No - you aren't allowed to sue for emotional damages...

…when the people you tried to rob at gunpoint use the gun you brought to intimidate you.

Not having all the details, I can’t say that this suit is completely frivolous - the allegations that the plaintiff’s lawyer are outlining may well be serious enough to merit consideration. Without the evidence to actually judge, I can’t say. I do suspect that the bar to prove such will be so high that it would take a tape of a beating like that administered to Rodney King to get any jury to buy it.

That’s for the majority of this suit. But claiming emotional distress because they disarmed you, and then pointed the same fucking gun you brought to point at them? WTF? If the rest of this suit is actually of the piece with this reasoning (as I suspect it might be.) it really makes one wish that filing fees, etc, weren’t waived for prisoners.

I saw this article and siad to my wife “I wonder if I can get a Pit thread ready on it before somebody else does?”

Short answer: No. :smiley:

How dare citizens fight back!

Please tell me this is April fool’s day…

I feel guilty for thinking it… but I can’t help think that things would’ve been better all around if the robber was shot and killed during the crime.

No, because then the robber’s family would sue.

It’s not clear to me: did whatever activity that took place outside the store involve recovering the money? If it did, wouldn’t this abomination of a lawsuit evaporate immediately? IOW, if you’re running out of my house with my Van Gogh, and I tackle you on the lawn to recover my painting, does the law say I’ve done something wrong? That if there’s no imminent danger, we are not permitted to protect our property?

The balls on this guy. Sheesh.

“You mess with the bull, young man, you’ll get the horns.” :smiley:

I sincerely hope this gets laughed out of court.

I think this is appalling.

There is a related principle (if someone picks your pocket and runs off, you shouldn’t fire a gun after him), but it clearly doesn’t apply here.

I wonder why the victims who were threatened with death can’t sue the robber?

Meh. The robber pled guilty and is now in prison. This lawsuit probably isn’t costing him anything and he’s got nothing better to do with his time. He’s also got no money, so he’s not worth suing.


But it would set a legal precedent to help future victims.

There is already legal precedent for this kind of suit. Buckman probably doesn’t have two nickels to rub together, and it would cost the victims more than it’s worth to sue him.


No, because the persons who shot him would have to deal with the trauma of having killed a man. However justified, that’s likely to be bad for them.

Mmmm, I wonder. I doubt that many people who had a gun pointed at them would feel much emotional distress for fithting back and killing a possible murderer in self defense. Of course, I’m sure it’d be different if he tried to run away and was shot in the back…

I don’t feel guilty about it.

Remember, this suit is a civil suit, not a criminal proceeding. The police who investigated, and the DA (quoted in the article), didn’t think that the men did anything wrong. AIUI, in the US it’s possible to file a civil suit for damages for any reason - provided one will meet the various court fees. The merit of the suit, itself, is immaterial - until a judge is actually sitting on it. Hence my complaint about waiving such filing fees for prisoners. I know why it happens, and I think that overall it’s a good idea - just that some prisoners have used that privelege to legally harass the people who put them in jail.

Sure he can sue. I could sue you right now for causing me emotional distress, and we’ve never even met. You can sue anyone for anything-- how far you’ll get is another matter entirely.

Right now, my husband has five or six pending lawsuits, which is average for us. He’s being sued by:

  1. An inmate who claims that his placement on the second floor violates his rights because the popcorn machine is on the first floor, and the guys down there get to it first.

  2. An employee who claims Hubby denied her a promotion because of her age-- never mind the fact that the person he did hire was older than the plaintiff.

  3. An employee who claims racism was why she didn’t get her promotion. Guess what? The person he did hire was black, too.

  4. An employee who claims she didn’t get the transfer she requested because of sexism. She claims her son, who is in one of Hubby’s classes, heard Hubby say in a lecture that women shouldn’t work there anyway because they’re inherently inferior, despite 39 witnesses to the contrary.

  5. Another inmate who claims that Hubby is harassing him by punishing him for all of his rule-breaking. Never mind that he’s actually guilty-- Hubby is targeting him unfairly.

I think there’s another one from the union which is suing for what they claim is unfair shift-assignment procedures (though they are the ones who set them up.)

In time, these suits will be dismissed, and replaced by new ones. I don’t even bother to pay attention to them anymore unless the story surrounding them is funny or ironic. Out of the dozens of times Hubby has been sued, we’ve never lost one, and I’m not worried that we ever will.

Is the reason the DA didn’t file charges against the pursuing men because that itself isn’t against the law or because the DA believes that there’s no way a jury will convict them?

If you’d noticed the linked article had a quote from the DA on that question:

Mental note: Don’t rob a place where there are a bazillion things within easy reach which can be used to beat the ever living snot out of you.

Why don’t they just sue the robber back for violating their civil rights?

This is why prisoners shouldn’t be able to file completely free lawsuits. They have too much time on their hands.