Starbucks Robbery... might sue

[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]

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/showthread.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.

 

[Psychedelic Bang]

I wonder if the Good Samaritan had something like the NRA self defense insurance, and I wonder if this would be covered.

The reason I wonder if it would be covered is because: the Samaritan has interfered in a criminal act. He was not originally acting in self defense - although he may have wound up having to act in self defense.


https://mynrainsurance.com/insuranc...NSORED-=agia+sd+web+link&segmentcode=cdh02663

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

On a related note: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-man-multiple-times-California-7-Eleven.html

 

[DaleA]

The story above was about a cop that wrestled with and then shot a guy at a 7-11 convenience store parking lot 7 times. This happened in California.

I like to read the comments to news stories. At least until they devolve into the 'No, you are' and 'No, you are 10x' level. Most of the comments in this story are, IMhO, very much anti-gun, anti-cop. Many folk with the almost standard 'why didn't the cop just him in the leg?' and no one correcting them.

 

[mehavey]

here's the whole 7-11 video -- start to finish.
it would appear the assailant was absolutely, and maniacally, relentless in attacking the cop....
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/2...uspect-punching-officer-prior-to-gunfire.html

The assailant had already been Tased... to absolutely no effect, and the officer was alone.
As usual, selective media editing of only the final seconds... is selective truth.

 

[Nanuk]

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.

Quote:
And yes I have experience with the criminal justice system here.
Civil liability does not fall within the purview of the criminal justice system.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...05.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFCcjytI9v3Kaa6RO69Dit85HmtGw

There will be no preponderance of the evidence if there is no civil suit. Things are much simpler here than in DC, and move much faster.

It may not be the purview but many of us have been sued a few time for doing our jobs.

 

[OldMarksman]

There will be no preponderance of the evidence if there is no civil suit.

I am sure that what you meant to day is that there would be no need to produce evidence if there were no ciivl suit.

But nothing can prevent the filing of such a suit by someone with standing who has suffered damages.

At that point, the evidence becomes key to preventing further legal action under the law outlined in your link.

It may not be the purview but many of us have been sued a few time for doing our jobs.

Irrelevant here.

 

[HiBC]

This is a hypothetical that probably does not apply here,but the good Sam was supposedly stabbed in the neck.

I'm taking it another step. Bad guy is down,but conscious. Weapons are on the floor.
The bad news is,I'm hit bad. Bleeding. Unsure how long I will be conscious.

If I go out,I'm at the bad guy's mercy.(He has not shown any so far)

What to do?

 

[OldMarksman]

This is a hypothetical that probably does not apply here,but the good Sam was supposedly stabbed in the neck.

The man who intervened almost certainly did so lawfully (though not prudently), and he had every right to avoid being stabbed again.

And he did so. He gained control of the knife.

Whether what happened next involved the use of necessary force or excessive force on his part could only be answered by the triers of fact in court.

The standards of proof differ depending upon whether it is a civil court or criminal court.

 

[jmorris]

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 if a single plunge, in that brief moment, had killed him then what?

Someone would argue that, "had he not approached him in the first place..."

"Excessive", reminds me of the over 130 shots fired trying to stop 2 people in Miami back in 1986. Seems like a lot, when your not there.

If the circumstances justify the use of deadly force and a steam roller was the only tool you had to stop the threat, would turning the threat into a mushy mess be excessive?

 

[OldMarksman]

And if a single plunge, in that brief moment, had killed him then what?

Justifiable, if he had had reason to believe that the immediate use of deadly force had been necessary to protect himself from the knife.

Someone would argue that, "had he not approached him in the first place..."

Well, that would be a very good question indeed, from a "tactical" standpoint, but his intervention was almost certainly lawful.

"Excessive", reminds me of... Seems like a lot, when your not there.

That would be determined by the triers of fact.

They were not there--they never are--but they would have the video.