It'll be a sad day in our nation, if the judge doesn't laugh this asshole right out of the courtroom.
I wonder what piece of **** ambulance chaser took this case.
Burglar sues men who captured him, claims rough citizens arrest - St. Petersburg Times
ST. PETERSBURG — One October day in 2007, a homeless man broke into a car and stole a bike.
He didn't get very far.
Within minutes, that man, Michael Dupree, was caught trying to sell the bike down the street. He was arrested and sent to jail. Now, he wants payback.
Dupree, who is serving a 12-year prison sentence for burglary and cocaine possession, has filed a lawsuit against three men who helped police take him down.
Dupree says he's the victim of a rough citizens arrest, and was assaulted and battered by the men. He is seeking $500,000 and punitive damages.
It'll be a sad day in our nation, if the judge doesn't laugh this asshole right out of the courtroom.
Well, honestly; it was a non-violent crime, and I don't think it's the place of random citizens to beat and injure him.
He had not been proven guilty in a court of law.
If he was resisting arrest and the police had to rough him up in order to take him down, that's one thing. They are within their rights to do so, I suppose. Whatever it takes to subdue him.
But I think it sets a bad precedent for the legal system to condone citizens beating other citizens with impunity, simply because they perceive them to be in the act of committing a property crime.
I feel the judge probably will not rule in favor of this plaintiff, but I think he/she should, if only to discourage citizens from this sort of vigilantism in the future.
There's a lot we don't know, such as how badly the plaintiff was injured.
Well, honestly; it was a non-violent crime, and I don't think it's the place of random citizens to beat and injure him.
He had not been proven guilty in a court of law.
If he was resisting arrest and the police had to rough him up in order to take him down, that's one thing. They are within their rights to do so, I suppose. Whatever it takes to subdue him.
But I think it sets a bad precedent for the legal system to condone citizens beating other citizens with impunity, simply because they perceive them to be in the act of committing a property crime.
I feel the judge probably will not rule in favor of this plaintiff, but I think he/she should, if only to discourage citizens from this sort of vigilantism in the future.
There's a lot we don't know, such as how badly the plaintiff was injured.
It'll be a sad day in our nation, if the judge doesn't laugh this asshole right out of the courtroom.
How SCARY you are 10, I mean that.
Well, honestly; it was a non-violent crime, and I don't think it's the place of random citizens to beat and injure him.
He had not been proven guilty in a court of law.
If he was resisting arrest and the police had to rough him up in order to take him down, that's one thing. They are within their rights to do so, I suppose. Whatever it takes to subdue him.
But I think it sets a bad precedent for the legal system to condone citizens beating other citizens with impunity, simply because they perceive them to be in the act of committing a property crime.
I feel the judge probably will not rule in favor of this plaintiff, but I think he/she should, if only to discourage citizens from this sort of vigilantism in the future.
You have no idea how "scary" I am.
Would you like to take a Sunday drive and find out?
I live less than an hour away from you.
Or perhaps you could can the inexplicable personal remarks and debate the topic at hand.
There's a novel idea, eh?
Nobody thinks you're tough for baiting someone you will never have to face in real life
No one is at all impressed.
Well, honestly; it was a non-violent crime, and I don't think it's the place of random citizens to beat and injure him.
He had not been proven guilty in a court of law.
If he was resisting arrest and the police had to rough him up in order to take him down, that's one thing. They are within their rights to do so, I suppose. Whatever it takes to subdue him.
But I think it sets a bad precedent for the legal system to condone citizens beating other citizens with impunity, simply because they perceive them to be in the act of committing a property crime.
I feel the judge probably will not rule in favor of this plaintiff, but I think he/she should, if only to discourage citizens from this sort of vigilantism in the future.
There's a lot we don't know, such as how badly the plaintiff was injured.
Those who attempt to infringe upon the property rights of the individual should be shot on site.
If more random citizens beat and injured thieves, there would be fewer thieves.
It was a non-violent crime but it wasn't a victimless crime by all rights the owner of the bicycle had every right to use deadly force to secure the attempted infringement of his property.
Of course it wasn't a victimless crime.
It was a non-violent property crime.
I see no reason for random citizens to respond to non-violent crimes with violence, if that is in fact what they did.
I see no reason for the police to respond to non-violent crimes with violence, either, although I understand it is necessary for them to use whatever force is necessary to take the suspect into custody.
This is basically Batman..err vigilante justice. The main question is do you trust regular people to pursue criminals, or do you leave that to the police. Personally I would leave that to the police in a case like this, but I don't the criminal should get a dime for this though.
This is basically Batman..err vigilante justice. The main question is do you trust regular people to pursue criminals, or do you leave that to the police. Personally I would leave that to the police in a case like this, but I don't the criminal should get a dime for this though.
Those who attempt to infringe upon the property rights of the individual should be shot on site.
I like that idea,
I always wanted to be able to shoot the kids that violated my property rights to get their football that they accidently threw in my yard
I believe that when someone engages in a felony against others, he should be debarred from suing the victims in civil court.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?