Would you sue?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sue the bad guy is a great idea but a joke. What are you going to sue them for?? his property. Great you wind and get a worn out crap pipe LOL. The bums dont have pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of so what could you gain. Yes the court may say he owes you a million but how can you even collect ten bucks from them?
 
Mas Ayoob said:
You are the driver of a van, unarmed and untrained in these things, minding your own business as you roll to a stop at an intersection. Suddenly, a man appears at the door of your van, armed with a gun. Unknown to you, though you'll find out later, he is attempting to carjack you and has just shot another helpless, innocent victim in the center of the forehead and left him for dead. Suddenly, someone shouts at the armed offender, and he turns and raises his gun to shoot that person. The person who shouted fires his own gun, dropping the offender and also unintentionally wounding you. His actions have physically harmed you, but he has also saved you from probably being kidnapped by a man who shoots his victims in the forehead.
Click to expand...

that seems to me like an entirely different scenario than the one in original post. to me the main difference is that in this one, the criminal at the door has already brought the van driver into the equation. at this point the shooter is possibly aiding and protecting the van driver - possibly unknowingly.

if it's just a person who happens to be walking on the same sidewalk as the criminal and they get shot, then i'd say holey-forehead-guy is the one who dragged the bystander into it.

how many shots were fired? it could be that the shooter unloaded a dozen rounds in the direction of the bg after the bg went down on the first shot. i wouldn't count that as using very good judgement - especially if there was an appreciable lapse in time between the first and last shots. in fact, maybe he saw someone stirring in the van and assumed it was the bg's accomplice.
 
Mas Ayoob said:
As we watch the thread unfold, we see a couple of things. First, it's human nature to judge one's own kind more harshly, since their actions reflect on us, consciously or subconsciously. Second, it's easy for folks who came in late to get a skewed perception of the actual encounter. On threads like these, by the second page some people will be responding without having read all that went before.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

My stance and views on property rights notwithstanding, and not wholly relevant to this discussion, my original viewpoint still stands:

I will never sue a Good Samaritan whose intentions were good. It is my wife and mine's personal belief that such actions only serve to deter otherwise honest, decent-minded citizens from even thinking about going out of their way to help their fellow man.

And, as stated before, should I ever be the shooter in such a situation--and having BEEN in such situations as a cop on many occsions--I will do whatever it takes to ensure that whatever innocent individual that might be wounded by me is properly taken care of.

If it were my wife who was shot during an attempted carjacking in the situation you describe, there would not be any lawsuit filed nor charges requested whatsoever.

Jeff
 
Does this change your outlook at all, as a plaintiff with the option of suing the man who kept you from being carjacked, and/or kidnapped, and/or murdered?
Click to expand...

I might still want to sue if seriously injured - BUT - would now worry about my standing to do so. The man did unintentionally shoot me, but he arguably saved me from greater harm. I can see a duty, breach of duty, injury, and causation . Or can I ?????

Were his actions truly neglingent, or was he acting in good faith to the best of his ability even though injured?

Tough call for sure.
 
I can see a duty, breach of duty, injury, and causation . Or can I ?????
Click to expand...

Of course you can:

Duty- He's responsible for whatever he puts downrange of himself

breach- He shot you

damages- you have medical/burial expenses

causation- He pulled the trigger

It ain't hard.
 
I hate lawsuits..

... and one of the reasons is because if you sue, you have to sue everybody. Doesn't matter what their intentions, if they were part of the incident they are part of the suit.

A guy gave me a job once when I needed one. A few months later I was in intensive care with permanent injuries due to negligence on a manager's part and incompetance by the Work-comp Doctor.

The lawyers told me I would have to sue the company, the owner, the Doctor, the insurance... everybody, I could have ruined the company. I am still glad I didn't. I took what Workman's Comp I could get and walked away.:rolleyes:
 
This reminds me...

This subject reminds me of the case of the UK farmer Tony Martin. Martin shot two burglars with a shotgun, killing one and seriously wounding the other. So although Martin was prosecuted for the killing, the man he wounded tried to sue. This whole thing ended when a tabloid paper showed pictures of the wounded man, breaking into another property.

If I was shot by a robber or another "bad guy", and I was seriously injured and maybe left disabled I would probably want to get insurance rather than to sue. Legal action costs alot of money, and as a result of that I would probably lose alot of the money I was owed. If I could no longer work and the insurance money was inadequate, meaning not able to support myself and replace an income, and the chances of that are high. I would be in a position where I would need to sue.

I think a large sum of money should be given by the state, to those who cannot work because of a crime commited against them. And Im not talking about something like welfare, but money that has been confiscated, as it is the proceeds of crime.
 
Let's take the lawsuit out of the equation of the carjacking example. Should the good guy pay the hospital bills of the van driver? This if he doesn't die, in that case his help in preventing the carjacking woundn't be that necessary,
 
If a BG hurt me while commiting a crime against me. I'd sue him criminally or civilly for physical and emotional damages just the same as he would sue me.
I'd try to take away every thing he owns, and everything he would ever own again .......
Ohio Rusty
 
You are the driver of a van, unarmed and untrained in these things, minding your own business as you roll to a stop at an intersection. Suddenly, a man appears at the door of your van, armed with a gun. Unknown to you, though you'll find out later, he is attempting to carjack you and has just shot another helpless, innocent victim in the center of the forehead and left him for dead. Suddenly, someone shouts at the armed offender, and he turns and raises his gun to shoot that person. The person who shouted fires his own gun, dropping the offender and also unintentionally wounding you. His actions have physically harmed you, but he has also saved you from probably being kidnapped by a man who shoots his victims in the forehead.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting viewpoint.

However, it is hard to say what conversation went on between the driver and the running gunman. He could have been telling the driver to get out, in which the driver would have exited the van unharmed to let the gunman drive off. But before that happens, this other guy comes running down the street and shoots the driver. Saving the car in trade for a gunshot wound.

On the other hand, the BG could have just been ready to shoot the driver and the other guy stopped that chain of events. But then again the driver got shot anyway. Which would have been the worse gunshot, the one from the badguy or the one from the goodguy?

This is exactly what courts are for. To analyze and solve these questions for the actual events. Sometimes the individual folks that were there don't even realize what actually happened. They only see the elephant two dimensionally from their perspective.
 
I will never sue a Good Samaritan whose intentions were good.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is this: Was he being a good Samaritan? Or was he acting on anger and revenge? Did he shoot that guy to prevent him from carjacking that car? Or did he shoot the guy, completely disregarding the fact that there was an innocent bystander in the line of fire, to protect his own family? In other words, was the driver's life irrelevant in his pursuit of his goal (which by his own admission was to protect his family)?

Again, these are the kind of things that need to be sorted out in front of judge and jury.
 
that seems to me like an entirely different scenario than the one in original post.
Click to expand...

Right, not Glenn's orginal scenario. However, if it happens as in Ayoob's example, then I might consider it more optional. Regardless of whether or not the good guy saved me from being carjacked, he still had no right to shoot me and I should not have to pay for the consequences of him shooting me.

Since all the sappy background information was provided, it is clear that the shooter was not endeavoring to save me from the carjacking, but in saving his own goodies. He doesn't get to shoot me in order to possibly save his goodies and mom at home. At this point, they are not in the line of fire, but I was.

About to be attempted to be carjacked, being carjacked, and carjacked are all different things. I would hate to be shot by the good guy who is trying to shoot to save his bacon at home. This is especially if all I had to do was to drive away - a common means of successful escape for attempted carjackings where the intended victim is in the driver's seat with the car running.
 
Actually, Brad fired because the perpetrator turned from the van and brought his gun up on him: straight-up self-defense, which is why he was never criminally charged.

He had PURSUED the man because the suspect had taken Brad's wallet with home address, and his house keys. When the perp standing by the van came up on him with the gun again, Brad had no cover, tunneled in on the lethal threat, and fired.
 
Since Brad had taken a cap to the dome, I wonder how this factors in.

Do courts recognize any sort of reduced capacity defenses in civil cases? Clearly the criminal system had no problem with him taking the shot.

Very interesting situation. What about the driver? Did Brad owe them any duty to exercise care, or was this obviated by his mental state and physical condition?

I like to consider myself well read and trained on these matters, but I am at a loss on some of the finer points.
 
If some reckless person shot me, I wouldn't sue him, I'd shoot him (if able). If a GG shoots me, he becomes the BG to me, no matter what his intentions are. I
Click to expand...

Incredible. Even after it becomes known that the victim had been shot in the head and seriously injured by his would be murderer who was likely heading for his home and invilid mother, there are those on the board who would sue him, shoot him, or put him in prison.


The next victim of the creep could have been one (or more) of your loved ones. If not-- somebody elses for certain.

Ordinarily, he should not have persued-- but this wasn't ordinary considering bullet damage to his brain and his invilid mother home alone.

Don't much like the chances of the carjack victim surviving, either, if he'd let him go--given the homicidal nature just demonstrated by the creep.
 
Quote:
If some reckless person shot me, I wouldn't sue him, I'd shoot him (if able). If a GG shoots me, he becomes the BG to me, no matter what his intentions are. I
Click to expand...
Incredible. Even after it becomes known that the victim had been shot in the head and seriously injured by his would be murderer who was likely heading for his home and invilid mother, there are those on the board who would sue him, shoot him, or put him in prison.
Click to expand...

These threads become confusing. I was referring to the original senario not whatever the second one introduced into the discussion.
 
These threads become confusing. I was referring to the original senario not whatever the second one introduced into the discussion.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your right--especially if I was referring to the second scenario and you the first.:D

Never the less, there are those not under the slightest stress who hold a man to an extremely high standard after he went thru the extraordinary traumatic experience of taking an execution bullet to the fore head and was still able to fight back, protect his mother, and likely save the life of the victim who was unfortuneatly shot while hidden from view by the gunman.

To accuse him of being selfish because he was fighting on his own behalf, (and his mothers') is somewhat selfish in it's own right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top