Robber sues victims after they beat him! wtf?

[Breeze54]

http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2006/06/12/robber_sues_victims_after_they_beat_him/

Robber sues victims after they beat him
June 12, 2006

ROCHESTER, N.Y. --

A man is suing an auto-parts store for assault and battery after he attempted
to hold up the business and employees responded by beating him with a metal pipe.

Dana Buckman, 46, walked into an auto shop brandishing a semiautomatic pistol
last summer, only to have it turned on him by two AutoZone employees, police said.

The men beat Buckman with a metal pipe and held him with his own gun.

Buckman escaped and was arrested a week later.

He pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and was sentenced to 18 years in prison
as a repeat violent felon.

Buckman claims the men chased him out of the store and continued to beat him.
He is suing the auto shop and the men for the injuries he suffered and for emotional distress.

:crazy:

[Kutjara]

1. Welcome to the United States of Attorneys. n/t

[Redstone]

2. Only in America...sigh.

Redstone

[SteppingRazor]

3. Lawsuits: In the real world, a pain in the ass. In prison, entertainment..

you don't have a hell of a lot to do in jail. Frivolous lawsuits pass the time. Like that one guy that sued the prison because they served chunky peanut butter and he wanted creamy.

[Breeze54]

8. I remember that!

I've also read that they (imprisoned) will file lawsuits all day long.
It's fun!
I don't think this guy's going to win this one either. cripes!

[SteppingRazor]

11. No, he won't win...

but it'll help pass the time for the first year or so of his 18-year sentence. After that, he'll have to slip and hurt himself while mopping the floor or something :eyes:

[China_cat]

31. I don't know about that.

A guy here in SC got bit by a dog while robbing a house, filed a lawsuit from jail...and won. (Some time ago and the online archives for our newspaper don't go back far enough to give you the article)

[Canuckistanian]

4. He could claim to be a persecuted christian

That should be good for couple $mil.

[TomInTib]

5. Now if they had simply killed the bastard...

they could have saved everyone a lot of time and effort.

[WI_DEM]

6. Jeez, they let him escape so it couldn't be that bad--at least they

didn't kill the idiot.

[sandnsea]

17. Maybe if they weren't so busy beating him

One of them would have thought to get some rope to tie him up so he couldn't escape.

[theoldman]

7. You can sue all you want, it's collecting that is difficult.

The case will never make it to court.

[sandrakae]

He's a Republican.

[sandnsea]

9. Depends if he was beaten past a point of necessity

Nobody has a right to just beat somebody to a pulp. Unless we want to live in a society where people are just shooting and brawling in the streets, we need reasonable force laws and people need to be reminded that they exist.

[diamondsndust]

13. ummmm... i beg to differ here...

this asshole pulled a gun on them, with the intent of robbing them! Which part of that didn't you read? They could have killed him and gotten off for self defense because they feared for their lives. Another reason criminals run amok... too many friggin' pacifists in this world. :banghead: I suppose the attempted robbery victims could have waited until the perp was done robbing them, and possibly shot one of them, before they took defensive action :sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

16. I said "pass the point of necessity"

And reasonable force. What part of that didn't you read? They have every right to defend themselves, take the gun away, etc. BUT, if they beat him past that point, and especially if they inflicted permanent damage - PAST the point of necessity to defend themselves - then they were engaged in a vigilante attack of their own. Going down that path would be a serious mistake, although I'm well aware of how blood thirsty Americans are, it's why it was so easy to convince people to attack Iraq.

[Xithras]

20. It's clear that they did not do so.

If the man was able to get up, flee the store, and escape without seeking medical assistance for at least a week, he obviously wasn't assaulted all that badly. If he'd suffered internal injuries, broken bones, head trauma, or other severe injuries I'd probably agree with you, but the story isn't consistent with any of those being the case.

As someone who has actually been forced into the position of shooting a human being in defense of another (shot a rapist in the act), I can appreciate the fact that it's sometimes necessary to inflict physical harm on an individual to bring an end to a violent act. The only question is whether or not the physical violence was necessary or excessive. Since he was admittedly armed, a physical response was justified. Since he escaped, it's fairly safe to surmise that he didn't receive any extremely severe injury. I don't see any blood-thirst, only a reasonable response to the threat of death.

[sandnsea]

22. But you don't know

And that's the point. I'm inclined to agree with you, by the way, but there is another view and it's important that people be reminded. You can't take it upon yourself to decide what situations merit beating somebody to a bloody pulp. It is defined in law because one person might decide it's okay to kill somebody because they stole your garden hose as opposed to shooting someone committing a rape which I fully support. The law has been clear and worked well on this for years, now we're just going to have a whole new set of lawsuits that are going to be wrongful death instead of wrongful beatings. Eventually we'll go back to reasonable force laws because they work.

[diamondsndust]

21. This situation has absolutely nothing to do with being blood thirsty

It's a survival instinct... fight or flight. Have you ever been confronted in your home or business by an armed intruder?? I have... and I killed the son of a bitch! I'd do it again in a heartbeat too. As far as I am concerned, your rights end the exact moment that you act upon a decision to break the law and commit a crime such as robbery or breaking and entering. You come into MY home without being invited and you're gonna get blown back out the door. I have a pistol beside me in my chair where I sit and a shotgun beside my bed. I'll leave it to someone else to try to analyze an intruder or bake them cookies... I'll introduce them to their maker.

[sandnsea]

23. That's reasonable force, not arguing that

I'm arguing you chasing him 3 blocks down the street and shooting him in the back. Or beating him into oblivion AFTER he's disarmed.

I also really hope you don't just shoot people who walk in your house uninvited. I've had it happen on several occasions and would have killed about 5 innocent people if I'd given myself permission to shoot anybody on a whim. I do consider that kind of thinking blood thirsty.

[diamondsndust]

34. Jesus H Christ! you must live a very sheltered life...

"I also really hope you don't just shoot people who walk in your house uninvited. I've had it happen on several occasions and would have killed about 5 innocent people if I'd given myself permission to shoot anybody on a whim. I do consider that kind of thinking blood thirsty."

What kind of bubble do you live in? Do you have kids? People do not come into your house in the middle of the night while you are sleeping just to say "hi, how are ya?" I guess I'm just stupid and blind and wouldn't recognize my friends, family or kids walking in my door. Where I come from people have this little habit of knocking on your damned door and waiting for you to answer it.

I truly hope you never have to be in the posistion to have to defend yourself from harm by using deadly force because it really does change you mentally. You either have to accept it and move on or let it eat you up inside forever. I choose to accept it and move on because I'm still alive, as are my kids, while a meth head with a rap sheet as long as your arm is finally getting some rest from his tortured existence.

[sandnsea]

38. They've been drunk, and they have

I've had people accidentally come into my house by mistake. I'm sure glad I didn't blow them away.

[diamondsndust]

41. ROTFLMMFAO!

try locking your door! Did they pull guns on you? Did they threaten you or your kids?

You have no point, you're sputtering nonsense now. But guess what? You win! :sarcasm: I'm willing to bet you've never even held a gun, much less owned one. I can't make a point with a know-it-all .. especially one who has never been in the posistion to have to defend themselves.

Have a wonderful evening!

[sandnsea]

42. You said uninvited people get blown out the door

"You come into MY home without being invited and you're gonna get blown back out the door."

That's what you said.

Do you keep your doors locked 24 hours a day?? Even after having no problems for 4 years?? How sad. Actually, I don't lock my doors at all, then again I have a dog. And don't make that bet on the gun either. Although if I felt the need for immediate self-defense while I was sleeping, I'd go for a bat or mace because loaded guns in a house with kids is dangerous and it would take too long to get to a gun if someone were really threatening my life.

I'd rather be a know-it-all on the side of restrained self-defense than a know-it-all vigilante. We have a know-it-all vigilante President and that's not working out so well.

[diamondsndust]

45. Now I've heard it all, thank you...

First off, I haven't locked MY doors since I moved here, not even when I leave for a week or 2 for vacation. I suggested that YOU should lock YOUR door since you seem to have a problem with drunks wandering into your house by mistake. That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Honestly. As far as having loaded guns around, my kids are now 13 & 14 and they have been taught firearms safety since they were old enough to understand. They know better than to touch them and know they aren't play toys. How well will your dog protect you against an armed intruder? You should think before you type. As far as likening me to a know-it-all vigilante and comparing me to Dumbya.. you are a joke. A big joke. I think you are more like him... a know-NOTHING who spouts bullshit and lies and doesn't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Do the world a favor.. if you are ever being raped, robbed or mugged... DON'T CALL THE POLICE ... they might use excessive force :sarcasm: to save you, and we wouldn't want that would we? You seem to be looking for an argument here and you aren't contributing anything useful to this thread. Go play elsewhere.

[sandnsea]

46. Reasonable force is the law

Has been for decades. If you beat somebody, or shoot somebody, beyond the point of reasonable force, you've broken the law. That was my point, it's the law, and that's the useful contribution to the thread, like it or not.

I haven't got another civil thing to say to you.

[U4ikLefty]

35. I guess its nice for you that you never had to live in "that kind" of area

Try one month in South Central L.A. & talk shit about letting 5 people stroll into your home unannounced...LOL!!!

[sandnsea]

40. Reasonable force

Like I said, there's a difference between reasonable force and just blasting anything that moves. I don't care where I lived, I'd consider the situation before I shot.

[coalition_unwilling]

27. Proudhon: All private property is theft. Jeesh, I wonder whether

you might be better off re-locating to a safer location. Is the area where you live so unsafe that you need a pistol beside you on a chair and a shotgun beside your bed?

[sandnsea]

People live that way

I've always lived in safe places and a number of people I've known have chosen to live that way. I don't get it. I don't even like people all that much but I would hate living my life with the idea that everybody is a potential criminal out to get me.

[coalition_unwilling]

33. Yeah, I almost wanted to say if you have enough money

to afford both a pistol and a shotgun, maybe that might explain why people in your neighborhood might want to come in and rob you.

Put another way, if you have enough money for a pistol and a shotgun, then why not move to an area where you feel safer?

[diamondsndust]

36. Why the hell should I have to move because of criminals??

That might be an option for an apartment dweller or a renter, but I happen to OWN my home and the 12.5 acres it sits on. I actually live in a very rural area and the person I had to put down was while I lived in South Miami, Fla. Luckily I've never had to take my gun out for self defense in the 4 years I've lived here, but I do keep them close by, just in case.

[coalition_unwilling]

47. You don't "have" to move. But it sounded like you

were quite fearful of your well-being. My point was why live in fear, if you have the resources not to?

[diamondsndust]

49. ok, I can see where you would draw that conclusion...

but actually it is the complete opposite. I don't live in fear of my well being, I live in full and complete confidence that I can protect myself and my family against anyone who would try to harm us. Maybe it sounded like I sit here all day with one hand on my pistol and one eye on my front door. That isn't the case at all. I really never give it a second thought, but at the same time, I know that I am prepared should the worst case scenario happen. I have been trained and have used firearms since I was 7 years old. I haven't advocated that everyone should go out and buy a gun to feel safe. Quite the opposite really. There are people who should never own a gun, and the fact that more than 50% of crime victims are killed with their own guns only goes to prove that point. Never ever pull a gun on someone unless you have the full intention of using it on them. Most hardened criminals can sense the fear in a victim, even they are armed, and can use it against them and take their gun away from them. Chaos ensues!

[NEOBuckeye]

25. That's an utterly ridiculous argument

A gun is a LETHAL weapon. How can you know that the robber had no intention of using it to murder the shopkeepers? If he had the gun drawn, or even implied the intent to use the gun, the shopkeepers had every right to defend themselves, up to and including to the point of inflicting mortal damage upon the perpetrator. They were clearly within their rights to defend themselves, as long as the robber remained on store premises, including the parking lot and grounds around the store.

IF the shopkeepers had chased the robber off the property, down the street, around the corner, six blocks back to his house, waiving their pipes in the air after him, then you might have a point. But as long as they were on store premises, once that robber pulled the gun and pointed at them or implied his intent to use the gun to achieve his means, that robber's ass was fair game. If the robber sustained permanent damage from the shopkeepers actions to defend their lives, then that is a consequence that he is going to have to learn how to live and cope with. Maybe next time he will think twice about robbing a store in the first place.

[sandnsea]

29. Is AFTER suddenly a confusing word???

Do I need to go back and count how many times I said if they kept beating him AFTER he was disarmed.

[ComerPerro]

48. I gotta agree there

if they chased him out of the store and kept beating him, then that is too extreme

[Minnesota Libra]

10. You rob a business and then sue the business because they.................

.....choose to defend their property and their incomes???:banghead: Now that is plain stupid:wtf:

[bluestateguy]

12. Please tell me this is from the Onion

I fully support the right of people to pursue criminals who attack them and inflict a little extra punishment of their own.

[aikoaiko]

14. This case is why "Stand Your Ground Laws" are sweeping the USA

Many of the "stand your ground" laws have language that would protect people from over zealous DAs and frivolous lawsuits. I'm glad my state has one.

[LisaL]

15. I am not surprised. I have heard of the guy that got stuck in a garage

of a home he was trying to rob. He then sued the owners of the home and I believe he won.

[1620rock]

19. I have lost any and all respect for law, cops, courts, lawyers,

...judges, and most of all the supreme court. fuck the lot of them. :puke:

[TahitiNut]

18. Filing a suit is like flapping your arms.

Nearly anyone can do it but few fly. :shrug:

[notadmblnd]

24. and if your house is broken into and your dog bite them

they can sue you too.

crazy laws

[slackmaster]

26. They would be better off if they'd shot him dead

Thank you, trial lawyers.

[Asgaya Dihi]

28. Let's not overreact

Granted this is about as stupid a use for the system as I can imagine but it will likely end up meaning nothing. Bizarre cases are filed all the time, you could sue your landlord because his dog has been spying on you if you'd like. Won't go anywhere, but it might amuse you. Or get you fined which it should.

We do need to do something to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, but blowing these things out of proportion is how the repubs have managed to get laws passed to protect companies that dump toxic waste and such under tort reform, or to block complaints from inmates who have been mistreated such as with the telephone scams they've been subjected to. Single company contracts for the prisons who charge several times the normal rates to a captive and mostly poor population. Then they take penny anti cases and get the public worked up about them then fix something else that we didn't need changed, to protect them instead of us.

[sandnsea]

32. Yep

Threads like this show why it's so easy for them to create these trumped up wedge issues too.

[Deja Q]

30. If the robber can prove he was totally innocent of attempted robbery,

he'll have a case - and a small one at that.

Good luck.

This won't fly. Not at all.

No doubt security cameras, praise the Lord, will tell the WHOLE story.

Even the minutes before and after the actual beating. There's no such place like context.

[flvegan]

37. Held him at gunpoint, and then beat him?

If that's true, then I hope he wins his lawsuit.

If it's that they used a pipe to get the gun from him, then okay. However, the "escape" is vague, as is the chase and subsequent beating. Shitty journalism at it's best. Point is, if the employees were out of harms way, and had his gun (yet, somehow couldn't contain him until police arrived...idiots, anyone?) then the subsequent chasing and beating...I don't know.

[BlooInBloo]

39. I don't see what the big to-do is. That's perfectly possible....

... Just like in the racism movie with Ed Norton - it's perfectly possible to be the broken-into-house-owner, and commit a crime against the robber.

Why do so many people just assume out of hand that such a thing is beyond consideration?

[prole_for_peace]

43. anyone can FILE a lawsuit for anything

but unless it is found to have merit, it won't be allowed to go forward.

i always hear stories of ridiculous lawsuits being used as "proof" that trial lawyers and plantiffs are out of control. but i would rather hear about these kind of things knowing that they are, more often than not, strawmen than to have caps put on damages caused by groups that truly deserved to pay for the damages they have done.

[OhioChick]

44. Think that's bad.........

I heard a story a while back regarding a man breaking into an elderly couple's home. The couple had a Doberman which bit the shit out of the man pretty bad. HE was suing THEM.........because he said that he never would've broken into their home had they had a "Beware of Dog" sign visable.

Utterly ridiculous......