Seems to me that when some scumbag elects to go “outside the laws of society” he should forfeit the rights and protections that being a law abiding member of that society provides. You can’t hold the victim to a higher standard than the criminal chose to use. This nonsense about criminals being able to violate your rights with no consequence but the victim has to respect the criminal’s rights has to stop.
Now if there is no liability coverage or defense and the insured has no assets that would respond, there would be no money to collect. I’d bet the suit get dropped at that point.
He does have assets, his store. I doubt it the case will be dropped because of him being a store owner. They will probobly go haver his homeowners insurance now. Lawyers will always look for any kind of insurance policy they might pay first, because if its supposed to be covered under the policy, there is a much greater chance of getting a payout.
What I think the point is the fact that the robber’s family is trying to get money. I can’t believe it got his far!
When the shop owner chased the unarmed thief (research shows it was a case of beer) out of the store and shot him, the owner became the perpetrator of a crime – probably manslaughter. You do not chase someone and shoot them unless they are a threat to you or violence has already started and you are trying to protect yourself or your family. You can only use deadly force legally when you believe that you are in immediate danger. That is the state law that applies to concealed carry holders, and the law of the old west that said that you don’t shoot an unarmed man or shoot someone in the back. Why would you want to shoot someone who is leaving unless it is the continuation of an armed confrontation? This particular incident does not appear to have been anything but petty theft and the shop owner was not harmed. The best action would be to just call the cops and let them handle it after the thief leaves. This incident gives lawful gun owners a bad name and I would bet that the owner does not hold a concealed carry permit because this would not have happened if he did. This is just my opinion based on hearsay information, since I was not there when it happened.
Funny how coverage for this intended act can be excluded, and rightfully, but that the court should allow the relatives to bring suit when the suit should also be excluded, that is, no action should be allowed at law to bring suit for an unlawful act. What do judges do, if not decide whether something is actionable?
the relatives of the dead criminal should have no right to file a suit against this hero. a judge should have dismissed this frivilous suit at once. that being said, a shooting is an occurrence, how could it not be? I would really love to see this policy and read the definitions page.
In insurance terminology, occurrence is defined as an accident or a continuous exposure to conditions which result in injury or damage, provided the injury or damage is neither expected nor intended.
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.
If he “chased him down” and shot him, he was running away and no longer a threat. I’m all for shooting robbers, but not in the back.
Seems to me that when some scumbag elects to go “outside the laws of society” he should forfeit the rights and protections that being a law abiding member of that society provides. You can’t hold the victim to a higher standard than the criminal chose to use. This nonsense about criminals being able to violate your rights with no consequence but the victim has to respect the criminal’s rights has to stop.
Now if there is no liability coverage or defense and the insured has no assets that would respond, there would be no money to collect. I’d bet the suit get dropped at that point.
He does have assets, his store. I doubt it the case will be dropped because of him being a store owner. They will probobly go haver his homeowners insurance now. Lawyers will always look for any kind of insurance policy they might pay first, because if its supposed to be covered under the policy, there is a much greater chance of getting a payout.
What I think the point is the fact that the robber’s family is trying to get money. I can’t believe it got his far!
Venue: Jackson, Mississippi…
Defendant: Sarbinder Singh Pannu…
Justice is not blind.
When the shop owner chased the unarmed thief (research shows it was a case of beer) out of the store and shot him, the owner became the perpetrator of a crime – probably manslaughter. You do not chase someone and shoot them unless they are a threat to you or violence has already started and you are trying to protect yourself or your family. You can only use deadly force legally when you believe that you are in immediate danger. That is the state law that applies to concealed carry holders, and the law of the old west that said that you don’t shoot an unarmed man or shoot someone in the back. Why would you want to shoot someone who is leaving unless it is the continuation of an armed confrontation? This particular incident does not appear to have been anything but petty theft and the shop owner was not harmed. The best action would be to just call the cops and let them handle it after the thief leaves. This incident gives lawful gun owners a bad name and I would bet that the owner does not hold a concealed carry permit because this would not have happened if he did. This is just my opinion based on hearsay information, since I was not there when it happened.
Funny how coverage for this intended act can be excluded, and rightfully, but that the court should allow the relatives to bring suit when the suit should also be excluded, that is, no action should be allowed at law to bring suit for an unlawful act. What do judges do, if not decide whether something is actionable?
the relatives of the dead criminal should have no right to file a suit against this hero. a judge should have dismissed this frivilous suit at once. that being said, a shooting is an occurrence, how could it not be? I would really love to see this policy and read the definitions page.
Mary B – An occurrence is unexpected, the shooting of someone and the results therefrom are not unexpected – relly pretty simple…
In insurance terminology, occurrence is defined as an accident or a continuous exposure to conditions which result in injury or damage, provided the injury or damage is neither expected nor intended.