I have always felt lawsuits like this were the real reason that retailers don't want their employees armed. They're worried about getting sued by criminals or their survivors.

That way they avoid the risk, expense and publicity of a trial. Mama's lawyer is almost certainly working on a contingency fee basis. He likely gets 30% of the settlement.

one of these Gun Control & RKBA (Group) postings bcause their titles ALL seem to be "good gun with gun kills some bad guy."

Question: Is there some other point being made in these daily postings?

One reason that many of the pro-RKBA posters support civil immunity for self-defense is because it stops the criminal or his family from suing. Many of the pro-gun-control posters claim that such lawsuits are myth and don't happen. This story shows that such suits by greedy family members of violent felons do happen.

We're constantly bombarded by Gun Prohibitionist drive by postings of:

"X kills Y with gun. Guns suck. Gun owners suck. Anyone who carries a gun sucks." etc, etc etc.

Posts like the OP here refute that. People use guns every day to defend themselves, their loved ones, and perfect strangers. And the bad that occurs with the misuse of guns by criminals does NOT outweigh the good that comes from armed people having the means to defend against criminals.

Gunowners masturbate furiously while talking dirty to their firearms, gunowners dream of armageddon and blood in the streets, families of gunowners go hungry because gunowners spent all of their money on grenades and shit at the local gunshow...........

were it not for a firearm being present, the perp would still be alive. In other words, ban guns and everybody lives and rides off in the sunset on a unicorn.

"good gu(y) with gun kills some bad guy."

Why?

killing is bad.

Did you ignore the conditions of "good" and "bad" for some particular purpose?

but sometimes justified.

We kill plants and animals for food every single day. Human law enforcement and soldiers legally kill others who threaten the safety, peace and tranquility of the modern world.

What is bad is MURDER.

Murder is the unlawful (note that word, that means the STATE gets to define what is unlawful and what isn't) killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

...to occur when you could have done something to prevent it.

And it beats allowing an innocent to be killed by a violent criminal.

...no it isn't. That's why LE does it, often justifiably.

Killing a criminal in order to save innocent lives is sad, but necessary sometimes.

Good and bad lose much of their relevancy at that time.

If the elimination of bad guys and their bad families is approved by the president, is killing still wrong?

The point is to inform predatory criminals that victims can and do fight back.

When criminals perceive the odds of successfully accomplishing a crime drop below their odds of surviving to commit another, the population as a whole will be better off.

Posting "good guy shoots bad guy" stories to DU informs predatory criminals that victims can and do fight?

Okay.

And that was the point to my initial question.

But I will leave this group to it's own.

Peace.

are you sure? To my way of reading, this group posts about half "gun is good" and half "gun is bad".

All anecdotal and the main reason I would like to see another group formed.

Why do you blame those who disagree with you for events they had nothing to do with? Seems gratuitous and imo indicates lack of confidence in the strength of your arguments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117251926#post1

This is not about who or what I agree with. It is about how to conduct a fair debate and ascribing philosophical blame to third parties for the actions of others does not advance the debate in any way. Neither does getting into discussions about who said what.

The OP is PROOF that those type of lawsuits do occur. Since I have such proof that those lawsuits do occur, that makes my argument completely solid.

These lawsuit happen less often than kids playing with dad's gun shoots someone. So do mandatory trigger locks become a solid argument.

My guess is that Kroger will put top lawyers on this case and the most this lawyer will get is a bill from the judge for cost and fees.

I can show stories about a bunch of kids playing with a gun get shot or shoot someone in the last few days. Please find a few of these lawsuits that have been won.

as it is the defender having to hire the lawyer, and maybe land up in some out of court settlement.

to limit peoples right to go to court against big corporations and insurance companies use to fight for limits on malpractice cases.
I'm sure Krogers can afford a good lawyer. Like I've always said, these kind of frivolous lawsuit are very rare and almost never won. To use them to take away the right to litigate is more like the tactic used to ban a type of weapon because of a couple of news stories about it's misuse.

we are talking about individuals who are working to middle class. We are also talking about families trying to profit from someone who did no wrong under the law, and was not acting out of malice or greed. Your analogy fails.

I like Krogers and shop there all the time. They donate 10% of profits to charities. But, that is who is getting sued.

Lots of safe guards against it. You'll find more felonies by CCW holders than people that win these kind of lawsuits or people going broke defending against them.

someone who is injured while committing a felony, or their estate if they die, profit from the act?

They are rather rare, I do not know the success rate, but it is not hard to find instances where the criminal 'wins' at the expense of the innocent.

(like last night) commit a felony. In fact that happens way more than some dirt bag or his family making a dime off a legal defense by a gun owner. So, using the same reasoning. Make guns illegal along with law suits? There are safe guards in the legal system that are used successfully to stop these law suits, so they are very rare.

is a criminal. In our society we cannot ban screwdrivers and sheet metal from people because they might become burglars. The base logic is the same.

I do not think there should be blanket civil immunity for damage caused by guns. Negligence should be punished civilly and criminally. I like the theory of SYG but the practice leaves a lot to be desired. While I am strongly against the victim having to prove innocence, I think the laws go too far in suppressing reasonable suspicion.

OTH have caused to a criminal in the commission of a crime should not be subject to civil suit by the criminal.

Rarely does the media do follow-up stories. I would have to have access to, and know how to use, the specialized services that lawyers have. But you know that, so you can make your demand knowing that you are safe from me posting the result.

And you ignore the costs of the suit itself.

It is posts like that one that establishes you firmly in the anti camp, despite your claims.

personal attacks. Whaaaaaa, can't prove anything you spout, so I'm a big bad anti? Your post establishes you firmly in the NRA gun nut camp.

That was my intent, my goalposts. The success of the suit is not my claim. That is your goalposts, not mine.

discussion. Just exactly what purpose does it serve? Allows you to say, "See I told you so!" Ok, now what have you proven and what good is accomplished, aside from some warm fuzzy feelings for being right and that other guy was wrong?

Here in the gungeon there is an ongoing argument between the antis and the pros about the need for and the value of civil immunity laws for people who have to defend themselves with deadly force.

The antis have claimed that such laws are unneeded as such suits aren't actually filed. This proves that such suits are actually filed. It is obscene that the family of an armed robber should sue and try to get money because their violent criminal son/brother/whatever got killed while threatening the life of an innocent person.

That doesn't mean the suits go anywhere. And just because one suit like this was filed doesn't prove anything important, certainly it is not a justification for new laws which might have unintended consequences, just as some of the Stand Your Ground laws. One law suit does not make the case.

Civil immunity laws were passed because such suits were a problem. People who had been attacked by violent criminals were being bankrupted by legal fees to defend against greedy families, or by the thug himself if he survived. One post simply serves to show that such suits still happen.

It is poor public policy to make laws based on few and far between events, particularly when the law already has a remedy (judges can throw out frivolous lawsuits).

My OP is NOT the first time such a thing has happened. Nor is it a guarantee that a judge will throw out a suit unless black-letter law says that he must.

Put a stop to this sort of foolishness..

but that isn't Kroger's fault.

They are a grocery store, not a babysitting club.

Just be content that your spawn didn't kill anyone in the process. I don't suppose you'd want to have that on your conscience as well.

...it's cheaper to prohibit employees from carrying guns and buy security cameras and door locks than to allow their employees to carry concealed.

If a robber or madman kills a bunch of helpless people, hey, that's the robber's fault, arrest him and let the families of the murdered sue for damages.


But if the store does not prohibit employees from carrying weapons, then they can face piles of legal bills, pay large sums in settlements and court costs, and be stuck in court (and bad publicity) for years.


Of course, there are fewer dead bodies with the second option, but the company doesn't really care about that. It affects their bottom line far less because it shifts the burden of the incident to "somebody else". In other words, it's a way to socialize loss.

An employee could sue if work polices, and rules forced them to leave a legal hand gun at home.

By doing so, the employer has taken on the respectability of protecting the employee, since, by prohibiting the means of the employee to protect themselves, it is now up to them to do if for them.

businesses to provide protection from injury and death at retail stores from violence. If an employ is injured or dies from gun violence they are liable for that. Yet, some would like to limit lawsuits. To limit law suits is a slippery slope to go down.

No matter what happens, someone gets sued....

NICE....

I have to agree with you, Krogers will pay off to make her go away although I think it's wrong to reward her for her because of her son's criminal act.

Shitty company, but what do you want? TSA-type pat-downs on the way in the door?

Kroger deserves a lot of misery, but not this.

Kroger has to spend money defending the case. The mother is using the court to inflict economic harm on Kroger, when they have done nothing wrong.

This doesn't have to do with RKBA so much as frivolous lawsuits.

I'd love to be on the jury. I'd love to come back after ten minutes of deliberation, and be the foreman who announces that this crazy harpy who raised this criminal isn't going to get a god damned penny. Outside the courtroom, I'd love to announce to the media that I wish I could put a medal around the neck of the defendant.

http://news.lawreader.com/2006/09/21/the-myth-of-the-frivolous-lawsuit/
One of the catch phrases of tort reformers is “frivolous lawsuits” – a lawsuit that has no legal basis, or is so petty that the suit isn’t justified.  Often, tort reformers cite high profile cases, such as the McDonalds coffee case[1] to try and show that the court system is “broken” and that “runaway juries” routinely award ridiculously large verdicts in frivolous cases.
Tort reformers argue that these “frivolous lawsuits” are “clogging the courts” and cost honest, taxpaying citizens billions of dollars every year.  They further claim that the only way to stop “frivolous lawsuits” is to pass legislation that will make it more difficult to file a “frivolous lawsuit.”
What tort reformers don’t tell you is that the legal system already has three safety mechanisms in place to prevent, dismiss, and correct “frivolous lawsuits” and “runaway jury verdicts.”  The first mechanism, the contingent-fee agreement, prevents frivolous lawsuits from being filed in the first place.
Good article, worth reading.


These include Contingent-fee agreements, Directed Verdicts, Summary Judgment and appeals, along with juries. There are plenty of safe guards to these types of cases. It is rare and much publicized if anyone wins.

Civil immunity in self-defense shootings is a very small and very specific item. Tort reform is a far broader topic. Again, you are setting up goalposts that are yours, not ours.

you would have an extremely long line to wait in.

and the fact that I don't live in the area where this occured, but I salute your point!

And make a public apology to Kroger and the manager who shot the robber.