Unbelievable: Hack attorney claims store clerk shouldn’t have defended his life

ViperJeff

Administrator
Just unbelievable


Unbelievable: Hack attorney claims store clerk shouldn’t have defended his life with gun | GunsSaveLife.com

Dead robber’s widow sues shop clerk

Albuquerque, NM (KRQE) - The wife of an armed robbery suspect shot dead by a shop clerk said the clerk was wrong, and now she has filed a civil lawsuit claiming wrongful death.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday on behalf of the Ramon Sedillo’s widow and child. Sedillo was shot and killed in October 2012 after police say he walked into Full Spectrum Smoke Shop armed with a gun and intending to rob the store.

Instead, the store clerk, Matthew Beasley, fired his gun at Sedillo killing him and injuring his 17-year-old alleged accomplice.Sedillo’s widow is now suing the store clerk saying he was in the wrong.

Sedillo’s attorney, Amavalise Jaramillo, the attorney for Sedillo’s widow, said it all comes down to who had more fault in the case.

While Jaramillo acknowledges the suspect’s role in what happened, he said Beasley shares more blame.

“He does bear some fault, but it’s like a pie. You divide out the fault accordingly, and Mr. Beasley could have done something different,” Jaramillo said.

The suit alleges surveillance video shows Beasley watching Sedillo and his accomplice getting ready to commit the crime. Jaramillo claims the clerk should have then called police or left the store instead of shooting Sedillo.

The lawsuit states the clerk decided to “ambush” the thieves.
 

oppo

Full Access Member
This crap is why every state should have laws to prevent lawsuits in a justified shooting and from anyone being able to sue for any damages resulting from their party's comission of a crime.
 

TheOl55

Full Access Member
Q. What is the ideal weight of a lawyer?

A. About three pounds, including the urn.

What a POS!
 
Last edited:

armoredman

Full Access Member
This is why Arizona has a constitutional amendment that reads as follows;
Arizona State Constitution said:
31. Damages for death or personal injuries
Section 31. No law shall be enacted in this state limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person, except that a crime victim is not subject to a claim for damages by a person who is harmed while the person is attempting to engage in, engaging in or fleeing after having engaged in or attempted to engage in conduct that is classified as a felony offense.
This states the criminal, but I think a good lawyer could easily prove that it applies to criminal families as well.
 

kwo51

Full Access Member
Florida has laws like that and the other perp is responsible for the injuries of all people at the scene.
 

ninja man

Full Access Member
my husband tried to rob a smoke shop, now he is dead. well, i should sue the shop owner because i dont have a job and need money.......
 

ninja man

Full Access Member
if someone pulled a gun on me and were within my reach, i would kill them. i was trained for many years on how to disarm someone. at that point, when i know that its me or him, i think instinct would kick in and i would just do it without thinking about it.
 

kwo51

Full Access Member
Your training in court could be called premeditation. A trained person should know how not to kill.Only a judge can kill.Teaching a person to shoot is easier to do than teaching them win not shoot.Lawyers will make a case on anything they can.
 

ninja man

Full Access Member
so be it. if you want to pull a weapon on me expect the worst...... unless you are out of my range. well, then, thats ok.
 

oppo

Full Access Member
Your training in court could be called premeditation. A trained person should know how not to kill.Only a judge can kill.Teaching a person to shoot is easier to do than teaching them win not shoot.Lawyers will make a case on anything they can.

By this logic, you could make the same arguement about time at the range or even being armed at all. You are either justified or you aren't.
 

ViperJeff

Administrator
Bad guys with intent to do harm should never get a second chance. If they what to be safe, stop breaking the law
 

ninja man

Full Access Member
i forgot..... a lot of my disarming techniques involves me stabbing/shooting you with your own weapon DURING the disarming process. not so much taking your weapon and pointing it at you, but getting into a position so while your hand is still on the weapon, you somehow manages to shoot/stab yourself..... so if that were to ever happen, i really wouldnt have fingerprints on the weapon where it counts... unless i decide to pick it up. regardless, the legal system sucks.
 

armoredman

Full Access Member
i forgot..... a lot of my disarming techniques involves me stabbing/shooting you with your own weapon DURING the disarming process. not so much taking your weapon and pointing it at you, but getting into a position so while your hand is still on the weapon, you somehow manages to shoot/stab yourself..... so if that were to ever happen, i really wouldnt have fingerprints on the weapon where it counts... unless i decide to pick it up. regardless, the legal system sucks.
That post could come back to haunt you if you ever do that, sounds like premeditated and conspiring to destroy evidence. Not a lawyer, just sayin'.
 
Last edited:

Members online

No members online now.
Top