[quote]they chased her because she was guilty of a crime (although that was a bit extreme, i agree).<hr></blockquote>
Which is why they are being sued, because they aren't law enforcement officers so there is no reason for them to be chasing her. There is no reason for them to bang on her car, for them to physically accost her or to chase her at 90mph.
This is why the lawsuit exists. They acted outside the boundaries of the law under orders of their manager who represents Albertson's and their actions resulted in her child's death.
[quote]even though she wasnt running from a cop, she was running because she knew she was screwed. she panicked. that is the primary motivational factor involved.<hr></blockquote>
She didn't drive recklessly *before* they physically assaulted her, but she did *after* they did.
Why do you think that is?
Couldn't be from fear of a physical confrontation . . . no, never! It's because she's a dangerous and unsuccessful food theif!
[quote]there is still no evidence that they even touched her.<hr></blockquote>
Sure there is evidence, her testimony. There is no denial, as far as we know, so who is her word "against"?
And even if her words were against the clerks', they are criminals, too.
Someone who hires a hitman has no legal culpability, apparently. Inciting a riot is now legal in Eugeneland. So is attacking and chasing someone, apparently.
I don't want to live there, too dangerous. </strong><hr></blockquote>
According to the lawsuit, one of the employees got out of the car at that point and "confronted her at the stoplight, and accosted her verbally and physically." Rosenberger said the employee placed his foot on her bumper.
Somehow I doubt she'll have an eyewitness and that's going to be her word against theirs.
Anyway, just what are the guilty of? Speeding? Sure, if the police have already determined that. If a police officer is in a car chase and the suspect crashes, is the suspect going to be able to sue the police department? What if the grocers hadn't broken the speed limit?
The means used to catch a criminal should mirror the crime comitted. Police (hopefully) don´t shoot to stop a fleeing shoplifter but if he killed a man instead they do. Here the people chasing the woman didn´t make the sane judgement.
But why tie the two instances together? The woman should be prosecuted for her action and should be charged for negligent homicide and recieve a very mild, if any, punishment due to the circumstances.
The man ordering the chase should be prosecuted by the state (not the woman. She has nothing on him. He made his decision. She made hers) for using illegitime means to catch someone for a very little crime.
Anders, agreed. That's basically what I meant. Each party should be convicted of the crimes they are guilty of, not the hypothetical mish-mash of the two or even three separate sets of legal infractions.
The manager should be slapped on the wrist for relevant convictions.
The grocers should be ticketed or charged with misdemeanor reckless driving.
The woman should be charged for shoplifting, reckless endangerment / involuntary manslaughter.
Make no mistake, the kids chasing her and the manager made the worst decisions of their lives chasing this lady. But what's the age of these kids? Are they under 18? That can matter alot. If they are then the manager will most likely be charged with reckless endangerment of a minor. If they are 18+ then they own up to their own deeds. Who's to say a 17 year old has less judgement than an 18 year old? But dem's da laws.
But it still makes me sick to think this woman can possibly profit from the death of her 9 year old. Who brings their kid to the store with the intentions to shoplift? What if she got caught? great impression to leave on your child. And we wonder why there is so many screwed up kids in this country.
[quote] Just some thoughts. None of us are judges.<hr></blockquote>
We don't have to be Law is Basic in it's nature. Only liberal intepretations screw things up.
[quote]She was the lead car. She set the pace for the 'chase'. If she had been trying to 'get away' at 40mph they would have still followed her. She was going 90 because she was trying to escape and not own up to her actions. She was afraid. Afraid of going to jail. I doubt she was afraid of getting beat up. That's a weak argument, IMO. <hr></blockquote>
Irrelevant. The chase should NOT have happened anyways.
[quote] If the car with the dumbass baggers in it had crashed and one of them had been killed could their families sue her? Does her family have a 'policy' of breaking the law? Does Albertson's have a 'policy' of sending out dumbass baggers to break the law? I doubt it. It was a dumb, dumb act on the part of the manager. <hr></blockquote>
YES! If she was chasing them! The Agressor is culpable. That's our point. Also think about this. What if the Albertson's employees crashed and killed themselves. Albertson would be sued by the families of these baggers. Their job is to tend to the store not chase shoplifters. Albertsons loses in both cases here..hence the Manager will be fired most likely. Poor Judgement
[quote]The woman is guilty of manslaughter. The boys are guilty of reckless endangerment. The manager is guilty of being a bad manager, and being a first class moron. Albertson's should not have to pay this woman a cent. Rewarding criminals is a bad, bad idea. <hr></blockquote>
The boys are equally as guilty as accomplices in Manslaughter. If I drive you to a store and you murder someone inside. Even though my intentions where not to harm anyone I'm still culpable. That's how our system works.
[quote] I still don't know what "physically accosted" means exactly. Did they pull her hair? Punch her in the face? Grab her arm while reaching for her keys? Not enough facts to use the "physically accosted" argument in my forming of an opinion on this. <hr></blockquote>
If I came up and Kicked your car door or pounded your car windows...I think you would feel Acosted. Or do you feel like this only applies to ones body?
[quote]Since she is a crook, she is probably full of bullfeces when she says she was "accosted" both "verbally and physically" at the red light. They were probably telling her to stop and get out and wait for the cops. <hr></blockquote>
Doesn't matter. The Chase should have never happened in the first place. Anything that happened after will not change Albertson fate.
[quote] Regarding the license plate. Anybody with half a brain who was planning to steal something and take off in their car after would first put on a plate from another car onto their car. I'm sure these employees were thinking ahead and probably came to the conclusion that the plate could be a fake.<hr></blockquote>
She doesn't sound like a Career Criminal. She's stealing FOOD for Chrissakes. You make it sound like she's a hardened Felon.
[quote] Its also sad that people actually think that she should be able to sue and win when she is the one who killed her daughter!!! <hr></blockquote>
Had the Albertsons Employees followed Company procedure and Washington State Law that child would be alive today...and Albertson would have retain the 260.00 of food. Now this will cost them 100x that paltry amount. Foolish.
[quote]Imagine if the accident had not occurred despite the chase. Do you sympathizers still believe she could rightfuly sue? The conditions are the same. The grocers would have still 'endangered' her life and her kid's life. I don't think so. She endangered her child's life while driving recklessly. That's how her kid died...it doesn't matter why she was driving recklessly...her child's life was not in danger until she endangered it. <hr></blockquote>
That is NOT the way our Judicial system works. It's Cause and Effect. The fact the the employees left company property to attempt to retain a Civillian is wrong right there. As Groverat says the shoplifting was one incident and the employees actions yet another. One does not cancel out the other. It's as if you people think that it's ok to run someone over because they are jaywalking(They broke the Law so I'm exempt from my Lawless act). She endangered her childs life because of DIRECT actions by the Defendants. That makes them liable!
[quote] How about this. What if she ran over somebody instead of killing her own daughter? Is it still the grocer's fault? What if she ran over several people in succession? <hr></blockquote>
Yes if the Grocer was the Agressor and clearly violating State Law and Company Procedure. Why is this so hard of a concept to master. This case involves breaches of laws by both sides.
[quote] but she was motivated by fear as a result of expressing her own guilt. she ran because she was guilty of a crime. <hr></blockquote>
Whoa! Read what you are saying here! You are professing guilt for a Woman who has not had Due Process in a court of Law. She crashed her car killing her daughter miles away from the Store and she had not ONE piece of stolen merchandise in said car! You've got her convicted before her trial has been set. Please save yourself the embarassment and take a Law class.
[quote] thats just a load of sh*t she's hiding behind to draw away from her guilt and make her look pathetic and almost innocent in the eyes of the court. there is still no evidence that they even touched her. the words of a criminal never hold up in court. its like my word against a cops--who wins every time??? certainly not the accused... <hr></blockquote>
Cops have jurisdiction to Enforce the Law, Bag Boys do not!
[quote] Somehow I doubt she'll have an eyewitness and that's going to be her word against theirs.
Anyway, just what are the guilty of? Speeding? Sure, if the police have already determined that. If a police officer is in a car chase and the suspect crashes, is the suspect going to be able to sue the police department? What if the grocers hadn't broken the speed limit?
<hr></blockquote>
She won't need eyewitness. The Albertson employees were on COMPANY time chasing a shoplifter who possed not one piece of stolen merchandise. If she is guilty of Manslaughter then the employees could be consider accomplices in her childs death.
[quote] The manager should be slapped on the wrist for relevant convictions.
The grocers should be ticketed or charged with misdemeanor reckless driving.
The woman should be charged for shoplifting, reckless endangerment / involuntary manslaughter.
<hr></blockquote>
Actually the Manager should lose his Job. He put those employees into a situation that violeted company procedure and that they had no training in, and was unlawful. If they had been injured the parents of those employes would be devastated. It would be hard to charge I Manslaugter without also charging the assailants because they had a causitive effect on the plaintiffs "recklesness"
Yes but she still shouln't get any money. The employees go to jail for a while, punish them accordingly, but she should not win any monetary damages in civil court. The DA should charge the 3 Albertsons employees though.
The fact that anyone could justify this woman's actions just shows what a ****ed up justice system and school of thought we have in this country. The fact that the supermarket she stole from could in some way be held responsible is just absolutely ridiculous.
You can quote and respond all you want. You can try to legally justify your argument all you want. The bottom line is this woman shouldn't get a dime, and the most that should happen to the employees is a verbal reprimand.
Running from grocery store clerks who have just attacked you is not.
Once again:
She wasn't driving erratically before the "confrontation" but she was afterwards. Why?
[edit]
Can't forget this part:
She didn't even have the food. She left it at Albertson's.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The grocery clerks were trying to stop her because she broke the law and cops were not there to arrest her at the time. So, they were trying to catch her to help the cops.
The reason "why" she was driving crazy afterwards was because she discovered that they were trying to aprehend her for the cops to come and arrest her. Since she did not want to get into trouble for the law that she broke, she thought she could escape by speeding (and putting inocent lives at risk in the process).
She broke the law and tried to get away.
She speed along on the roads because she did not want to accept responsiblility for her actions.
[quote]During a brief hearing on Monday in Snohomish County Superior Court, Durrett entered a so-called Alford plea. In court papers, the woman said she believed herself innocent, but acknowledged she'd likely be convicted if the case went before a jury.
Judge Kenneth Cowsert agreed there was a "very strong likelihood" that Durrett would be found guilty as charged. He scheduled sentencing for May 14.
<hr></blockquote>
I still think that this woman and her attorney are using this as a bald attempt to both lessen her sentence and get a few bucks for their trouble. I agree that the store employees were fools, and the manager should be fired. But she should not get cash and prizes for this- if anything make Albertsons fund a battered womens shelter for a year, sentence the bean-brained store clerks (if they end up being charged, which at present they have not) to 2 years worth of community service, and fire the store manager.
So you are saying that these two situations should be approached in the same manner... stopping a violent assault, and stopping a lady with a young kid who tried stealing some groceries? I don't quite get it dude.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since criminals don't want to get caught and go to jail, what makes you think that if you politely ask a criminal caught in the act to "sit down and wait until the cops get there" that they would? Since they are criminals, they cannot be trusted. They will lie like she probably did (and still is) to evade any responsibility for their unlawful actions. So, you have to deal with them (criminals) forcefully and sometimes, they could get hurt in the process. Well, TFB if they do because they would most certainly hurt YOU if they thought it would get them out of trouble.
And what things did she steal before this that she didn't get caught at???
Are you so naive as to think this is her first time?
The lack of understanding you guys show of the basic principles of American law is very disturbing.
[quote]The grocery clerks were trying to stop her because she broke the law and cops were not there to arrest her at the time. So, they were trying to catch her to help the cops.<hr></blockquote>
Vigilante justice is illegal, mmmkay?
You can make a citizen's arrest, sure, but that is for a felony offense. Trying to steal $200 worth of food is not a felony. What you do as a citizen at that point is call the police (which they didn't do until she hit the tree) and maybe follow her (not chase and attack, follow). You are NOT allowed to break the law to catch a petty thief. You are NOT allowed to chase him/her at 90mph through busy streets. You are NOT allowed to physically confront the petty thief.
These are very basic tenets of law.
The level of hypocrisy is amazing. You people have finally admitted that the Albertson's employees were wrong in their actions but now you think they should be let off with a slap on the wrist while bemoaning her lack of personal responsibility. It's absolutely insane.
The only problem you guys have is this hatred of "sue for money" culture and you apply that to this case immediately without even thinking it through. Sure, there are frivolous cases, but not all cases are ridiculous.
But that's a little too much to ask from such an ignorant populace so used to making emotional judgements. That kind of thinking might allow our highest elected officials to get away with breaking many laws without reprimand as long as we get bored with the proceedings... oh wait...
The fact that anyone could justify this woman's actions just shows what a ****ed up justice system and school of thought we have in this country. The fact that the supermarket she stole from could in some way be held responsible is just absolutely ridiculous.
You can quote and respond all you want. You can try to legally justify your argument all you want. The bottom line is this woman shouldn't get a dime, and the most that should happen to the employees is a verbal reprimand.
__________________
<hr></blockquote>
I think it tends to show just how LITTLE the avg American understand how our legal system works. In Washington State a precedent has already be established and that victim's family settled out of court. The employees should be reprimanded but the manager should be fired. He ordered his employees to break company procedure and the law. They could have been hurt themselves. There IS legal justification and you may feel that it's not the right decision but our laws are set up to work..when they are breached then there is a gray area that exists and the final judgement isn't always neat and clean.
[quote]The grocery clerks were trying to stop her because she broke the law and cops were not there to arrest her at the time. So, they were trying to catch her to help the cops.
<hr></blockquote>
1. Again Grocery Clerks do NOT have the power to stop you from doing anything off of store premises.
2. The cops weren't called until after the crash miles away from the Store.
3. Had they actually physically detained her or moved here there would be additional applicable charges that could be levied ..one up to Kidnapping
[quote]She broke the law and tried to get away.
She speed along on the roads because she did not want to accept responsiblility for her actions. <hr></blockquote>
Yes she broke the law a Misdemeanor at that. The Albertsons employees are guilty of breaking multiple Laws as well. Just because she initiated the conflict doesn't absolve the employees from liability.
[quote] She broke the law and tried to get away.
She speed along on the roads because she did not want to accept responsiblility for her actions.
<hr></blockquote>
She speed only after being attacked. The groceries remained on store premises and her agressors were breaking the law themselve in there foolish attempt to exact justice. Your points have very little validity. You speak as a citizen and not a mediator.
[quote] I still think that this woman and her attorney are using this as a bald attempt to both lessen her sentence and get a few bucks for their trouble. I agree that the store employees were fools, and the manager should be fired. But she should not get cash and prizes for this- if anything make Albertsons fund a battered womens shelter for a year, sentence the bean-brained store clerks (if they end up being charged, which at present they have not) to 2 years worth of community service, and fire the store manager. <hr></blockquote>
Don't forget...she no longer has her Daughter with her. If that isn't punishment enough then what is? I agree that Morally she shouldn't be financially compensated but that's the way our society has become. Money now is expected to compensate grief.
Groverat: I'm sorry but your understanding of the law is the one that needs work. Stores have the right to detain shoplifters. (ask Wynona Rider) They do this in lieu of the police all the time. If I am physically attacked (as a friend of mine was by a homeless person in Beverly Gardens Park last month) or stolen from, I have the right to pursue this person to keep their location in mind to report it to the police. They do not arrest them, I do. Do you think that the guy who attacked my friend would have the right to sue if the bus that he ran out in front of to get away had hit him while we were standing there keeping an eye on him? After all, I was scaring him by calling the police on my mobile.
What the hell is it that you want for this woman? A telethon? Public beheading or all grocery clerks in the area?
Most all of us agreed from the get-go that the clerks and the manager were wrong. As far as the merits of the suit, there might be a precedence, but I also know that I can drive into a tree on my way home and sue Groverat because he made me so upset by disagreeing with me. And he would have to answer that suit.
The only person I feel sorry for in this situation is the little girl.
So if I catch a guy crawling through a window in my house and he takes off on a bicycle, and I chase him on my bicycle while yelling at him and he crashes his bike into a tree I'm responsible for his injuries because I was being a vigilante?
That's messed up.
Groverat, don't tell me you'd just let the guy get away.
Oh, and he put the tv down before he jumped on the bike.
[quote] Groverat: I'm sorry but your understanding of the law is the one that needs work. Stores have the right to detain shoplifters. (ask Wynona Rider) They do this in lieu of the police all the time. If I am physically attacked (as a friend of mine was by a homeless person in Beverly Gardens Park last month) or stolen from, I have the right to pursue this person to keep their location in mind to report it to the police. They do not arrest them, I do. <hr></blockquote>
Winona Ryder was still on the premises she did not flee down the street before being aprehended. You indeed have the right to follow but you don't have the right to kick their car nor can you block their access in lieu of the Police.
[quote] So if I catch a guy crawling through a window in my house and he takes off on a bicycle, and I chase him on my bicycle while yelling at him and he crashes his bike into a tree I'm responsible for his injuries because I was being a vigilante?
That's messed up.
<hr></blockquote>
Once the perpetrator is no longer on your premises you do not have the same right to use force. It's a slippery slope and few states grant you Deadly Force when protecting your property. There have been cases in which the criminals were successful in civil suits because of injuries inflicted by the home owner while they were escaping. My opinion to people is ..if you see their back as they're running away...chalk it up to a loss and move on Courts are expensive and will surely cost you more than what is stolen.
Winona Ryder was not on the premises, she was outside. They cannot stop you for shoplifting until you have shown intent by leaving the store and bypassing any form of payment. You can stuff your pants full of merchandise in front of store security of you want to, dance around the store singing "I'm a little thief, nya, nya, nya" and they still can't do anything to you until you leave the store.
The grounds outside of the store are store premesis as far as the adjacent parking lot stretches.
She was a mile away at the time they physically confronted her... now unless Albertson's have stores bigger than strip malls now then I don't see how they had any right at all to physically confront her. Especially since she didn't have any stolen merchandise.
At this point they were acting like little deputies which they have no right to do.
--
seb:
You leave out a little part about assaulting the guy. Also, bicycles have no license plates. They could've called the police and said, "A woman that looked like this (give description) driving this model & color car with this license plate number (FUDTHF) headed this direction on this road tried to steal food." Cops would come out and find the woman with relative ease. You still have your product (she didn't even take it with her) and everyone is alive and everyone except her is happy.
And no, I wouldn't chase someone who unsuccessfully tried to steal food from me at 90mph down a street knowing there's a kid in the car while I have her license plate # and a cell phone with which to call proper authorities. Maybe I just don't feel the moral outrage they did at the thought of trying to steal sustinence.
Comments
Which is why they are being sued, because they aren't law enforcement officers so there is no reason for them to be chasing her. There is no reason for them to bang on her car, for them to physically accost her or to chase her at 90mph.
This is why the lawsuit exists. They acted outside the boundaries of the law under orders of their manager who represents Albertson's and their actions resulted in her child's death.
[quote]even though she wasnt running from a cop, she was running because she knew she was screwed. she panicked. that is the primary motivational factor involved.<hr></blockquote>
She didn't drive recklessly *before* they physically assaulted her, but she did *after* they did.
Why do you think that is?
Couldn't be from fear of a physical confrontation . . . no, never! It's because she's a dangerous and unsuccessful food theif!
[quote]there is still no evidence that they even touched her.<hr></blockquote>
Sure there is evidence, her testimony. There is no denial, as far as we know, so who is her word "against"?
And even if her words were against the clerks', they are criminals, too.
<strong>
Someone who hires a hitman has no legal culpability, apparently. Inciting a riot is now legal in Eugeneland. So is attacking and chasing someone, apparently.
I don't want to live there, too dangerous.
According to the lawsuit, one of the employees got out of the car at that point and "confronted her at the stoplight, and accosted her verbally and physically." Rosenberger said the employee placed his foot on her bumper.
Somehow I doubt she'll have an eyewitness and that's going to be her word against theirs.
Anyway, just what are the guilty of? Speeding? Sure, if the police have already determined that. If a police officer is in a car chase and the suspect crashes, is the suspect going to be able to sue the police department? What if the grocers hadn't broken the speed limit?
But why tie the two instances together? The woman should be prosecuted for her action and should be charged for negligent homicide and recieve a very mild, if any, punishment due to the circumstances.
The man ordering the chase should be prosecuted by the state (not the woman. She has nothing on him. He made his decision. She made hers) for using illegitime means to catch someone for a very little crime.
The court of Andersistan is ajourned
The manager should be slapped on the wrist for relevant convictions.
The grocers should be ticketed or charged with misdemeanor reckless driving.
The woman should be charged for shoplifting, reckless endangerment / involuntary manslaughter.
But it still makes me sick to think this woman can possibly profit from the death of her 9 year old. Who brings their kid to the store with the intentions to shoplift? What if she got caught? great impression to leave on your child. And we wonder why there is so many screwed up kids in this country.
We don't have to be Law is Basic in it's nature. Only liberal intepretations screw things up.
[quote]She was the lead car. She set the pace for the 'chase'. If she had been trying to 'get away' at 40mph they would have still followed her. She was going 90 because she was trying to escape and not own up to her actions. She was afraid. Afraid of going to jail. I doubt she was afraid of getting beat up. That's a weak argument, IMO. <hr></blockquote>
Irrelevant. The chase should NOT have happened anyways.
[quote] If the car with the dumbass baggers in it had crashed and one of them had been killed could their families sue her? Does her family have a 'policy' of breaking the law? Does Albertson's have a 'policy' of sending out dumbass baggers to break the law? I doubt it. It was a dumb, dumb act on the part of the manager. <hr></blockquote>
YES! If she was chasing them! The Agressor is culpable. That's our point. Also think about this. What if the Albertson's employees crashed and killed themselves. Albertson would be sued by the families of these baggers. Their job is to tend to the store not chase shoplifters. Albertsons loses in both cases here..hence the Manager will be fired most likely. Poor Judgement
[quote]The woman is guilty of manslaughter. The boys are guilty of reckless endangerment. The manager is guilty of being a bad manager, and being a first class moron. Albertson's should not have to pay this woman a cent. Rewarding criminals is a bad, bad idea. <hr></blockquote>
The boys are equally as guilty as accomplices in Manslaughter. If I drive you to a store and you murder someone inside. Even though my intentions where not to harm anyone I'm still culpable. That's how our system works.
[quote] I still don't know what "physically accosted" means exactly. Did they pull her hair? Punch her in the face? Grab her arm while reaching for her keys? Not enough facts to use the "physically accosted" argument in my forming of an opinion on this. <hr></blockquote>
If I came up and Kicked your car door or pounded your car windows...I think you would feel Acosted. Or do you feel like this only applies to ones body?
[quote]Since she is a crook, she is probably full of bullfeces when she says she was "accosted" both "verbally and physically" at the red light. They were probably telling her to stop and get out and wait for the cops. <hr></blockquote>
Doesn't matter. The Chase should have never happened in the first place. Anything that happened after will not change Albertson fate.
[quote] Regarding the license plate. Anybody with half a brain who was planning to steal something and take off in their car after would first put on a plate from another car onto their car. I'm sure these employees were thinking ahead and probably came to the conclusion that the plate could be a fake.<hr></blockquote>
She doesn't sound like a Career Criminal. She's stealing FOOD for Chrissakes. You make it sound like she's a hardened Felon.
[quote] Its also sad that people actually think that she should be able to sue and win when she is the one who killed her daughter!!! <hr></blockquote>
Had the Albertsons Employees followed Company procedure and Washington State Law that child would be alive today...and Albertson would have retain the 260.00 of food. Now this will cost them 100x that paltry amount. Foolish.
[quote]Imagine if the accident had not occurred despite the chase. Do you sympathizers still believe she could rightfuly sue? The conditions are the same. The grocers would have still 'endangered' her life and her kid's life. I don't think so. She endangered her child's life while driving recklessly. That's how her kid died...it doesn't matter why she was driving recklessly...her child's life was not in danger until she endangered it. <hr></blockquote>
That is NOT the way our Judicial system works. It's Cause and Effect. The fact the the employees left company property to attempt to retain a Civillian is wrong right there. As Groverat says the shoplifting was one incident and the employees actions yet another. One does not cancel out the other. It's as if you people think that it's ok to run someone over because they are jaywalking(They broke the Law so I'm exempt from my Lawless act). She endangered her childs life because of DIRECT actions by the Defendants. That makes them liable!
[quote] How about this. What if she ran over somebody instead of killing her own daughter? Is it still the grocer's fault? What if she ran over several people in succession? <hr></blockquote>
Yes if the Grocer was the Agressor and clearly violating State Law and Company Procedure. Why is this so hard of a concept to master. This case involves breaches of laws by both sides.
[quote] but she was motivated by fear as a result of expressing her own guilt. she ran because she was guilty of a crime. <hr></blockquote>
Whoa! Read what you are saying here! You are professing guilt for a Woman who has not had Due Process in a court of Law. She crashed her car killing her daughter miles away from the Store and she had not ONE piece of stolen merchandise in said car! You've got her convicted before her trial has been set. Please save yourself the embarassment and take a Law class.
[quote] thats just a load of sh*t she's hiding behind to draw away from her guilt and make her look pathetic and almost innocent in the eyes of the court. there is still no evidence that they even touched her. the words of a criminal never hold up in court. its like my word against a cops--who wins every time??? certainly not the accused... <hr></blockquote>
Cops have jurisdiction to Enforce the Law, Bag Boys do not!
[quote] Somehow I doubt she'll have an eyewitness and that's going to be her word against theirs.
Anyway, just what are the guilty of? Speeding? Sure, if the police have already determined that. If a police officer is in a car chase and the suspect crashes, is the suspect going to be able to sue the police department? What if the grocers hadn't broken the speed limit?
<hr></blockquote>
She won't need eyewitness. The Albertson employees were on COMPANY time chasing a shoplifter who possed not one piece of stolen merchandise. If she is guilty of Manslaughter then the employees could be consider accomplices in her childs death.
[quote] The manager should be slapped on the wrist for relevant convictions.
The grocers should be ticketed or charged with misdemeanor reckless driving.
The woman should be charged for shoplifting, reckless endangerment / involuntary manslaughter.
<hr></blockquote>
Actually the Manager should lose his Job. He put those employees into a situation that violeted company procedure and that they had no training in, and was unlawful. If they had been injured the parents of those employes would be devastated. It would be hard to charge I Manslaugter without also charging the assailants because they had a causitive effect on the plaintiffs "recklesness"
[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: hmurchison ]</p>
Running from police is a crime.
Running from grocery store clerks who have just attacked you is not.
Once again:
She wasn't driving erratically before the "confrontation" but she was afterwards. Why?
[edit]
Can't forget this part:
She didn't even have the food. She left it at Albertson's.
[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
The fact that anyone could justify this woman's actions just shows what a ****ed up justice system and school of thought we have in this country. The fact that the supermarket she stole from could in some way be held responsible is just absolutely ridiculous.
You can quote and respond all you want. You can try to legally justify your argument all you want. The bottom line is this woman shouldn't get a dime, and the most that should happen to the employees is a verbal reprimand.
<strong>
Running from police is a crime.
Running from grocery store clerks who have just attacked you is not.
Once again:
She wasn't driving erratically before the "confrontation" but she was afterwards. Why?
[edit]
Can't forget this part:
She didn't even have the food. She left it at Albertson's.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The grocery clerks were trying to stop her because she broke the law and cops were not there to arrest her at the time. So, they were trying to catch her to help the cops.
The reason "why" she was driving crazy afterwards was because she discovered that they were trying to aprehend her for the cops to come and arrest her. Since she did not want to get into trouble for the law that she broke, she thought she could escape by speeding (and putting inocent lives at risk in the process).
She broke the law and tried to get away.
She speed along on the roads because she did not want to accept responsiblility for her actions.
How hard is that to undertand?
[quote]During a brief hearing on Monday in Snohomish County Superior Court, Durrett entered a so-called Alford plea. In court papers, the woman said she believed herself innocent, but acknowledged she'd likely be convicted if the case went before a jury.
Judge Kenneth Cowsert agreed there was a "very strong likelihood" that Durrett would be found guilty as charged. He scheduled sentencing for May 14.
<hr></blockquote>
I still think that this woman and her attorney are using this as a bald attempt to both lessen her sentence and get a few bucks for their trouble. I agree that the store employees were fools, and the manager should be fired. But she should not get cash and prizes for this- if anything make Albertsons fund a battered womens shelter for a year, sentence the bean-brained store clerks (if they end up being charged, which at present they have not) to 2 years worth of community service, and fire the store manager.
<strong>
So you are saying that these two situations should be approached in the same manner... stopping a violent assault, and stopping a lady with a young kid who tried stealing some groceries? I don't quite get it dude.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since criminals don't want to get caught and go to jail, what makes you think that if you politely ask a criminal caught in the act to "sit down and wait until the cops get there" that they would? Since they are criminals, they cannot be trusted. They will lie like she probably did (and still is) to evade any responsibility for their unlawful actions. So, you have to deal with them (criminals) forcefully and sometimes, they could get hurt in the process. Well, TFB if they do because they would most certainly hurt YOU if they thought it would get them out of trouble.
And what things did she steal before this that she didn't get caught at???
Are you so naive as to think this is her first time?
[quote]The grocery clerks were trying to stop her because she broke the law and cops were not there to arrest her at the time. So, they were trying to catch her to help the cops.<hr></blockquote>
Vigilante justice is illegal, mmmkay?
You can make a citizen's arrest, sure, but that is for a felony offense. Trying to steal $200 worth of food is not a felony. What you do as a citizen at that point is call the police (which they didn't do until she hit the tree) and maybe follow her (not chase and attack, follow). You are NOT allowed to break the law to catch a petty thief. You are NOT allowed to chase him/her at 90mph through busy streets. You are NOT allowed to physically confront the petty thief.
These are very basic tenets of law.
The level of hypocrisy is amazing. You people have finally admitted that the Albertson's employees were wrong in their actions but now you think they should be let off with a slap on the wrist while bemoaning her lack of personal responsibility. It's absolutely insane.
The only problem you guys have is this hatred of "sue for money" culture and you apply that to this case immediately without even thinking it through. Sure, there are frivolous cases, but not all cases are ridiculous.
But that's a little too much to ask from such an ignorant populace so used to making emotional judgements. That kind of thinking might allow our highest elected officials to get away with breaking many laws without reprimand as long as we get bored with the proceedings... oh wait...
The fact that anyone could justify this woman's actions just shows what a ****ed up justice system and school of thought we have in this country. The fact that the supermarket she stole from could in some way be held responsible is just absolutely ridiculous.
You can quote and respond all you want. You can try to legally justify your argument all you want. The bottom line is this woman shouldn't get a dime, and the most that should happen to the employees is a verbal reprimand.
__________________
<hr></blockquote>
I think it tends to show just how LITTLE the avg American understand how our legal system works. In Washington State a precedent has already be established and that victim's family settled out of court. The employees should be reprimanded but the manager should be fired. He ordered his employees to break company procedure and the law. They could have been hurt themselves. There IS legal justification and you may feel that it's not the right decision but our laws are set up to work..when they are breached then there is a gray area that exists and the final judgement isn't always neat and clean.
[quote]The grocery clerks were trying to stop her because she broke the law and cops were not there to arrest her at the time. So, they were trying to catch her to help the cops.
<hr></blockquote>
1. Again Grocery Clerks do NOT have the power to stop you from doing anything off of store premises.
2. The cops weren't called until after the crash miles away from the Store.
3. Had they actually physically detained her or moved here there would be additional applicable charges that could be levied ..one up to Kidnapping
[quote]She broke the law and tried to get away.
She speed along on the roads because she did not want to accept responsiblility for her actions. <hr></blockquote>
Yes she broke the law a Misdemeanor at that. The Albertsons employees are guilty of breaking multiple Laws as well. Just because she initiated the conflict doesn't absolve the employees from liability.
[quote] She broke the law and tried to get away.
She speed along on the roads because she did not want to accept responsiblility for her actions.
<hr></blockquote>
She speed only after being attacked. The groceries remained on store premises and her agressors were breaking the law themselve in there foolish attempt to exact justice. Your points have very little validity. You speak as a citizen and not a mediator.
[quote] I still think that this woman and her attorney are using this as a bald attempt to both lessen her sentence and get a few bucks for their trouble. I agree that the store employees were fools, and the manager should be fired. But she should not get cash and prizes for this- if anything make Albertsons fund a battered womens shelter for a year, sentence the bean-brained store clerks (if they end up being charged, which at present they have not) to 2 years worth of community service, and fire the store manager. <hr></blockquote>
Don't forget...she no longer has her Daughter with her. If that isn't punishment enough then what is? I agree that Morally she shouldn't be financially compensated but that's the way our society has become. Money now is expected to compensate grief.
What the hell is it that you want for this woman? A telethon? Public beheading or all grocery clerks in the area?
Most all of us agreed from the get-go that the clerks and the manager were wrong. As far as the merits of the suit, there might be a precedence, but I also know that I can drive into a tree on my way home and sue Groverat because he made me so upset by disagreeing with me. And he would have to answer that suit.
The only person I feel sorry for in this situation is the little girl.
That's messed up.
Groverat, don't tell me you'd just let the guy get away.
Oh, and he put the tv down before he jumped on the bike.
Winona Ryder was still on the premises she did not flee down the street before being aprehended. You indeed have the right to follow but you don't have the right to kick their car nor can you block their access in lieu of the Police.
[quote] So if I catch a guy crawling through a window in my house and he takes off on a bicycle, and I chase him on my bicycle while yelling at him and he crashes his bike into a tree I'm responsible for his injuries because I was being a vigilante?
That's messed up.
<hr></blockquote>
Once the perpetrator is no longer on your premises you do not have the same right to use force. It's a slippery slope and few states grant you Deadly Force when protecting your property. There have been cases in which the criminals were successful in civil suits because of injuries inflicted by the home owner while they were escaping. My opinion to people is ..if you see their back as they're running away...chalk it up to a loss and move on Courts are expensive and will surely cost you more than what is stolen.
She was a mile away at the time they physically confronted her... now unless Albertson's have stores bigger than strip malls now then I don't see how they had any right at all to physically confront her. Especially since she didn't have any stolen merchandise.
At this point they were acting like little deputies which they have no right to do.
--
seb:
You leave out a little part about assaulting the guy. Also, bicycles have no license plates. They could've called the police and said, "A woman that looked like this (give description) driving this model & color car with this license plate number (FUDTHF) headed this direction on this road tried to steal food." Cops would come out and find the woman with relative ease. You still have your product (she didn't even take it with her) and everyone is alive and everyone except her is happy.
And no, I wouldn't chase someone who unsuccessfully tried to steal food from me at 90mph down a street knowing there's a kid in the car while I have her license plate # and a cell phone with which to call proper authorities. Maybe I just don't feel the moral outrage they did at the thought of trying to steal sustinence.