- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dollar General store clerk sued for shooting armed robber
Posted on 5/12/23 at 10:22 am to Witty_Username
Posted on 5/12/23 at 10:22 am to Witty_Username
My concealed carry class taught us that you might not be liable in criminal court due to self defense but it is highly likely you still get sued in civil court. Just another reason to shoot only when absolutely necessary. There's also special interests groups you can pay monthly who'll help you with representation after a shooting.
1
Posted on 5/12/23 at 10:22 am to Witty_Username
quote:
willfully harmed the suspect as he was leaving the store.
I'm sure there is video of the suspect either leaving the store with the loot or still a threat.
Probably will be an easy case
Posted on 5/12/23 at 10:24 am to Witty_Username
The state should sue the father for raising a lousy kid.
Posted on 5/12/23 at 10:28 am to Witty_Username
Plaintiffs' lawyers are having some level of success with "failure to provide" security claims (although the plaintiff being a father of the robber distinguishes this one from the others).
The "assault and battery" exclusion in insurance policies is now interpreted very liberally in favor of the insurance company.
It was originally designed to prevent coverage if the insured engaged in an assault. Now, the exclusion covers any assault or battery regardless of who did it. So, if this robber shoots a customer and the customer sues the store for "lack of security", the store has no insurance if the policy has the A and B exclusion.
The "assault and battery" exclusion in insurance policies is now interpreted very liberally in favor of the insurance company.
It was originally designed to prevent coverage if the insured engaged in an assault. Now, the exclusion covers any assault or battery regardless of who did it. So, if this robber shoots a customer and the customer sues the store for "lack of security", the store has no insurance if the policy has the A and B exclusion.
This post was edited on 5/12/23 at 10:33 am
Posted on 5/12/23 at 10:30 am to Red12_Black4
quote:
but it is highly likely you still get sued in civil court.
No doubt. The systems are changing to protect the criminal element and move cash that direction.
Posted on 5/12/23 at 10:31 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
This is why businesses close in black neighborhoods. Then they cry racism.
They bring this crap on themselves.
Posted on 5/12/23 at 10:33 am to chryso
quote:
sue the father for raising a lousy kid.
Wouldn’t they have to know who that person would be?
Posted on 5/12/23 at 10:33 am to Tempratt
quote:
They bring this crap on themselves.
Every bit of it, then cannot understand why its not "racism."
I wouldnt locate any business in those neighborhoods. Not a single one.
Posted on 5/12/23 at 11:10 am to Witty_Username
quote:
According to Anderson, this was the sixth armed robbery at the Dollar General store since August 2022. He informed officers there had been four robberies and two attempted robberies.
I wonder how many of these Marquarius Thomas was responsible for?
Posted on 5/12/23 at 11:12 am to RogerTheShrubber
1000% correct.
Posted on 5/12/23 at 11:13 am to Witty_Username
This is one of those situations where you tell the judge, "Regardless of the decision, I am not paying anything."
Posted on 5/12/23 at 12:17 pm to Witty_Username
What POS lawyer even took that case
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News