| Type | Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle | Source | Last Checked |  |
 |
A Michigan judge says a man who claims he was chased, shot and beaten by workers at a store he'd just robbed can sue the men. But only if he comes up with $10,000 within two weeks.
This is asinine!
#1 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 8:52 AM ESTThis is what is wrong with our judicial system. If you commit a crime you should lose all of your rights until time your has been served.
God bless this mess we live in.
It's like crime insurance...commit a crime, if it goes bad and you get shot or a beat down, even though you derseved it, then you can sue the place you robbed for stopping your crime. "Your honor, these individulas did purposely and knowingly stop me from stealing their S@#* !! What a tool !!
this is the way the legal process should work. everybody has the right to have thier case heard in court. the judge is very smart to have the inmate put up the defense money before the trial so WHEN he loses the store employees arent stuck with a huge bill.
Now, if the guy actually wins his case THEN you can say theres a problem with the system.
You got to be kidding. What kind of stupid a** judge would allow this? This is what is wrong with America today. They should get a medal, not a lawsuit. Maybe if they'd beat him to death this wouldn't happen, but then again, his mama would probably sue.
This is the problem that confronts the average home owner, business owner, and citizen: Should I stop at wounding the offender and risk a lawsuit, or kill the individual and be far less likely to be sued?
I think this case proves it is better to kill the individual.
Lack of common sense and decency is why this country's legal system is BS. This person should be told - he was the aggressor, engaged in criminal activity and has no rights since what occurred was based on acts he engaged in. End of subject - don't file again.
Skiddy....I disagree. I think it is shrewd of the judge to make this ruling. The guy is not going to win. The jury is going to laugh this man out of court which will send a message to other criminals not to even bother.
I think most Americans are fed up with crime and are willing to see the bad guys go down. He is opening up a can of worms. Once his law suit fails it leaves the defendants open for civil action against him. That has to be worth something toward a judgment to stress and mental anguish for the owners and store employees.
I agree with Jeff. There is nothing wrong with allowing the bum to file the lawsuit, the problem will come if he actually wins. So making him put of the money for the legal fees he will cause the defense for a stupid case he'll likely lose is fair. People can sue anyone they want, that's an American right. It's people actually winning idiotic lawsuits that create problems.
$10,000??? This judge hasn't used an attorney lately. More like $50,000.
This judge should be shot twice and severely beaten...
Stupid judge, stupid decision, stupid legal system that would allow this kind of case to even be entered. If he was attacked by the police, maybe. But he took on ordinary citizens with not police training trying to protect themselves from a criminal. He gets what he gets and more power to the citizens that gave it to him. No wonder our legal system is a joke in other countries and taken advantage of blatantly by criminals.
This is why we are in the mess we are in Judges are so full of @!$%#. They give the criminal right and take the rights of citizen away. If you get shot or your ass kick while doing a crime I say we give the people that did it a bonus. Time to start weeding out judges too it looks like.
telmom32 Skiddy....I disagree. I think it is shrewd of the judge to make this ruling. The guy is not going to win. The jury is going to laugh this man out of court which will send a message to other criminals not to even bother.
I think most Americans are fed up with crime and are willing to see the bad guys go down. He is opening up a can of worms. Once his law suit fails it leaves the defendants open for civil action against him. That has to be worth something toward a judgment to stress and mental anguish for the owners and store employees.
Everybody is sue happy. Why should the crook get to sue the person that shot him during the robbery he committed? As you say telemom "Once his law suit fails it leaves the defendants open for civil action against him." Doesn't that just tie up our court system with another stupid lawsuit? It is a waste of our taxpayers time and money. He robbed the store, he got shot, he got caught, time for him to do his time...PERIOD!
what it really means is he lost his suit
This is crazy. You engage in dangerous behaviour (robbing a store, pointing a gun at someone, etc.) you should live with the consequences. This guy deserved the beating he got.
THIS is what's wrong with our judicial system. Ultimate example of some putz getting together with a jailhouse lawyer. This guy is lucky he wasn't shot dead. What is this idiot judge thinking anyway?
The laws in this country are just so screwy... how can something like this happen? Hopefully he will not be able to raise the $10k in the next week or so.
Next time, shoot the guy dead out of self defense and protecting your store/property from a thief. He deserved much more of a beating than he got, that's for sure.
I think somebody needs to beat the crap out of the judge. If you are injured during the commission of a crime, especially a felony, you have no rights. Let this be a lesson to everyone. Next time somebody tries to rob you, make sure you kill the SOB. otherwise he will come back and sue you.
There is a reason why firearms instructors teach police and civilians 2 center mass shots and 1 to the head.
Mozambique drills...preventing lawsuits since 1964 ;)
Time after time, more and more often, it is becoming painfully apparent that crime in fact pays. If you get away with it, you got the goods Scott free, if you get caught, the likely worst thing that will happen is 3 squares/day, a warm bed, buds to hang with, widescreen TV, exercise room, schooling paid for,...... How damn upside down has our country become? Thank You libs.
They should have shot him in the head, dead men cannot sue .
Maybe the idea is to allow this idiot, I mean individual, the opportunity to openly admit in court that he was there to rob the store, thereby confessing to his crime.
No... I agree totally. Let the suit wind through.
Then have the owner of the store sue the robber for making him have to defend himself. Then have the owner of the store sue the robber for the distress (shock and trauma) caused by the incident.
Then have each of the employees file an individual suit in parallel.
Of course, since the guy was convicted, they can automatically file other civil suits.
They should sue for the cost of the ammunition, the depreciation of the guns, wear and fatigue on store defenses, increases to insurance and so on (lifetime increase to insurance will easily recoup the losses).
Okay, so the judge says the criminal has more rights than the victims by allowing for the possibility of the criminal going to court. He can post a $10K bond to cover the defendants' attorney fees if he should lose the case. Who is going to pay for the lost income of the defendants, etc should the plaintiff lose? While I think it is admirable of the judge to require a bond to cover some expenses, he should have required coverage of all possible losses to the defendants. But the real basis should be to not allow the case in the first place. Hopefully this will be the beginning of the end of frivolous lawsuits by convicts. They get free representation while the defendants must pay for their lawyers.
they should have shot him in the head, dead men cannot sue.
That is all that needs to be said. End of discussion.
thank you, american vet.
MORAL of the story: AIM a little better. A dead criminal can't sue.
How about next time a 45 between the eyes? NO Questions, NO PROBLEM! Drag his /her dumb butt back into the store, argue a weapon was stated, you and your employees defended themselves.
Shoot the dumb bastard!
I have to agree with those who says he has the right to sue. He may be dead wrong but I would hate to be in a questionable situation and have the judge just throw it out on a whim. The judge hopefully is protecting his rights with our rights in mind. If the case really is what it appears to be his guy is going to get another beat down in the way of a counter suit.
There's just too much that can't be told from a short story like this to make it too easy to question the intentions of others.
Oh my God! Jesus, I want to move to New Zealand and get away from these sadistic Americans.
1. It was UNARMED robbery. Yes, robbery is a crime and should be punished (the guy got 8 years in prison for it). But, are you sure he endangered anyone else?
2. The robber had already left. I don't know whether the workers drove him away, or if he left on his own with loot. But regardless - they workers were no longer threatened, yet they chased down this man and nearly killed him. Americans seem to have this mentality that protecting your stuff is worth killing a man over. They're hot headed and have a lust for blood - as I said, sadistic. It's like they hold no value, whatsoever, for the lives of anyone except their own circle of friends and family. That's just sad.
Then move already. No one will miss you.
BULLS#!T!!!!
Get rid of the JUDGE!!!
Only in America . . .
This is not the first time a suspect has sued the victim.
Just Google [or whatever] suspect sues victim!
This is why the criminal should be shot and killed at the time of the offense.
don't shoot to wound, you will pay for it in the end. Shoot to kill and you might get a slap on the hand or a slap on the back.
Do we really need to use up valuable court time on stupid cases like this? This just makes more dollars for more attorneys.
For those who believe that he did not deserve what he got---how were the owner and employees supposed to know that he did not have back-up?
Skiddy,
You are correct. This makes a strong case for killing instead of simply incapacitating. Anyone who comes into my home and makes any threats has not only placed his life in my hands, he has given the right to chose if he dies and how. PS---Mama can't sue if she can't identify him.
Do we really need to use up valuable court time on stupid cases like this? This just makes more dollars for more attorneys.
Wait a minute *shakes head* WHAT? Is that judge lol as I type that...smoking crack??
I think you guys are missing the point.
The judge basically threw it out, as this guy has no hope of getting the money (used to pay for the defense of the owner and employees, btw) and making a case. He could have:
A) Heard the case and cost the victimes a lot of money
B) Threw out the case
C) Made an example of this tool
I vote for C.
What does the judge mean by "can sue but only if he comes up with $10,000 in the next two weeks..." I am assuming the man does not have $10,000 or he wouldn't have been robbing in the first place. So no suit will be filed.
a greedy lawyer could front him the money..then somehow with some ancient law...win the case and make the prisoner sign over half...It can be done...we aren't missing the point there is just too many "what ifs" there.
Bloody hell criminals seem to be more protected than the innocent.
FFS
This cannot be more wrong. And I'm wondering why we don't impeach more judges.
Rhep, all he needs is one stupid relative to help. Just one. Or one stupid person who just read this article and decided to help him just in cases he wins, so they can cash in on the profits.
I wish I could see this as positively as you...but no. I'm more inclined to believe that the judge is very stupid, and justice is no longer a priority for our justice system...at least not in his court room.
In my eyes the judge has pretty much made up his mind, and if the guy wants to push his case then the judge just gave the defense a payday.
Is this a new form of "bailout," where the innocent absorb the crimes of the guilty?
I wish Shrub would never have started this trend.
What you fail to understand is that YES! some scumbag lawyer will put up the money for him and then WILL HAVE THE FACT THAT HE ROBBED THE STORE RULED AS INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE!!!!
What you fail to understand is that YES! some scumbag lawyer will put up the money for him and then WILL HAVE THE FACT THAT HE ROBBED THE STORE RULED AS INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE!!!!
What you fail to understand is that YES! some scumbag lawyer will put up the money for him and then WILL HAVE THE FACT THAT HE ROBBED THE STORE RULED AS INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE!!!!
My mother was fired from a job in south Georgia for saying the word asinine. They told her you can not use that type language here. LOL... She later prove her point to them that they where wrong about the word......
It's a funny world somtimes
it's bad enough that Michigan is barely making it now the aXXhole of a judge spending more money than the state has.
You rob a store that the employees did not know that he was unarmed and then turn around and sue them. Something is wrong here.
#2 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 8:57 AM ESTit is time for this judge to be removed from the bench
The store owner has to hire a lawyer to defend himself against this criminal . There should be legislation if you are commiting a crime and get hurt or injured, you are not allowed to sue your victims.
Time for brain surgery...to install one for the judge
#3 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 8:57 AM ESTI agree. but this jerk hole can't and won't come up with the money!
#4 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 8:58 AM ESTSome piece of crap lawyer will probably front him the money for 85% of his claim!
Matters not, this so called just set the BAR for future sh!t in that State.
the ACLU will come up with the $10,000. They always SUPPORT criminals.
but this jerk hole can't and won't come up with the money!
I wouldn't bet on it. There is always some bigger "jerk hole" that would float a clown like this just to test the system.
Yeah Tom from the firm "We, Cheatum, and How"
And the march towards national suicide continues........the beat goes on, the beat goes on.
#5 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:01 AM ESTThese kind of decisions by incompetent judges is what makes our judicial system a joke! I say kick the judge off the bench and hold a party for the employees of the store. The moron that robbed the store is damned lucky I wasnt there or I guarantee that he would have been dead.
#6 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:06 AM ESTDead men tell no tales!!
Exactly! The store's employees would have been better off - and frankly so would the rest of us - if they'd have killed the thieving SOB.
What any civilized nation needs is not just a system of laws, but also a system of justice. And, as we all know, the law and justice are sometimes at odds. Any system of laws must always have room for justice within that system.
Judges who cannot differentiate between those two things should not be sitting on the bench because they can't "judge".
drumzilla...I don't think so. If they had killed him as opposed to incapacitating and holding him for the police the losers family could have come after them in a civil action.
There can be justice from this as long as the jury finds his charges baseless.
you mean the SAME IDIOTIC LIBERAL JURY that allows millions of dollars damages to other BS nuissance cases? We have idiots now populating jurys.
It's obvious the Judge thinks the lawsuit is asinine - that's why he set the $10,000 bond - but why not just dismiss the lawsuit?
#7 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:09 AM ESTSue, this sets bad precedents, and he may get some grandstanding lawyer to up front the money. Then the employees have to hire a lawyer, and they end up getting screwed.
The judge is the asinine one. This is exactly what's wrong in America. We have too many idiots in positions of power and responsibility.
And even if this a-hole thief LOSES,...HOW is he gonna pay the accused lawyers? he is indigent!!! Next time,.....FINISH THE JOB, boys! And start with THIS judge.....so other stupid judges LEARRN a lesson.
It is "loses" not "looses". You have any editors at this site?
#8 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:09 AM ESTYou beat me to it. They teach in journalism to target an 8th grade level of reading comprehension; I suppose this fits.
"I never cared for a man who could spell a word only one way." - Mark Twain
This is exactly what I was going to comment on. Looks like the article was written by an illiterate 3rd grader.
Outrageous! I see this all the time! Are journalists even going to college these days, or are they recruited from elementary school special ed classes? How hard is it proofread an article? It’s loses NOT looses, you moron!
Hit the F7 key before submitting your article.
F7 is the spell check in the most popular Word processors
Julie
Go to Word and type in loses and looses. You will find that both are spelled correctly. This is not spelling, it is grammer.
About this judges decision, it is wrong. The man committed a crime, was convicted and sentenced. He should not have the RIGHT to sue the store owner.
Moral of the story - if you catch a bugler, kill him! Dead men can't sue.
At least the judge had the good sense to see who would win in front of a jury and required the bond. That might make his ruling harder to appeal and more likely to stand if it was appealed.
#9 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:09 AM ESTAmen!
I wouldn't shoot a bugler unless he was playing the bugle very poorly and directly into my ear, but a burglar would receive two in the thoracic cavity and one to the brain.
Sorry Bob I couldn't resist:-)
BTW I misspelled burglar also, it was the spellcheck that caught it:-)
good one, darrell.....hahah...
LMAO Darrell!!
workers messed up ... should have killed him
#10 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:10 AM ESTAnd then in the afternon session..........
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
___________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty.
___________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you @!$%#t'in me?
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh.... I was gett'in laid!
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Are you @!$%#t'in me? Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Now whose death do you suppose terminated it?
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Guess.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. Would you like to rephrase that?
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Huh....are you qualified to ask that question?
______________________________________
And the best for last:
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law
#11 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:11 AM ESTLMAO Thank You!!
This is awesome! Thanks for the laugh!
love it and they ask for it.
thanks for the laugh, those are funny and i can totally see lawyers saying dumb things like that
Do you know why terrorists will never attack Washington DC?
Professional courtesy.
If a plane of 400 lawyers crashes, what is that called?
A good start.
havent heard that one, dj. hahah
Scottd
Thanks for a good laugh. Now I have some ideas to use if I get questioned by a lawyer.
OMG! this was hilarious! Thanks for the laughs. Hope you don't mind if I pass them along to some friends.
ROTFLMAO!
Thanks for the laugh.
The judge should be sent to jail for excessive stupidity.
#12 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:15 AM ESTAFTER being shot twice and badly beaten....and sued.
And we wonder why we have to keep our kids inside and read every day where someone has thought it OK to take the life of others or do things that seeminly have no consequence. Absolutely amazing!!!!
#13 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:17 AM ESTWTF? He tries to rob a store, gets a bet down by the employees who won't take his crap and he's sueing them? They should counter sue for emotional distress! Jerk.
And this judge who let this go! Toss his candy butt out! this is such a joke!
#14 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:24 AM ESTThis is why this country is in the state that it is in. They should automatically disbar any attorney who brings a "stupid" and frivolous law suit to court and loses! It is a mockery of this country and the judicial system.
#15 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:24 AM ESTMany of you are missing the point: In this country, as ridiculous as it is, a person can be sued for anything. I can sue my neighbor because I don't like the way he cuts his grass and I claim it hurts my property value. I'll lose, (at least I hope I'd lose such a ridiculous suit) but I can sue.
The judge realizes there is no legal way to pevent the guy from suing - but he can force the guy to post a bond to cover legal expenses for the other side if (when) he loses his lawsuit.
This accomplishes many things:
1. It sends a signal to this creep that he's not likely to win and will be out $10,000 (at a minimum) if he tries.
2. It protects the people he's suing by covering costs if the suit continues and fails.
3. It likely prevents the suit from happening at all because it is highly unlikely this guy can come up with 10 grand, and the judge knows this - but that isn't the judge's problem as he is perfectly with his power to require a bond.
This is a good way to kill frivoulous suits while protecting the rights of those to sue that actually have legit cases.
The idiot judge in the case with that freak suing for 65 million over his lost pants at a dry cleaners could have learned something from this judge. Hopefully other judges will as well.
#16 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:26 AM ESTI thought there was something odd about this.
Thanks for the explanation.
Absolutely - good explanation. The judge doesn't make the laws, but he deserves kudos for his creative approach to discourage ridiculous suits.
The lesson to be learned here is that suits like this are commonplace in the UK where it is illegal for a citizen to own a firearm. There are instances where the victim is in jail for having a weapon and for denying the criminal the ability to work in his chosen profession.
Thank you, Elvoid, for that well thought out and inciteful explanation. You are right. The judge is basically telling the criminal, "If you didn't want to get your @$$ kicked, you shouldn't have tried to rob the store. That's the chance you take."
darell you are completely right, i lived there during the 'tony martin' case, nasty little gypsies had robbed his house and remote farm several times when he finally caught them red handed in his house, he shot the teen in the back and the other gypsy in the leg and went to jail for murder, later reduced to manslaughter, the whole of the UK was disgusted that Mr Martin was jailed for defending his property against thieves who had already robbed him multiple times, the people set him free eventually after numerous protests. however the surviving gypsy had the audacity to sue tony martin for an injury that stopped him performing the duties required in his chosen profession - BURGLARY!!!!!!!. i believe this was eventually tossed out of court after the british people donated millions to the save tony martin fund - ludacris story.
Elvoid,
I hope you're right. This lawsuit should NOT be allowed to proceed.
I know that anybody has a right to sue for anything, but it has gotten so out of hand in this country it's pathetic. Criminals suing victims? That's a disgrace. That's like a rapist suing the victim because he got HIV from her. (If it hasn't already happened, you know it will.) You're almost better off killing the SOB and hoping you don't get convicted of murder. Otherwise, you facing the possibility if being sued by the perpetrator and supporting him for the rest of his rotten life. There should definitely be protection for victims against this. You should have to give up your right to sue if you got hurt while committing a crime. Crime should not pay, and it clearly does in this country.
This bond the judge has required should be a requirement when anybody sues. It would stop a LOT of the frivolous nonsense that goes on in this country, especially if you sue and lose you and have to pay the defendant's expenses.
There should also be some provision for judges to deem certain lawsuits to be frivolous, and there should be penalties applies if said lawsuit is deemed to be so to the litigant AND the attorney who brought it. So many people sue for ridiculous crap, hoping that some idiot jury will award them millions (like that jacka$$ who wanted the 65 million for the lost pair of pants).
You know what I would REALLY like to see is some lawyer for the defense challenging a frivolous lawsuit by turning it around and challenging the mental competency of the "victim".
Don't realize that you might get seriously injured committing a robbery if you are caught in the act? You must have an IQ of about 4. You should not be allowed out by yourself. God only knows what other dangers to yourself you are oblivious to!
Think about that one for a minute. How many frivolous lawsuits could that logic be applied to?
If you don't clearly understand that something hot will burn if spilled when you buy it, and take the necessary precautions, you are clearly a danger to to yourself and others (because you could spill the drink and burn somebody else) and therefore should not be allowed to handle any item capable of burning without supervision. You should also not be allowed to heat anything in your home above body temperature without supervision, because you clearly don't know how to handle a hot object.
You don't realize a snarling or strange dog is likely to bite? You could be in real danger walking down any street by yourself. You should have to have a qualified escort or be forced to stay inside where you are safe.
Don't have the sense to walk on the grass when the sidewalk is clearly icy? Hell, you're in danger as soon as you leave the house whenever the temperature hits freezing! You should not be allowed to leave the house unless there is no chance of an icy patch on the sidewalk.
I know it will never happen, and some people on here will tell me I'm completely nuts, but I would LOVE to see somebody try that in court and win.
I can dream, can't I?
the robber should have been killed!!!!!!!!!
#17 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:26 AM ESTare you kidding me.... this is just so stupid. the man put himself in this position put other people in harms way because of his action and now he wants to sue because they defended themselves and the store. what kind of drugs is this judge on. this is what is wrong with our country all of the stupid lawsuits. people will sue over anything and what is sad is they usually win. grow up america and act like adults and quit suing over stupid things............
#18 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:31 AM ESTagree, plus i think all criminals deserve a beating, the guy who ran over the cops foot whilst trying to evade arrest deserved the beating he got, anyone caught red handed committing a crime deserves a thrashing. i know i dont but if i find someone trying to break in to my car i should have the right to kick his ass before i hadn him over to the cops
Ahhh Michigan, good for you, way to continue your reputation for incompetence. Get that Judge out of there, that is the first step to save face.
#19 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:36 AM ESTIt's a good thing this guy is still locked up otherwise he would just go out and rob a bank to raise the 10 grand to cover his lawsuit.
#20 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:39 AM ESTwatch this --- see video ---} http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txwI7Urztgc
#21 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:39 AM ESTWhat an idiot. OK, JetRanger, why?
Chill pill time, people. First, the guy has the right to initiate a lawsuit. Until or unless this is changed, let's not hang the judge for doing his job; upholding the law. Second, the judge did follow what little recourse he had by insisting on a $10,000 bond, from an indigent prisoner. Third, I think killing the guy for unarmed robbery is a bit excessive. We tend to holler about the Saudi's cutting off hands etc. but it's okay to kill someone for unarmed robbery? He got shot, beat, and sent to prison. Sounds about right. He certainly won't do it again any time soon. Finally, no I do not think he should be allowed to sue. I am quite happy that the judge threw a monkey wrench into his plans. I hope he screws up royally and has several years added to his sentence. On the other hand, I do not, in this case, blame the judge. I also do not think the guy should be executed. I mean, what's next? Life without parole for shop lifting? There goes the old tax rate, right through the roof. Not to mention way over-reacting.
#22 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:41 AM ESTNow how did they know he was unarmed, rfaber9? If I was robbed, I would always assume the bad guy was armed, they usually do have some kind of weapon to ensure they can over power the victim. If I get robbed, he better hope he survives the gunshots.
sorry rfaber but i fully believe anyone trying to rob you deserves to die, why keep him alive, he's already proved to be a worthless piece of skin, no contribution to society and just plain awful, thieves are scum, they dont care that they stole from someone else, took something that doesnt belong to them, they dont care that they cause emotional distress from having your home or business robbed, or having something of sentimental value stolen, they dont care the financial hardship they may cause someone else by robbing a business or a house, or that stealing that car might cause someone to lose their job or miss a job interview or cause someone to not be able to go food shopping or pick their kids up, all robbers deserve to be shot and killed, just one less scumbag on the streets or clogging up the jails
Lets appoint some more ultra liberal judges. Is this guy a Michael Moore protege?
These bozo's live in a totally different world.
#23 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:44 AM ESTHi Ray,
The officials who supported him for his election were overwhelmingly Republican.
Source: http://www.leducdesigns.com/sites/vivianoforjudge/endorsements.html
He's not a "liberal" judge.
'Zielinski is seeking $125,000.'
Maybe someone will give him a third bullet instead.
#24 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:46 AM ESTWhat a mess. Should have killed him instead.
#25 - Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:54 AM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Follow msnbc.com U.S. & World News to get e-mail or watchlist alerts whenever new content is published, or subscribe via RSS:
Popular Articles & Seeds 
Militia movement resurfaces across nationHacked emails add fuel to climate disputeGirl, 15, to be tried as adult in child's killingBillboard in Colo. links Obama with jihadistsObama: Alleged 9/11 leader will be executedDad accused of killing son over sex abuse claimThe case of the disorderly order going to trial10-year-old is tasered by officer in Arkansas
Log In | Register
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking
