Mr Lee Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 In my opinion, a judge should look at stuff like this and just throw them out before they even starts and it is just too bad the guy who shot him was a lousy shot, he should have killed the guy and saved everyone a lot of money and time. http://news.aol.com/article/thief-sues-mic...robbed%2F646032A knife-wielding thief shot during a robbery wants reparations for his suffering.In 2007, Scott Thomas Zeilinski robbed a Michigan store at knifepoint. He threatened to kill several employees while holding the weapon to their throats, reported WXYZ, a Detroit ABC affiliate. As he was fleeing, an employee shot him in the arm and back. And now, Zeilinski, who is serving 8 to 22 years in jail for the crime, is suing that same store to pay him more than $125,000 for his pain, suffering and emotional distress."What about the stress that was brought onto the 17-year-old who was involved? What about the stress to the family? What about the fear for their life that they were put in by this guy?" store owner Ed Tomaszewski told WXYZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre007 Posted August 31, 2009 Posted August 31, 2009 What's really sad is he will probably win. One year I read the 10 most unbelievable lawsuits of the year. There were one similiar where a burgular sue a couple because he hurt hisself while escaping. He won the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMason Posted August 31, 2009 Posted August 31, 2009 In my opinion, a judge should look at stuff like this and just throw them out before they even starts and it is just too bad the guy who shot him was a lousy shot, he should have killed the guy and saved everyone a lot of money and time. http://news.aol.com/article/thief-sues-mic...robbed%2F646032A knife-wielding thief shot during a robbery wants reparations for his suffering.In 2007, Scott Thomas Zeilinski robbed a Michigan store at knifepoint. He threatened to kill several employees while holding the weapon to their throats, reported WXYZ, a Detroit ABC affiliate. As he was fleeing, an employee shot him in the arm and back. And now, Zeilinski, who is serving 8 to 22 years in jail for the crime, is suing that same store to pay him more than $125,000 for his pain, suffering and emotional distress."What about the stress that was brought onto the 17-year-old who was involved? What about the stress to the family? What about the fear for their life that they were put in by this guy?" store owner Ed Tomaszewski told WXYZ.I have mixed feelings about this case. On one hand, its tempting to say the thief got what he deserved and leave it at that. On the other hand, he was shot in the back while fleeing the scene. I don't know about Michigan, but where I live owning a gun and being a crime victim does not give you the right to shoot the criminal. You can only shoot someone if your life is in danger. In this case, the employee's life was in danger, but the danger had clearly passed by the time shots were fired. If the employee had better aim, he'd likely be facing murder charges instead of the store facing a civil suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted August 31, 2009 Author Posted August 31, 2009 I have mixed feelings about this case. On one hand, its tempting to say the thief got what he deserved and leave it at that. On the other hand, he was shot in the back while fleeing the scene. I don't know about Michigan, but where I live owning a gun and being a crime victim does not give you the right to shoot the criminal. You can only shoot someone if your life is in danger. In this case, the employee's life was in danger, but the danger had clearly passed by the time shots were fired. If the employee had better aim, he'd likely be facing murder charges instead of the store facing a civil suit.Since it does not say anywhere in the article that the employee was charged with any crime, I would have to say that there might have been more to it than is in the paper or he would have, even if he did not kill the perp, so I would then say that there would have been no difference had he killed him except that they might not now be facing a civil case, at least not by him. Other circumstances that would justify shooting someone in the back might be that he was heading for the door and another customer was coming in and they felt he might injure or rob the other person. We just do not know, but IMO any time a person commits a forcible felony, then they should not be allowed to sue anyone who ended the crime and that resulted in their arrest, and they really should lose all their rights to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts