TexasCHLforum.com

wheelgun1958 wrote:Don't play Batman. Protect only your own.

There it is!

wheelgun1958 wrote:Don't play Batman. Protect only your own.

Read the article. That's exactly what he was doing.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men have insurance." Me

jmorris wrote:Makes me awfully glad not to be in IN any more.

The same lawsuits could be filed here just as easily. In several ways Indiana seems a much more gun friendly than Texas.

As far as the security guard's lawsuit (and I certainly hope she is an EX-security guard), Indiana also has a civil immunity law for someone who was defending himself or others, but of course he will have to go to court to show he acted in SD. (I would think the DA's decision not to prosecute would be helpful). I don't know that Kroger would get any relief from the civil immunity law.

The mother filed in federal courts, and I wonder if this was to try to get around the Indiana civil immunity law. Also, ironic to note that her lawsuit does not mention her son died in the commission of a robbery.

Their best bet is for the judges to realize these suits are completely nuts and dismiss both suits pronto.

This is exactly what's wrong with my beloved country.

this lady is probably either friends or family of the guy who got shot.prolly trying to cash in on a incedent.

tomtexan wrote:She must be a democrat.

Goes without saying.

wheelgun1958 wrote:Don't play Batman. Protect only your own.

Really? Did you read the article? And if so,,, is that really the personal opinion you have based on the article?

E.Marquez wrote:

wheelgun1958 wrote:Don't play Batman. Protect only your own.

Really? Did you read the article? And if so,,, is that really the personal opinion you have based on the article?

this seems to be a common belief around here. I do NOT subscribe to this but ask almost anyone my moral compass is all messed up

She was most likely told she was due a payday by an attorney looking for an easy commission. The problem here, IMHO, is not the greedy attorney or the opportunistic plaintiff. The problem is with the judge who does not throw this garbage out of court. The problem is with a system that pays a jackpot because it is cheaper than fighting the claim in court.

On the lighter side... After reading the story... I am thinking the .380 isn't such a bad choice after all.

I didn't see this as playing batman. The guy shot because the criminal came at him.

I'm no lawyer.

However, from the cheap seats here it looks like a classic 'nuisance' type lawsuit. The plaintiff in both cases really doesn't want to go to trial because the odds of an award aren't good at all, and let's face it - you probably don't have Racehorse Haynes or Rusty Hardin on her legal team. But Kroger is a big company, and has a lot of money, and ergo they just might be willing to pay a fraction of the alleged "damages" to make it all go away.

Toni Atkinson contends Kroger neglected to enforce a policy that prohibits employees from carrying firearms while on duty and “owed Atkinson a duty to exercise reasonable care for his safety” while in the store.

Hey, criminals need a safe work environment, too!

texanjoker wrote:Typical. There is always a lawsuit in a OIS> No different here. People want their payday.

Yup...people will turn any situation into a payday if they can.

As Shakespear siad "the first thing we need to do is kill all the lawyers".

Yup. This is clearly an "ambulance chaser" lawyer looking for his bar tab money filing against "money bags" Kroger. Political correctness (and insurance) says they'll settle for a pittance for him and Wanda-Joe Trailer Park. They'll go buy some "fancy beer", cigarettes and lottery tickets with their free windfall, and we'll pay higher grocery prices thanks to Kroger's increased insurance premiums. Welcome to the US "legal system" folks..... As any legal scholar will tell you; we live in a land of laws, not justice.....