Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Suspects who sued/threatened to sue their victims/people that stopped their crimes

  1. #11
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,697

    Re: Suspects who sued/threatened to sue their victims/people that stopped their crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by Roadvirus View Post
    It's California, so the crook might just get away with suing the guy.

    In general, crooks should not be allowed to sue those who take them down. Committing crimes has it's consequences. Getting attacked back by your victim or a bystander is one of them.
    I disagree with this in general. There are cases where someone stopping a robbery uses excessive force to stop it, and in those cases a lawsuit might be appropriate.

    It isn't in this case, and I doubt the guy will find a lawyer willing to represent him.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  2. #12
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    01-14-19 @ 09:07 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    21,898

    Re: Suspects who sued/threatened to sue their victims/people that stopped their crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Person View Post
    "Changed"?


    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11:


    (c) Sanctions.

    (1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

    (2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.




    I'd be surprised if there was a given state who didn't have substantially the same rule.
    I would need to see the whole law and what rule 11B exactly says before answering.. please post a link to the law you have taken a quote from. I question it partly because it says.. if "after notice and reasonable opportunity to respond.. the court determines that..

    What "after notice and reasonable opportunity to respond".. would occur if a jury decides that a lawsuit is frivolous? why would there need to be notice and reasonable opportunity to respond?
    So we should put you down as supporting putting GPS trackers in everyone to "save lives"?
    Vegas Giants: "Sounds fantastic!"

  3. #13
    Sensational

    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    36,720
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Suspects who sued/threatened to sue their victims/people that stopped their crimes

    The man obviously should counter sue since he was stabbed in the neck.

  4. #14
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,996

    Re: Suspects who sued/threatened to sue their victims/people that stopped their crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by Renae View Post
    https://www.wfla.com/top-videos/suspected-starbucks-robber-wants-to-sue-man-who-stopped-him_20180227113949155/995084496

    Watching the video, I wanted to yell at the guys mother... you should be happy your son lived through that... couldn't' find a story where he actually sued.

    Feel free to post stories/vids of such you find!
    Just IMO, since the guy being sued didnt pursue the POS who brought the weapon to the fight AND used it, there's no excessive use of force.

    A basic legal tenet of using force is to use it until the threat is STOPPED (not dead, but ended). And when the POS ran off, he stopped his attack and the real victim here, the one being sued, did not pursue him to continue attacking him.
    Quote Originally Posted by SDET View Post
    Being subject to a dictator is a whole lot better than a false sexual misconduct accusation from "#MeToo".
    Quote Originally Posted by gulfman View Post
    All I need to know when I vote is that the candidate has an r after their name.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  5. #15
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,996

    Re: Suspects who sued/threatened to sue their victims/people that stopped their crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    I disagree with this in general. There are cases where someone stopping a robbery uses excessive force to stop it, and in those cases a lawsuit might be appropriate.

    It isn't in this case, and I doubt the guy will find a lawyer willing to represent him.
    There's always a lawyer willing to represent someone...they have nothing to lose and some are perfectly happy for the exposure or chance of a settlement.
    Quote Originally Posted by SDET View Post
    Being subject to a dictator is a whole lot better than a false sexual misconduct accusation from "#MeToo".
    Quote Originally Posted by gulfman View Post
    All I need to know when I vote is that the candidate has an r after their name.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:52 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    71,739

    Re: Suspects who sued/threatened to sue their victims/people that stopped their crimes

    The robber deserves everything he gets and all criminals should have to forfeit their rights once they commit a crime BUT the old guy that came in went too far as well. When he started stabbing the guy he crossed a line too and should get some kind of charge against him.

  7. #17
    A Little Bitter
    Mr Person's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    20,960

    Re: Suspects who sued/threatened to sue their victims/people that stopped their crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    I would need to see the whole law and what rule 11B exactly says before answering.. please post a link to the law you have taken a quote from. I question it partly because it says.. if "after notice and reasonable opportunity to respond.. the court determines that..

    What "after notice and reasonable opportunity to respond".. would occur if a jury decides that a lawsuit is frivolous? why would there need to be notice and reasonable opportunity to respond?
    The jury doesn't get to decide if the lawsuit is "frivolous". Frivolty is determined by the judge. Frivolous means that even if all the factual allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true, it still doesn't state a cause for action. A judge can later cut off a suit on a motion for summary judgment (Rule......56 I want to say. Celotex standard), which is based also on evidence already produced in discovery and argued in the motion, on a different standard, but which standard has to do with the probability of success at trial.

    And the rule is publicly available. Just google "Fed. R. Civ. P. 11". There's a quote limit here. Swap 56 for 11 for the other one.



    In addition to those rules, some states like MA have additional provisions for some types of lawsuits. For example, medical malpractice suits have to pass a panel of judges that makes somewhat similar rulings to the first two types mentioned, and are also able to knock out the truly pointless/harassing suits.

    On top of all that, appellate courts can always knock down damages if the jury did something crazy. For example, the famed 83 million dollar McDonald's coffee lawsuit damages were knocked way down. Somewhere in the thousands, if old memory serves.




    And finally, the fact of the matter is that we as a group are responsible for what we call crazy damages. Juries drawn from the community rule for the plaintiff and then aware damages. This case sounds stupid, yes, but I'd imagine that in the big damage cases - someone's toddler is burned horribly, scarring it mentally and physically for life - a lot of people who rail against crazy damages would begin to have other thoughts if they sat there and were asked to say how much money a life of misery is worth.

    Then, there are punitive damages, which aren't about making a plaintiff rich - that's a side effect - or about that one plaintiff's pain. They're about making sure a big pocket entity stops behaving in that way. Say, by knowingly ignoring a design flaw in a car that tends to cause that model to explode and burn its occupants to death horribly when impacted from the rear at a given angle and/or actively suppressing that flaw so it can sell more cars before reality catches up.





    I don't do civil law, but I know/remember enough to know that it really isn't quite the way people who complaint about it a ton would have it. If there's one thing you do, you could bump up the standard from preponderance of evidence (greater than 50%) to "Clear and convincing". Not sure how much that would do since it doesn't have a percentage nore does it really make any sense to assign a percentage. But given a sufficiently long explanation of how "clear and convincing" is more than "more likely than not" you'd see less questionable cases.
    Last edited by Mr Person; 09-20-18 at 08:27 PM.

  8. #18
    Sensational

    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    36,720
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Suspects who sued/threatened to sue their victims/people that stopped their crimes

    The man should counter sue because his neck was cut. There also should be an award against the criminal for frivolous prosecution of a lawsuit. The man being sued also should name Starbucks a 3rd party defendant, so any money Starbucks is willing to give to buy off the criminal instead goes to the hero.

  9. #19
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    01-14-19 @ 09:07 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    21,898

    Re: Suspects who sued/threatened to sue their victims/people that stopped their crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Person View Post
    The jury doesn't get to decide if the lawsuit is "frivolous". .
    That's my point.. they should. So.. no.. we don't already have that system.

    On top of all that, appellate courts can always knock down damages if the jury did something crazy. For example, the famed 83 million dollar McDonald's coffee lawsuit damages were knocked way down..
    You might want to check out the Mcdonalds 83 million dollar lawsuit.. it was not frivolous and a lot of BS has been done surrounding it..

    In a new segment of Adam Ruins Everything, host Adam Conover explains that basically everything people think they know about the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit is false. He walks through some of the actual details of the case:
    •Stella Liebeck was a 79-year-old woman in Albuquerque, New Mexico, whose grandson drove her to McDonald’s in 1992. She was in a parked car when the coffee spilled.
    •Liebeck acknowledged that the spill was her fault. What she took issue with was that the coffee was so ridiculously hot — at up to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, near boiling point — that it caused third-degree burns on her legs and genitals, nearly killing her and requiring extensive surgery to treat.
    •McDonald’s apparently knew that this was unsafe. In the decade before Liebeck’s spill, McDonald’s had received 700 reports of people burning themselves. McDonald’s admitted that its coffee was a hazard at such high temperatures. But it continued the practice, enforced by official McDonald’s policy, of heating up its coffee to near-boiling point. (McDonald’s claimed customers wanted the coffee this hot.)
    •Liebeck didn’t want to go to court. She just wanted McDonald’s to pay her medical expenses, estimated at $20,000. McDonald’s only offered $800, leading her to file a lawsuit in 1994.
    •After hearing the evidence, the jury concluded that McDonald’s handling of its coffee was so irresponsible that Liebeck should get much more than $20,000, suggesting she get nearly $2.9 million to send the company a message. Liebeck settled for less than $600,000. And McDonald’s began changing how it heats up its coffee.
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...stella-liebeck

    And finally, the fact of the matter is that we as a group are responsible for what we call crazy damages. Juries drawn from the community rule for the plaintiff and then aware damages. This case sounds stupid, yes, but I'd imagine that in the big damage cases - someone's toddler is burned horribly, scarring it mentally and physically for life - a lot of people who rail against crazy damages would begin to have other thoughts if they sat there and were asked to say how much money a life of misery is worth.
    And that's the point. The Jury can award "crazy damages" if it wants... but it cannot decide that a lawsuit is frivolous and that the LAWYERS bringing the suit have to pay the attorney fees etc. this sets up a situation in which a lawyer can bring a lawsuit.. even frivolous.. and the fear from the defendant is that even if the case is frivolous.. and stupid.. if it goes to trial and the defendant WINS.. it still ends up costing them a ton.. and if they LOSE and the jury goes nuts.. it could cost them a lot more.

    IF the jury could say.. "wait.. this lawsuit was stupid.. and we should make the lawyers pushing the lawsuit pay the fees for the defendant"... well then.. there would be a lot less attorneys willing to take these frivolous lawsuits because there could be a large cost to them.. they could be on the receiving end of a jury.
    So we should put you down as supporting putting GPS trackers in everyone to "save lives"?
    Vegas Giants: "Sounds fantastic!"

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •