AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Free Dating

Should We Laugh or Be Angry?

posted 9/5/2009 1:21:03 PM |
0 kudosgive kudos what's this?
    report abuse
  Itsasecret13

I did both. The laughing only lasted a moment before the anger at stupid people and lawyers took over. I have no idea where Clinton Township, Michigan is, but maybe the many Michigan memebers here can shed some more light on this.

A guy robbed a store in Clinton Township, Michigan and now he's suing the owners because one of the clerks shot him.

Police say Scott Zeilinski held a knife to the throats of several clerks during the November 2007 robbery.

After stealing money and cigarettes, Zeilinski tried to flee.

That's when a clerk shot him in the back and arm.

Zeilinski's lawyer says his client is asking for at least $125,000 for pain and suffering and emotional distress.

"What about the stress brought onto the 17-year-old involved? what about the stress to the family? what about the fear for their life that they were put in by this guy?"

Since the robbery, the store owner has spent thousands of dollars on security so the employees can feel safe.

They say they hope nothing like this ever happens again.

Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)

   read more blogs!

Blogs by Itsasecret13:
Some Political Trivia
How's That Hope and Change Working For You?
The "First Nobel"
Should We Laugh or Be Angry?
Ome one Needs an Anatomy Lesson or Brain transplant
The Caring and Kindness of Liberals
The Real Ted Kennedy
Something To Think About
Semper Fi!
Some Help needed, please


Comments:

post a comment!

PinkToeNails

Sep 5 @ 1:42PM  
I think it's ridiculous that he can even be allowed to sue! And chances are, he'll win his lawsuit! It's fucking insane, no one is held accountable for their actions anymore. It's too bad the dumbass didn't get killed when he was shot! JMO!

Our court systems are flooded with this kind of stupidity and the jurors who award these people oodles of money should have their asses kicked! This kind of shit just pisses me right off!
Wordsofwit

Sep 5 @ 1:44PM  
That is more of a complex issue than people think and varies between states. It wasn't until a couple of years ago here in Texas that the law would allow the clerk to take that action because at the point the clerk was opening fire, the perp. was no longer posing a physical threat.
shewolf53

Sep 5 @ 1:49PM  
It sometimes depends at which point someone was shot. If you shoot them in the front during progress of a crime you are ok, If you shoot them in the back when they are trying to leave the scene that is were the trouble starts because at that point they are not considered a threat to your life. It is screwed up but that is tha law in most states.
Itsasecret13

Sep 5 @ 2:06PM  
WoW and SW, you are both correct as is Pink Toenails. I am aware of this and we have a similar in Arizona. I came at this in a more general approach than the legal details. Yes it says this criminal was fleeing and I would think if anything this would be a criminal matter and the shooter taken into custody along with the criminal. A lawsuit would come after the shooter was convicted if that was the outcome. I saw this as a ridiculous lawsuit and even now using the legal aspects of this isn't a law suit such as this getting the horse before the cart? Think back to the OJ murder trial. The criminal trail came before the wrongful death suit. Even if OJ had been convicted the lawsuit would have still come afterward and easier to win than it was.

This should be thrown out of court and if a law was broken let the police handle it. The robber should be counting his lucky stars he isn't on a slab in a county cold storage locker waiting for autopsy. Just my opinion.
somnium

Sep 5 @ 2:07PM  
Law suits like this are the fault of the brain stem lawyers who are looking for deep pockets to 'legally extort' money from people! Do you think they [lawyers] give one twit about their clients or the victim's stress they suffered- hardly!! It's all about money!

And any judge that allows frivolous lawsuits like this to happen, is just as guilty of allowing a scam like this to continue! It's one of the reasons why the court dockets are so clogged as they are!

I think these suits should be reviewed first, then heavily fine the lawyer for bringing suits like these, if it is found frivolous in the first place! The state bar association could have the authority to do this! This would go a long way to eliminate many time wasting at tax payer expense suits like this! Problem is, the pros protect the pros, whether they're lawyers, doctors etc!

JMO

Itsasecret13

Sep 5 @ 2:19PM  
It seems all are in agreement so far. Can I hear a cheer in favor of tort reform?
somnium

Sep 5 @ 2:38PM  
10 mins ago
It seems all are in agreement so far. Can I hear a cheer in favor of tort reform?

Sure- in general, that's really what I was suggesting in my comment!



DarkKnightWalking

Sep 5 @ 3:39PM  
Ridiculous suits like this piss me off. A few years ago in Ca. a burglar crawled onto a roof trying to get in a skylight. He fell through onto her kitchen counter, cutting his leg on a knife. He sued and won...

In Alabama, a farmer heard nosies in his barn. Walking towards it to investigate, a guy stole his truck, drove through the barn doors and attempted to run him down with his own truck. He shot at it with his shotgun, some pellets went through the door and struck the guy in the leg. The farmer got arrested for assault....

I have heard some states now have laws for example, if someone breaks through your front door, they demand you crawl out a back window or else YOU can be held legally viable...

Not in Louisiana though....someone breaks in here, I am wasting their monkey ass. And can legally do so.
sugarnspice005

Sep 5 @ 6:12PM  
Clinton Township is north and east of Detroit. Almost lakeside.

As for the case, there is always going to be a glory hound lawyer who will take a ridiculous case such as this to make a name for her/him self. From the legal aspect, it's as SheWolf stated:
If you shoot them in the back when they are trying to leave the scene that is were the trouble starts because at that point they are not considered a threat to your life
If the store clerk had shot the fool while being confronted, there would be no law suit. But, since the robber was fleeing, he was no longer considered an immediate threat, and that is where jerks like him can play the system.
KitKat25

Sep 5 @ 6:21PM  
This case reminds me of some other cases (sorry-I can't recall the names of these cases) in both the U.S. and Canada. In these other cases, the courts ruled against the police who were involved because there was no immediate threat to them when they discharged their firearms. If they rule against the police, it doesn't really surprise me when they rule against the average Joe.

Oh, and we should definitely laugh AND be angry at the absurdity of this lawsuit. Laughing helps to keep the anger in check, otherwise there would be a lot of good people running around trying to even the score.

We certainly live in a mad, mad world.
Itsasecret13

Sep 5 @ 7:00PM  
Okay folks, I appreciate all the comments and legal aspects of this, that is really not what I am addressing here. All of you are 100% correct in what is justified under the laws and what is not. I agree with you completely.

My real point is the absurdity of this and the situation with lawyers filing these frivolous lawsuits. These things cost everybody billions in taxes each year, clog up the courts and do more harm than they ever "make a party whole again." a legal term in law suits. This is also an example of what is happening in the medical industry to drive the cost of medicine and treatment sky high. I did not[U] wish this to become political and I am not promoting either side of the Healthcare issue, but the fact of the matter is the same laws that allow this to happen and spilled hot coffee in a drivers lap to sue McDonalds is the same as the frivolous malpractice sits which are the reason for highest costs in medical care and availability. You know the old saying follow the money? When you follow the money don't stop flowing at the middlemen, doctors, and pharmaceautical go to the source and you will find two comingled groups. Lawyers and government .
Ewe_Wish

Sep 5 @ 8:54PM  
My real point is the absurdity of this and the situation with lawyers filing these frivolous lawsuits
Our courts are so filled up with this kind of lawsuit that the courts have to place on real justified lawsuits.............Since our tax dollars pay for so much of this...........I think that the court system should come up with a committee that will determine whether a lawsuit can and should be filed...........even if our tax money had to pay for it.............its bound to be a lot less than what it is now........and maybe those lawsuits that really have some need to them............will actually get to court in a timely fashion.......
JustAnAvatar

Sep 7 @ 3:00PM  
I did not[U] wish this to become political and I am not promoting either side of the Healthcare issue, but the fact of the matter is the same laws that allow this to happen and spilled hot coffee in a drivers lap to sue McDonalds is the same as the frivolous malpractice sits which are the reason for highest costs in medical care and availability.

I agree with not making this political - just wish to inject some research done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office in 2004 that does not support your statement. They concluded that, while there may be other reasons to limit medical malpractice lawsuits, it was not a significant factor behind the increase in the cost of health care. They concluded:

'Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small,

"Proponents of limiting malpractice liability have argued that much greater savings in health care costs would be possible through reductions in the practice of defensive medicine. However, some so-called defensive medicine may be motivated less by liability concerns than by the income it generates for physicians or by the positive (albeit small) benefits to patients. On the basis of existing studies and its own research, CBO believes that savings from reducing defensive medicine would be very small."


http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0






surv6969

Sep 8 @ 9:56AM  
Judges should use their judgement and throw out stupid cases like this one.

free dating | mission statement | testimonials | safety warning | report abuse | safe list | privacy | legal | 2257 | advertise | link to us

© Copyright 2000-2014 Online Singles, LLC.
OS-WEB02
Should We Laugh or Be Angry?