Michigan man allowed to sue store that he robbed because he was shot

[Speedway]

MOUNT CLEMENS, Mich.—A Michigan judge says a man who claims he was chased, shot and beaten by workers at a store he'd just robbed can sue the men. But only if he comes up with $10,000 within two weeks.
Scott T. Zielinski is serving an 8-year prison sentence after being convicted of unarmed robbery for the November 2007 heist at Nick's Party Stop in Clinton Township.

The 23-year-old filed a lawsuit against the store, its owner and three employees in April. Zielinski was shot twice and claims he was excessively beaten.

Circuit Judge David Viviano ruled this week that although Zielinski is indigent and imprisoned, he must post a $10,000 bond to cover the store and employees' attorneys fees if he looses the case.

Zielinski is seeking $125,000.

 

[Plural of Mongoose]

More proof that the purp. is always cheaper dead.

 

[JRyan]

utter garbage.

If I were the judge I would have added time to his sentence. .

 

[CmdrFenix]

No perp should be allowed to sue *anyone* they robbed or attempted to rob because of injuries sustained DURING AN ILLEGAL ACT!

 

[Marcus5aurelius]

More proof that the purp. is always cheaper dead.

Yep. +1

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This actually shows a glimmer of hope - can you imagine a MA judge requiring a plaintiff to post a bond to cover defense attorney fees in the event a suit brought by a criminal loses in court?

If the suit is meritorious, the plaintiff should have no problem finding investors to put this $$ at risk (google "lawsuit syncidation" for some interesting articles on this concept - can a hedge fund investing in personal injury suits be far behind?)

 

[Baystatesuks]

You can sue anybody for use of excessive force in almost all states. You don't waive that cause of action just because you were stupid or committing a crime. It sucks, but all case law consistently points to having that right.

I agree that if you are going shoot someone robbing the store, make sure it is a kill shot. Then when the estate sues, it is your story versus a dead guy's story = you win.

 

[MXD]

He was convicted of "Unarmed" robbery. They probably would have been in the clear if they just gave him a beating.

 

[icyclefar]

If I were a betting man, I'd say the insurance carrier for the store (assuming they are covered for this stuff) will offer to settle with the scum bag IF he is able to find some other POS to put up the 10K for him.

Now THAT my friends, is the American way.

FAIL

 

[terraformer]

If I were a betting man, I'd say the insurance carrier for the store (assuming they are covered for this stuff) will offer to settle with the scum bag IF he is able to find some other POS to put up the 10K for him.

Now THAT my friends, is the American way.

FAIL

Actually, intentional acts, ie shooting someone in self defense, usually is not covered under ins, even if it is justified so the ins company may not be involved at all. It is the catch 22. You claim SD and you open up a can of liability whoop ass that is not covered by common ins (though you can get extra riders for such things) but protect yourself from criminal liability. You claim you shot by accident you are covered by liability ins but you lose your criminal protection as now you negligently discharged a firearm.

 

[Aube]

How is someone a victim of unarmed robbery when they are armed?

Stupid. Then chase them after and shoot them? Double Stupid.

 

[drgrant]

Circuit Judge David Viviano ruled this week that although Zielinski is indigent and imprisoned, he must post a $10,000 bond to cover the store and employees' attorneys fees if he looses the case.

Gee, of only stuff like that would happen in MA. Make civil suit filers liable for damages if they fail.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

You can sue anybody for use of excessive force in almost all states. You don't waive that cause of action just because you were stupid or committing a crime. It sucks, but all case law consistently points to having that right.

There is FL and at least one or two other states that basically block civil suits in the aftermath of an SD shooting, if the shooter is not convicted criminally. It should be the law nationally.

-Mike

 

[dsm]

Just because the guy is allowed to sue doesn't mean he's going to win. The judge's requirement for him to post bond may be recognition of the fact that he's not likely to.

 

[steveyc272]

In general, chasing an unarmed perpetrator and then allegedly beating and shooting him doesn't sound like the best idea. Of course, I have no idea what really happened in this case.

 

[TomH]

How is someone a victim of unarmed robbery when they are armed?

Stupid. Then chase them after and shoot them? Double Stupid.

Sounds like justice to me.