's financially wrecked in civil court. A real problem w/ our legal system, imo.

-rvb

 

[Skywired]

I'm traumatized just reading about this.

 

[adws943]

Next time maybe someone will not save her life.

 

[TaunTaun]

So, I assume there is a difference between LEGAL jeopardy and CIVIL jeopardy?

Did some quick googling:
double jeopardy legal definition of double jeopardy. double jeopardy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


That just doesn't seem right at all. You can perform a completely legal act, and even save someone's life, and still get reamed for it. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

We have any good samaritan laws that this could help defend?

 

[darrin5]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!

Surely they will laugh her out of court, of course here in Oklahoma we have had felons suing the ones that shot them while in the act of commiting a crime go figure.

 

[chizzle]

This Christine Nelson person mentioned in the article is what's wrong with America. Instead of being grateful to the man who risked his life to protect her, she's suing her employer and the store manager...

 

[eldirector]

We have any good samaritan laws that this could help defend?

Only one I know about is for first aid:
Indiana Code 34-30-12

Once the robber shoots her, THEN someone could try to save her life.

 

[HoughMade]

So, I assume there is a difference between LEGAL jeopardy and CIVIL jeopardy?...

...That just doesn't seem right at all. You can perform a completely legal act, and even save someone's life, and still get reamed for it. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

First point- this is an idiotic lawsuit. I say this having been involved in many an idiotic lawsuit. If this person came to my office under this set of facts, at the very least she would be met with a "are you kidding?" and shown the door.

The statute you cited applies to criminal and civil matters.

As to the statute, it uses the terms "reasonable" and "reasonably" several times. Most lawsuits live in the ambiguity between what is reasonable and what is not. Once a lawsuit is brought, a determination has to be made that the use of force fit within the parameters of "reasonableness".

I don't know what people think about how civil litigation works, but judges don't just go in their chambers and sift through lawsuits and dismiss the ones they think are baloney. We have an adversarial system meaning that once the lawsuit is filed, it's up to the defendants to, in a motion, set forth the facts which should lead to dismissal. If based upon the complaint (and answer) only, it could be a motion to dismiss. If based upon additional evidence, it is in the form of a motion for summary judgment.

Either way, the plaintiff then gets a chance to respond and a hearing is held where the attorneys argue about what the facts show and what law should apply. The judge then makes a decision. If there is conflicting evidence that can affect the application of the law, a trial will be needed where both sides can present their evidence. then the jury decides what is reasonable and what is not.

Most times, the question of "reasonableness" is a question for a jury to answer, but there are times when the evidence is not in conflict or when the situation is so clear a judge will make the determination that the actions were reasonable and issue judgment for the defendants.

Double jeopardy only applies to criminal matters (and then, with exceptions). You can have criminal charges and a civil suit arise from the same incident.

 

[grahamsy2k]

I give up....

 

[Dave Doehrman]

It is really sad, but the robber's mother is suing Kroger because he had a reasonable expectation of not being shot because Kroger has a no firearms policy in their store. Here's a direct quote from the lawsuit that was filed:

"By failing to supervise its employees, enforce its own policies, and failing to properly train its employees, Kroger breached its duty of care to Atkinson."

I guess this means that the perpetrator is to be protected in the commission of his crime, and the victim has to take care of him. It is really sad to see how our legal system has deteriorated. Maybe we need more "entitlement" to help us with these types of problems.

 

[JustinCase]

Unbelievable. The lawyers representing these money grubbers should be disbarred, IMO.

 

[HoughMade]

It is really sad, but the robber's mother is suing Kroger because he had a reasonable expectation of not being shot because Kroger has a no firearms policy in their store. Here's a direct quote from the lawsuit that was filed:

"By failing to supervise its employees, enforce its own policies, and failing to properly train its employees, Kroger breached its duty of care to Atkinson."....

That lawyer gets an "A" for advocacy and at least a "D" on law.

A store can set policies for itself and those policies do not define the standard of ordinary care. Wal-Mart Stores v. Wright, 774 N.E.2d 891, 894 (Ind. 2002).