What the F*ck??

[slide_advantage_redoux]

This one leaves me shaking my head. We have been talking about how theives suck just recently and now this story. Maybe the employees got carried away a little bit, but who the hell is the crook here?

Robber Sues Victims After They Beat Him

By Associated Press

Mon Jun 12, 6:58 AM

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - A man is suing an auto-parts store for assault and battery after he attempted to hold up the business and employees responded by beating him with a metal pipe.

Dana Buckman, 46, walked into an auto shop brandishing a semiautomatic pistol last summer, only to have it turned on him by two AutoZone employees, police said. The men beat Buckman with a metal pipe and held him with his own gun.

Buckman escaped and was arrested a week later.

He pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and was sentenced to 18 years in prison as a repeat violent felon.

Buckman claims the men chased him out of the store and continued to beat him. He is suing the auto shop and the men for the injuries he suffered and for emotional distress.

"In some respects, you wonder if a case like this even needs a defense. It speaks for itself," said lawyer Patrick B. Naylon, who represents AutoZone and the employees.

But lawyer Phillip R. Hurwitz, who represents Buckman, said the employees crossed the line by pursuing Buckman and attacking him.

"The danger was past," Hurwitz said. "These two employees took it upon themselves to go after Mr. Buckman after he left the store."

[Stereojack]

"The danger was past," Hurwitz said. "These two employees took it upon themselves to go after Mr. Buckman after he left the store."

I guess it's hard to dispute the logic here, but as a small business owner, if somebody tried to rob me, I'd be really pissed! I think robbers like this forfeit their rights when they brandish weapons at innocent working people. I hope the judge throws this one out!

[Jazzmoose]

I kind of agree, Stereojack, but I bet it doesn't get thrown out.

[Noj]

There ought to be a "he brought it on his damned self" clause for dismissing cases like this one.

[catesta]

I kind of agree, Stereojack, but I bet it doesn't get thrown out.

We're in deep, deep trouble if this one goes before the courts and the dipshit wins.

[Joe G]

I'm sure these kinds of cases have been heard before. Not sure about the results, though.

[patricia]

It's kind of like those cases in which an armed intruder breaks into your house and robs you. You respond by chasing him outside with a poker, catching him and beating on him. He sues. As was stated in the story above, "the danger was past". But, the audacity of anyone terrorizing your family and stealing you stuff fills you with anger and down the street you go.

In cases in which burglers have been killed by homeowners, after they have left the house, by the homeowner, police often say that they should drag him back in the house, before calling 911. I don't know if they are serious. However, it is true that if the intruder is killed in your house, nothing will happen to you. So, who knows?

[chris olivarez]

I kind of agree, Stereojack, but I bet it doesn't get thrown out.

We're in deep, deep trouble if this one goes before the courts and the dipshit wins.

Agreed. Man it took balls for that loser to bring that suit.

[Jim Alfredson]

"The danger was past," Hurwitz said. "These two employees took it upon themselves to go after Mr. Buckman after he left the store."

The danger was past to whom? Obviously this guy is a thug and might've tried to rob someone else.

[Claude]

The difference between selfdefense and selfjustice. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm sure the court will do that.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

In cases in which burglers have been killed by homeowners, after they have left the house, by the homeowner, police often say that they should drag him back in the house, before calling 911. I don't know if they are serious. However, it is true that if the intruder is killed in your house, nothing will happen to you. So, who knows?

Not in Britain. There's a doctrine about "reasonable force" over here, which generally doesn't include killing someone, unless you can show that your own life really depended on it.

There have been a few celebrated cases here in which even wounding a burglar with a gun has led to prosecution and guilty verdicts.

Nobody agrees with this. However, the implication of the alternative is that people start arming themselves and this seems like the thin end of the wedge in creating a society like the US. So, in this case, I think I side with the narrow interpretation of what a person can be allowed to do.

MG

[Brownian Motion]

Dana Buckman, 46, walked into an auto shop brandishing a semiautomatic pistol last summer, only to have it turned on him by two AutoZone employees, police said. The men beat Buckman with a metal pipe and held him with his own gun.

Buckman escaped and was arrested a week later.

He pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and was sentenced to 18 years in prison as a repeat violent felon.

Guy had a gun, lost the gun to his intended victims, who then beat him? But somehow he escaped? Doesn't add up.

[Jim Alfredson]

The difference between selfdefense and selfjustice. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm sure the court will do that.

You can't say that because the article does not state whether or not the employees chased him off property. It just says the defendant claims they kept beating him once he was out of the store. If he was still on Autozone property, ie in the parking lot, they would be well justified.

[Robert J]

additional facts

c) Copyright 2006, Democrat & Chronicle. All Rights Reserved.

Dana Buckman got more than he bargained for when he held up a Rochester auto-parts store on July 5, 2005.

Moments after Buckman brandished a 9mm semiautomatic pistol to steal cash from AutoZone at 569 Lyell Ave., employees Eli Crespo and Jerry Vega beat him with a metal pipe and held him at bay with his own gun.

Although a battered Buckman escaped when Crespo and Vega recovered the money and retreated into the store to call 911, he was arrested a week later, pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and was sentenced to 18 years in prison as a repeat violent felon.

Now, however, Buckman is suing AutoZone and the two employees who walloped him, claiming they pursued him from the store, committed assault and battery and intentionally inflicted emotional distress.

"In some respects, you wonder if a case like this even needs a defense. It speaks for itself," said lawyer Patrick B. Naylon of the firm of Goldberg Segalla LLP, which represents AutoZone and the employees in the case.

But lawyer Phillip R. Hurwitz, who represented Buckman in the criminal case and also filed the civil suit in April in state Supreme Court, said Crespo and Vega crossed the line by pursuing Buckman and attacking him.

"The danger was past," Hurwitz said. "These two employees took it upon themselves to go after Mr. Buckman after he left the store."

The lawsuit isn't frivolous, Hurwitz said.

"Absolutely not," he said. "If it had happened in the store and they were defending themselves, it would be a whole different dynamic. These employees weren't defending themselves."

Naylon said he intends to vigorously defend the store and its employees.

"First, there were no charges brought against these individuals, which demonstrated that the police and the district attorney believed there was nothing wrong with catching the criminal who robbed the store," he said.

"Second, they did not pursue him. He had forced them to the back door, and he went out the front door and came around the corner to where they were. How ironic it is that this individual has the audacity to commence an action against the people who used his gun after he pointed the same gun at them. ‹i›Please!"

Crespo and Vega no longer work at the store. They couldn't be reached for comment.

Buckman, 46, began his prison term in February after pleading guilty to first-degree robbery. The plea resolved other felony charges of second- and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

Although Monroe County District Attorney Michael C. Green declined to discuss Buckman's chance of winning a civil lawsuit, he said the force used by Crespo and Vega appeared to be lawful.

"There doesn't seem to be any question that they were justified," he said.

"How that shakes out in terms of the civil law, I can't comment on."

[Claude]

The difference between selfdefense and selfjustice. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm sure the court will do that.

You can't say that because the article does not state whether or not the employees chased him off property. It just says the defendant claims they kept beating him once he was out of the store. If he was still on Autozone property, ie in the parking lot, they would be well justified.

Maybe the rules are different in the US, but over here when it comes to self defense, it's irrelevant if the burglar is on your lawn or on the street. You can't beat someone up because he violated your property.

When it comes to burglars, you are allowed to defend yourself with all means when your physical health is in danger, and you can detain a burglar until the police arrives. This has to be proportionate to the danger and to be reasonable. There is no way you can act revenge on the burglar just because he is still on your property.

Edited June 13, 2006 by Claude

[BruceH]

"The danger was past," Hurwitz said. "These two employees took it upon themselves to go after Mr. Buckman after he left the store."

The danger was past to whom? Obviously this guy is a thug and might've tried to rob someone else.

Or come back and try to rob the same place again.

[Edward]

In cases in which burglers have been killed by homeowners, after they have left the house, by the homeowner, police often say that they should drag him back in the house, before calling 911. I don't know if they are serious. However, it is true that if the intruder is killed in your house, nothing will happen to you. So, who knows?

Not in Britain. There's a doctrine about "reasonable force" over here, which generally doesn't include killing someone, unless you can show that your own life really depended on it.

There have been a few celebrated cases here in which even wounding a burglar with a gun has led to prosecution and guilty verdicts.

Nobody agrees with this. However, the implication of the alternative is that people start arming themselves and this seems like the thin end of the wedge in creating a society like the US. So, in this case, I think I side with the narrow interpretation of what a person can be allowed to do.

MG

The doctrine of reasonable force is also in effect in the United States. A person may not use deadly physical force unless he/she is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death AND (unless you are in Louisiana or Florida) retreat is impossible. However, there is no duty to retreat if you are in your own home. I think it unfortunate if British law requires retreat in such instance.

As for the lawsuit, it definitely has merit, and, under the letter of the law, the plaintiff should prevail.

[Dan Gould]

In cases in which burglers have been killed by homeowners, after they have left the house, by the homeowner, police often say that they should drag him back in the house, before calling 911. I don't know if they are serious. However, it is true that if the intruder is killed in your house, nothing will happen to you. So, who knows?

Not in Britain. There's a doctrine about "reasonable force" over here, which generally doesn't include killing someone, unless you can show that your own life really depended on it.

There have been a few celebrated cases here in which even wounding a burglar with a gun has led to prosecution and guilty verdicts.

Nobody agrees with this. However, the implication of the alternative is that people start arming themselves and this seems like the thin end of the wedge in creating a society like the US. So, in this case, I think I side with the narrow interpretation of what a person can be allowed to do.

MG

The doctrine of reasonable force is also in effect in the United States. A person may not use deadly physical force unless he/she is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death AND (unless you are in Louisiana or Florida) retreat is impossible. However, there is no duty to retreat if you are in your own home. I think it unfortunate if British law requires retreat in such instance.

As for the lawsuit, it definitely has merit, and, under the letter of the law, the plaintiff should prevail.

Are you a lawyer?

[jazzypaul]

Reasons why anyone who sides with the plaintiff in this case is an absolute moron:

1) Being robbed at gunpoint isn't just being robbed. It's a psychological mindfuck that leaves scars well past the actual event. I know this one from experience. These guys had to go to work every day, and it certainly isn't good for the mind to think that your workplace is so unsafe that you could get killed. For me, it happened right outside my front door. Same thing. If I'd had a gun, or the ability (or bravery) to grab his, that would have been one dead asshole.

1a) if you haven't been robbed, you shouldn't be saying jack shit right now.

2) If someone brandishes a gun, then the idea was to take your life. Plain and simple. If the perp didn't want to take someone's life, he would have robbed them with a banana. But, there's threat of life, and that doesn't deserve an ass beating long enough and hard enough to ensure that it doesn't happen again? Remind me never to go to Luxembourg!

3) Jim already brought up this point, but if they allow him to flee unscathed, he might try to do this again to someone else. They did society a favor.

4) What is this world coming to when someone who is robbing people at gunpoint has any rights beyond three meals a day in a 8x8 cell?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

In cases in which burglers have been killed by homeowners, after they have left the house, by the homeowner, police often say that they should drag him back in the house, before calling 911. I don't know if they are serious. However, it is true that if the intruder is killed in your house, nothing will happen to you. So, who knows?

Not in Britain. There's a doctrine about "reasonable force" over here, which generally doesn't include killing someone, unless you can show that your own life really depended on it.

There have been a few celebrated cases here in which even wounding a burglar with a gun has led to prosecution and guilty verdicts.

Nobody agrees with this. However, the implication of the alternative is that people start arming themselves and this seems like the thin end of the wedge in creating a society like the US. So, in this case, I think I side with the narrow interpretation of what a person can be allowed to do.

MG

The doctrine of reasonable force is also in effect in the United States. A person may not use deadly physical force unless he/she is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death AND (unless you are in Louisiana or Florida) retreat is impossible. However, there is no duty to retreat if you are in your own home. I think it unfortunate if British law requires retreat in such instance.

As for the lawsuit, it definitely has merit, and, under the letter of the law, the plaintiff should prevail.

I've never heard of the law here requiring one to evacuate one's home under these circumstances. Of course, if you were in the street, it's a different matter and anyone with any sense would get the hell out, rather than tackle someone armed.

MG

[Claude]

Remind me never to go to Luxembourg!

You'll be much safer here

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_953.html

[Edward]

In cases in which burglers have been killed by homeowners, after they have left the house, by the homeowner, police often say that they should drag him back in the house, before calling 911. I don't know if they are serious. However, it is true that if the intruder is killed in your house, nothing will happen to you. So, who knows?

Not in Britain. There's a doctrine about "reasonable force" over here, which generally doesn't include killing someone, unless you can show that your own life really depended on it.

There have been a few celebrated cases here in which even wounding a burglar with a gun has led to prosecution and guilty verdicts.

Nobody agrees with this. However, the implication of the alternative is that people start arming themselves and this seems like the thin end of the wedge in creating a society like the US. So, in this case, I think I side with the narrow interpretation of what a person can be allowed to do.

MG

The doctrine of reasonable force is also in effect in the United States. A person may not use deadly physical force unless he/she is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death AND (unless you are in Louisiana or Florida) retreat is impossible. However, there is no duty to retreat if you are in your own home. I think it unfortunate if British law requires retreat in such instance.

As for the lawsuit, it definitely has merit, and, under the letter of the law, the plaintiff should prevail.

Are you a lawyer?

Yes, among other things. Of course, I am by no means a criminal law expert; but I do have a solid understanding of the rules of self-defense and, just as any good lawyer, I know how to look up what I do not know or understand.

How this case is decided is going to depend largely on the particular facts and circumstances. You definitely cannot pursue a retreating criminal who assaulted you in order to beat the crap out of him. I got the impression that that was what happened here, but after re-reading this thread I am not so sure. I, admittedly, do not understand what measures may legally be taken to pursue and restrain an assailant while waiting for law enforcement officers to arrive, which might very well be what the defendants here attempted to do.

Jazzypaul, I do not think that it is a matter of siding with the plaintiff. It is a matter of what the law permits, and, believe it or not, most laws were put into place to protect certain rights even though the results that are ultimately reached in a particular incident may seem perverse.

Edited June 13, 2006 by Edward

[AllenLowe]

actually, I was thinking of suing Weizen for giving me a headache -

[Jazzmoose]

A person may not use deadly physical force unless he/she is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death AND (unless you are in Louisiana or Florida) retreat is impossible.

Exactly. So do not go near the CD shelves...

[Edward]

actually, I was thinking of suing Weizen for giving me a headache -

I'm sorry, but I don't do class action lawsuits.

(Ha! Ha! - just kidding, Weizen!)