I’ve written and commented many times about criminals suing their victims, and about how Presidential hopeful Clinton wants to expand that, allowing victims to sue the maker of whatever firearm was used. Interestingly enough, no one has yet to even respond when that is expanded to allowing victims of DWI accidents to sue the company that made the car. I’m expecting the “but a car isn’t designed to be a weapon” or “cars aren’t all made in the U.S.” arguments, as I will be able to counter with “firearms weren’t designed to be a weapon against man” and “not all firearms are made in the U.S.”
I can hear the question already, and while yes, firearms were quickly picked up after their invention by Military forces all over the world, but they were designed as a means of hunting and self defense. A baseball bat is meant as a sporting tool, a hammer as a construction tool, and a crow-bar as a means of opening things, yet all can just as easily be used as a weapon to kill. While I will maintain that suing whoever manufactured the firearm, or car, is idiotic, I’ll actually agree that the DWI example actually has someone other than the driver who might be at fault, the person who helped the driver get drunk, be it a bartender, or store that sold to someone already drunk, seeing as it actually is a crime to serve to or past the point of intoxication, or to sell to an intoxicated person.
Thankfully, not all cases where the criminal sues their victim end with the criminal winning, and in fact, it’s still a very low number where the crook wins, although I think it should be disallowed to sue the very person/people you attempted to rob/attack/kill, even winning the case isn’t the end. The case linked above is one where a man broke into someone’s home, and was shot in the process of robbing them, late at night. So, very dark, attacker is much larger than the resident, but they shouldn’t have shot him until after he’d killed them. Number four on this list is even crazier, as a burgler who SHOT THE HOMEOWNER is suing since the man fired back. Yes, you read that right. In that case, the burgler basically held the home owner hostage, not letting him leave a certain spot, eventually letting him go to the bathroom, only firing when he spotted that the man was now armed, HITTING HIM IN THE JAW, at which point the victim fired back. The criminal lived, and sued for “negligent” use of a firearm, as if him shooting an older man in the face was responsible.
While I whole heartedly agree that even letting these suits get to a courtroom (or all but a very select few) is stupid, until judges start not only ruling in favor of the victim, but also protecting them from the almost always crippling debt that follows, criminals will continue to sue, just because they can. The coups de grace for this little foray into insanity, is the number one item in the 5 victims story. It seems a man was driving on a foggy night, near homes, at nearly 90mph. As the driver was sober, he at least didn’t get a sixth DWI charge, but he did sue. He alleged that the parents were irresponsible since the child wasn’t wearing a helmet, that the child jumped off a ramp into the road, and that due to fog, he didn’t see the child. One wonders how he saw that the child wasn’t wearing a helmet or that he’d been jumping off a ramp due to the fog. To me, this is the ultimate middle finger to grieving parents. A man not only doesn’t deny that he hit and killed a child, but then has the gall to say it wasn’t his fault, but was either the parents’ or the child’s. This not only should never have seen a courtroom, this man should never again see sunlight.
Enough ranting from me, what do you think?