Store owner stops robber

[wesm1957]

Look at this link! A store owner in Grand Rapids stopped a robber, and laid him out cold! I am not sure if the video will show up, but the sound is there from the story. The store owner broke the robber's jaw with a carpenter's level after seeing the robbery from an upstairs office window. The last part of the story says that robbers have sued store owners over such things! I think that is where the judges need to be questioned for even letting that into a court room. The guy is going to rob a store, gets stopped in his tracks and gets to sue. Where is the justice in that????

here is the link - http://video.woodtv.com/index.php?video_id=2177

here is the printed store with some pictures. Man that had to hurt!!!!!

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4390950

[MacombMonitor]

Originally Posted by wesm1957

The last part of the story says that robbers have sued store owners over such things! I think that is where the judges need to be questioned for even letting that into a court room.

Judges need to be questioned? I think in a circumstance like this, the judge needs the same remedy the robbers received!

[RevGary]

In addition to some judges, it is also the Distruict Attorneys who allow the actions to go forth because of bias against individual rights of self protection. DA's in various jurusdictions have done this repeatedly where a shop owner takes preventative action to foil a robbery or assault and becomes, NOT a victim, but a criminal, for doing so. There are laws on the books in all areas which define proper use of force and just how much force can be used to overcome a robbery or assault. Persons in the heat of a confrontation may unknowingly use too much force and the DA's will jump at the chance to prosecute them for protecting themselves or their loved ones with 'excessive force'.

[Alpha432]

MAN this opens the flood gates of frustration for me. I think the shop owner did the right thing. He took it into his own hands. He hit the guy and knocked him out cold. If he had not done that the burgler would have got away to rob again another day. I am a poet and didn't even know it. This is the guys business, his lively hood, how he makes his money. As long as the owner didn't keep hitting him once he was down and unconcious. If he kept beeting him to a pulp then yeah that might be excessive. This should be a simple self defence open and shut case. Everything is so politically correct in this world it is sick. If the robber sues and wins then SHAME on the justice system. You should have known the risks of robbing that store before you did it.
Just like the air marshalls that killed that man in Miami after he said he had a bomb, was reaching for something and disobeyed their orders. His family and all the other tree huggers of the world are crying and saying he was innocent and said he was bipolar and didn't know what he was doing. Are the marshalls just supposed to sit back and say "Oh, well why didn't you say so, and take the wifes word for it? What happens when the next real terrorist takes advantage of that kind of gullability and claims bipolar and then blows of half of the terminal or makes another 9/11. They were doing what they were trained to do. Bottom line, he was not following orders, was reaching for something. Did he not take his meds? Maybe, but that is not the marshalls problem or my families problem that might be on that plane? What happened happened.

Sorry for the rant. This is just my opinion, I cold be wrong. But I am not. LOL

[MacombMonitor]

Originally Posted by RevGary

In addition to some judges, it is also the Distruict Attorneys who allow the actions to go forth because of bias against individual rights of self protection. DA's in various jurusdictions have done this repeatedly where a shop owner takes preventative action to foil a robbery or assault and becomes, NOT a victim, but a criminal, for doing so. There are laws on the books in all areas which define proper use of force and just how much force can be used to overcome a robbery or assault. Persons in the heat of a confrontation may unknowingly use too much force and the DA's will jump at the chance to prosecute them for protecting themselves or their loved ones with 'excessive force'.

Here in Michigan we have the right to use deadly force, if we are in fear for our life. An armed robbery would justify deadly force. Dead men tell no tales, and can't sue you for injuries either.

What is bad about our laws is the punishment for armed robbery is the same as for murder. So the robber has no incentive to leave behind any live witnesses!

Bill