Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

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

  1. #1
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    43,863
    Blog Entries
    16

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

    https://www.wfla.com/top-videos/suspected-starbucks-robber-wants-to-sue-man-who-stopped-him_20180227113949155/995084496
    FRESNO, Calif. (WFLA) — A Good Samaritan who stepped in to stop a robbery at Starbucks may soon find himself in legal trouble.Cregg Jerri, 58, was hailed a hero for fighting off the suspect, 30-year-old Ryan Flores. Both men got hurt and now the Flores family said their son may sue Jerri for excessive force, according to KSEE.
    Police said Flores walked into the Starbucks with a knife and toy gun and started demanding money. When Jerri saw what was happening, he came at Flores with a metal chair and hit him in the back. Then the two men started fighting. Police said Jerri was stabbed in the neck during the struggle, but he managed to grab the knife and stab Flores several times before the suspect fled the scene.
    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!
    My daughter got a Hamster, she named it Atlas.
    "Did it shrug?"
    "...what?"
    Sigh



  2. #2
    Heading North
    Roadvirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,301

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

    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.

  3. #3
    Guru


    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,366

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

    Flores is very lucky he is alive today. His mother needs to shut her mouth. A clueless woman who is just about as
    stupid as her son.

    Cregg Jerri is a brave guy who gave it to an armed robber.
    Text from FBI Attorney Page to FBI Agent Strozk.
    “Trump’s not ever going to become president, right? Right!?” Page texted Strzok in August 2016.
    “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

  4. #4
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    21,015

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

    Here is the issue. The way lawyers work. So.. probably Flores doesn't have money to pay a lawyer.. but... lawyers can work on contingency. In other words.. the lawyer will take the case and 1/3 of any money (or more) that the suit wins. If it loses..then Flores is not out anything.

    Now in all likelihood.. no lawyer is going to take the case against the man that stopped him.. unless he is really rich. Nope.. the target here would be Starbucks.. there is where the money lies. So maybe the lawyer takes the case and names Starbucks in the suit because say.. the chair that was used became a weapon because starbucks doesn;t fasten its chairs down.. etc.

    now.. here is the thing.. the suit doesn;t have to have merit. All the lawyer has to do.. is create enough of a nuisance that starbucks realizes its either to pay them off.. than go to the expense to fight it. So they pay 20,000 which is chump change and the lawyer gets 7 grand for writing a couple of letters.

    Now.. sure. there is frivolous lawsuit laws.. but the problem is that if a lawsuit is brought.. and its seen as frivolous.. you know who has to pay your court costs? Mr flores.. and since he has nothing.. good luck on collecting... so again.. if you are starbucks.. it just might be cheaper to settle.

    NOW ... if we changed the frivolous lawsuit law.. so that the LAWYER that brings the frivolous lawsuit has to pay.... well then there is skin in the game. THAT will stop a lot of these frivolous lawsuits.

    I have to be responsible for the medical decisions I make on behalf of a patient. Why doesn;t a lawyer have to be responsible for his advice/decisions?
    So we should put you down as supporting putting GPS trackers in everyone to "save lives"?
    Vegas Giants: "Sounds fantastic!"

  5. #5
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    10,955

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    Here is the issue. The way lawyers work. So.. probably Flores doesn't have money to pay a lawyer.. but... lawyers can work on contingency. In other words.. the lawyer will take the case and 1/3 of any money (or more) that the suit wins. If it loses..then Flores is not out anything.

    Now in all likelihood.. no lawyer is going to take the case against the man that stopped him.. unless he is really rich. Nope.. the target here would be Starbucks.. there is where the money lies. So maybe the lawyer takes the case and names Starbucks in the suit because say.. the chair that was used became a weapon because starbucks doesn;t fasten its chairs down.. etc.

    now.. here is the thing.. the suit doesn;t have to have merit. All the lawyer has to do.. is create enough of a nuisance that starbucks realizes its either to pay them off.. than go to the expense to fight it. So they pay 20,000 which is chump change and the lawyer gets 7 grand for writing a couple of letters.

    Now.. sure. there is frivolous lawsuit laws.. but the problem is that if a lawsuit is brought.. and its seen as frivolous.. you know who has to pay your court costs? Mr flores.. and since he has nothing.. good luck on collecting... so again.. if you are starbucks.. it just might be cheaper to settle.

    NOW ... if we changed the frivolous lawsuit law.. so that the LAWYER that brings the frivolous lawsuit has to pay.... well then there is skin in the game. THAT will stop a lot of these frivolous lawsuits.

    I have to be responsible for the medical decisions I make on behalf of a patient. Why doesn;t a lawyer have to be responsible for his advice/decisions?
    That and changing the civil court rule of preponderance of evidence and a majority to beyond reasonable doubt and unanimous for ruling against a defendant.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  6. #6
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    43,863
    Blog Entries
    16

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    Here is the issue. The way lawyers work. So.. probably Flores doesn't have money to pay a lawyer.. but... lawyers can work on contingency. In other words.. the lawyer will take the case and 1/3 of any money (or more) that the suit wins. If it loses..then Flores is not out anything.

    Now in all likelihood.. no lawyer is going to take the case against the man that stopped him.. unless he is really rich. Nope.. the target here would be Starbucks.. there is where the money lies. So maybe the lawyer takes the case and names Starbucks in the suit because say.. the chair that was used became a weapon because starbucks doesn;t fasten its chairs down.. etc.

    now.. here is the thing.. the suit doesn;t have to have merit. All the lawyer has to do.. is create enough of a nuisance that starbucks realizes its either to pay them off.. than go to the expense to fight it. So they pay 20,000 which is chump change and the lawyer gets 7 grand for writing a couple of letters.

    Now.. sure. there is frivolous lawsuit laws.. but the problem is that if a lawsuit is brought.. and its seen as frivolous.. you know who has to pay your court costs? Mr flores.. and since he has nothing.. good luck on collecting... so again.. if you are starbucks.. it just might be cheaper to settle.

    NOW ... if we changed the frivolous lawsuit law.. so that the LAWYER that brings the frivolous lawsuit has to pay.... well then there is skin in the game. THAT will stop a lot of these frivolous lawsuits.

    I have to be responsible for the medical decisions I make on behalf of a patient. Why doesn;t a lawyer have to be responsible for his advice/decisions?
    You know who screams loudest at tort reform don't you?
    My daughter got a Hamster, she named it Atlas.
    "Did it shrug?"
    "...what?"
    Sigh



  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    21,015

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    That and changing the civil court rule of preponderance of evidence and a majority to beyond reasonable doubt and unanimous for ruling against a defendant.
    Yeah.. I don;t agree with that. There are a purpose to lawsuits.. particularly in protecting people from harm.. and going to far..would definitely hamper that.

    I worked in a facility that KNEW it as killing people. That's right.. it Knew that its process was killing about 1-2 people a year.. but the bean counters had figured the cost of likely litigation.. versus the cost of making changes to stop giving people deadly infections.. and giving people deadly infections won.

    The only thing that stops that.. is fear of expensive litigation.
    So we should put you down as supporting putting GPS trackers in everyone to "save lives"?
    Vegas Giants: "Sounds fantastic!"

  8. #8
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    21,015

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Renae View Post
    You know who screams loudest at tort reform don't you?
    Hmmm.. enlighten me.
    So we should put you down as supporting putting GPS trackers in everyone to "save lives"?
    Vegas Giants: "Sounds fantastic!"

  9. #9
    Rcovering Analog Dinosaur
    Checkerboard Strangler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,482
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Nice try making this about California but crap like this happens ALL the time.
    Ambulance chasing lawyers smell deep pockets and they will try to sue anyone or anything, and not just in California.
    Most likely the suit will be thrown out and the judge will the plaintiff to go pound sand, but that doesn't stop lawyers from trying.

  10. #10
    A Little Bitter
    Mr Person's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    18,269

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    NOW ... if we changed the frivolous lawsuit law.. so that the LAWYER that brings the frivolous lawsuit has to pay.... well then there is skin in the game. THAT will stop a lot of these frivolous lawsuits.
    "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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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