Do not mess with Autozone
 

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/art...Suit12-ON.html

Robber sues store after employees beat him

Associated Press
Jun. 12, 2006 07:30 AM

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - A man is suing an auto-parts store for assault and battery after he attempted to hold up the business and employees responded by beating him with a metal pipe.

Dana Buckman, 46, walked into an auto shop brandishing a semiautomatic pistol last summer, only to have it turned on him by two AutoZone employees, police said. The men beat Buckman with a metal pipe and held him with his own gun.

Buckman escaped and was arrested a week later.

He pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and was sentenced to 18 years in prison as a repeat violent felon.

Buckman claims the men chased him out of the store and continued to beat him. He is suing the auto shop and the men for the injuries he suffered and for emotional distress.

"In some respects, you wonder if a case like this even needs a defense. It speaks for itself," said lawyer Patrick B. Naylon, who represents AutoZone and the employees.

But lawyer Phillip R. Hurwitz, who represents Buckman, said the employees crossed the line by pursuing Buckman and attacking him.

"The danger was past," Hurwitz said. "These two employees took it upon themselves to go after Mr. Buckman after he left the store."

Now how exactly did he escape?

He better be laughed out of court. Once you pull a gun on someone, you lose all right to claim what someone does to you after that point.

Wow, that is hillarious.

It'd be awesome if the judge uses a pipe instead of a gavel, and then jumps over the bench and beats the guy and his lawyer with it.

"But But, he hit me with a pipe and all I had was a gun". I imagine that's what the robber said to his lawyer... What a bunch of crap, I can't even begin to rant on how stupid this situation is.....

I hate to tell you folks, he has a very valid case and will probably win a very large sum of money. If they persued him outside their premises they are now the ones commiting a felony assault with a deadly weapon.

This isn't a joke case. he got his for the robbery, I'm kind of hoping they get theirs for being fuckwads.

Not sure what to think about this Autozone case, but it reminds me a little about an incident from a few years ago where a crazed airline passenger who tried to break into the cockpit was beaten to death by other passengers even after he was already restrained.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../14436167.html


Again, I don't know the details of the autozone case, but that airline case seemed to cross the line from heroism to people getting their jollies off by bashing some guy's head in.

No charges were filed in that case.

I applaud the actions of the employees and hope the judge hits this asshat lawyer upside the head with a lead pipe as well.

Just like an idiot to bring a gun to a pipe fight.

charges != civil accountability.

They can still be held civilly responsible for the injuries he suffered and have a DA decide that their actions don't merit criminal charges.

Fine, point taken. I hope they countersue for the "emotional distress" at having a loaded weapon pointed at their heads.

If he has a civil case for that, they should have one as well. I say let em both win and call it a draw.

Fair enough, though I really was just hoping to illustrate another instance of self-defense that might have crossed the line...

Sure, but my take on the example was kind of ambiguous. I wasn't sure whether you were saying the two are analogous to one another and thus what's good for one is good for the other, or if you were saying you thought the guy had a case here and that there should have been charges filed in the plane incident as well.

If somebody pulled a motherfucking gun on, I'd be a "fuckwad" too, and then some.

I actually think that the autozone case is more ambiguous, but there is certainly ambiguity in the airline case too. I probably should not have included the "no charges were filed" as it was rather ancillary.

It does seem to be an interesting question to me regarding whether self-defense should automatically absolve someone who does much more to the attacker than is required for self-preservation. However, you are right in that there is much difficulty in assigning motive to the defenders in these two cases, since one cannot usually ascertain mental state and decision-making processes from a news report.

Again, I just tossed it out there since I thought it might have been an interesting question.

:D Soda on my monitor, thanks!

Word.

This guy should be suing God....I mean, we are all his children, and it appears that he wasn't raised right at all.

If you're hoping they get theirs, you obviously don't hate to tell us. While I do agree that he might win, but I certainly don't hope he does.

Hope they get theirs? For what? Being pissed about having a gun drawn on them? It's not like they just started beating some random customer.


This is an easy example of:

if gun!=pulled{
do nothing;
} else
beat the MFer;
}



The court needs to stand up and say that you need to accept responsibility for your own actions. Drawing a gun on someone generally means that you would have no problem taking that person's life so you should not be surprised to find a bit of a negative response from them to that action.


The fact that he got away tells me that they were not beating him with intent to kill or they could have easily subdued him within the store (I would think a couple grown men beating you with a pipe with that much force could easily do that).

I badly wanna be on this jury.

I could see possible criminal charges if they chased this guy out of the store and continued to beat him, but I'm not sure I'd want to see these guys on the hook for a civil case. There is plenty of emotional distress to go around.

Well I'd definately say that the emotional distress part is bullshit. I can see them being held liable for beating him after they chased him out of the store. I think it might be a bit difficult though for him to prove which injuries came from that as opposed to which injuries came from them defending themselves.