I can hear the family now…”all he was doin’ was trying to scare the dude with his 9mm and get some cash. See..he ain’t had no paycheck in a few months and needed some new wheels and the dude had the nerve to shoot him”
“Justice” isn’t just blind……it’s stupid. It bars a defense for this guy but allows the money grubbing relatives of the thief to get rich over the criminal act? The store owner did society a favor by chasing the thief down and eliminating him. If he’d simply allow him to walk away, it would just happen again and maybe the shop owner would be shot to death.
The article is kind of misleading. The headline says “Robber”, but the article says “theif”. So was he an armed robber or just a shoplifter? If he was a robber, then the shooting is justified. If he was just a shoplifter, then the store owner took it too far. Either way, one less scum on the street. I don’t understand why this would not be an occurrence though. I can see it being excluded under the expected or intended clause, but not calling it an occurrence at all baffles me.
Well it came from Mississippi. It should not baffle anybody. The justice system in that area favors the welfare, ssi and wc extortion artist 100%. Then when someone fights back against one of them, the courts hang them out to dry. Can’t mess with those guberment subsidized votors!
Hey, folks, the definition of occurrence includes the phrase “…in bodily injury … neither expected not intended by the insured.
You stand there and pump a couple of rounds into someone you would intend or expect the injury or death. That is why it isn’t an occurrence, because it WAS expected or intended. Not a great technicality there from an insurance stand point.
I handled a claim under a homeowners policy, wherein the homeowner murdered his wife and was convicted. He attempted to have the homeowners policy pay for his defense costs! The homeowner was an insurance agency owner! No coverage.
You nailed it Anna but the insurance part of me thinks that might the “wrongful death” part be that the clerk chased the guy down rather than just out of the store? I would be interested to hear more about any criminal charges in this case.
If the shop keeper “chased” the perp and he was the property of his store this becomes a criminal act and the liability should be denied.
The big question is where were the participants when the shots were actually fired.
In NY once a criminal leaves your property the crime is considered as being ended and if you go after him without proper provocation you are now the criminal.
Another unanswered question that would be key in understanding what happened is WHERE specifically was the “robber” shot. If he was shot 3x in the back…i’d say this guy is toast. From the sounds of it, that might be the case. I still think its pathetic that the family is trying to sue for wrongful death. I have a better idea…get a job!
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Well that just crazy. Going to let the man make a profit even though he got killed in hazardous occupation.
I can hear the family now…”all he was doin’ was trying to scare the dude with his 9mm and get some cash. See..he ain’t had no paycheck in a few months and needed some new wheels and the dude had the nerve to shoot him”
“Justice” isn’t just blind……it’s stupid. It bars a defense for this guy but allows the money grubbing relatives of the thief to get rich over the criminal act? The store owner did society a favor by chasing the thief down and eliminating him. If he’d simply allow him to walk away, it would just happen again and maybe the shop owner would be shot to death.
The article is kind of misleading. The headline says “Robber”, but the article says “theif”. So was he an armed robber or just a shoplifter? If he was a robber, then the shooting is justified. If he was just a shoplifter, then the store owner took it too far. Either way, one less scum on the street. I don’t understand why this would not be an occurrence though. I can see it being excluded under the expected or intended clause, but not calling it an occurrence at all baffles me.
Well it came from Mississippi. It should not baffle anybody. The justice system in that area favors the welfare, ssi and wc extortion artist 100%. Then when someone fights back against one of them, the courts hang them out to dry. Can’t mess with those guberment subsidized votors!
Hey, folks, the definition of occurrence includes the phrase “…in bodily injury … neither expected not intended by the insured.
You stand there and pump a couple of rounds into someone you would intend or expect the injury or death. That is why it isn’t an occurrence, because it WAS expected or intended. Not a great technicality there from an insurance stand point.
I handled a claim under a homeowners policy, wherein the homeowner murdered his wife and was convicted. He attempted to have the homeowners policy pay for his defense costs! The homeowner was an insurance agency owner! No coverage.
You nailed it Anna but the insurance part of me thinks that might the “wrongful death” part be that the clerk chased the guy down rather than just out of the store? I would be interested to hear more about any criminal charges in this case.
If the shop keeper “chased” the perp and he was the property of his store this becomes a criminal act and the liability should be denied.
The big question is where were the participants when the shots were actually fired.
In NY once a criminal leaves your property the crime is considered as being ended and if you go after him without proper provocation you are now the criminal.
Is justice getting sad or what?
Another unanswered question that would be key in understanding what happened is WHERE specifically was the “robber” shot. If he was shot 3x in the back…i’d say this guy is toast. From the sounds of it, that might be the case. I still think its pathetic that the family is trying to sue for wrongful death. I have a better idea…get a job!