TexasCHLforum.com

Target the big box store, not "target."

Man later judged by a jury to be mentally ill stabbed another man outside of a Target (apparently a couple blocks away). No apparent relationship between stabber and stabbee, just "came out of nowhere." The man's friends chased the stabber, who fled into a Target store, maybe slashed a couple other guys (hard to tell exact sequence from stories), then took a teenage girl hostage as a shield, then stabbed her in the chest. The guys tackle the stabber and prevented him from hurting anyone else until police arrived and arrested him. Stabber acquitted of attempted murder of the man he stabbed by reason of insanity, but found guilty but mentally ill for an aggravated assault against the man he stabbed. No mention of charges stemming from stabbing the girl.

Girl and her family sue Target for "failing to keep her safe." Target turns around and sued three of the men (one of whom was apparently the original victim) who chased and caught the stabber for causing 'unreasonable risk of harm to others'. No one appears to be suing the nut case.

I debated whether to put this in the "Crime" or "Self-Defense" forums, decided since the main topic of the stories is civil liability to put it under "Political"....

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3ggBcbaqJ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/sta ... rso/nW4DD/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rather then leave the injured victim with only a chance to recover against a usually impecunious defendant, and here one who is mentally ill, our society has chosen to spread the costs of injuries like this amongst those involved, through the mechanism of insurance. We'll see how it works out in this case when the details emerge. There are issues of causation, foreseeability and likely others as well. Target hopes that one or more of the Good Samaritans had homeowners insurance that can be brought to bear some of the exposure.

The original crzy man probably has no assets to go for - it's funny how that works out that way too much of the time.

Unreal.

The lawyers and courts will have to work this one out.

The Wall wrote:The lawyers and courts will have to work this one out.

which is a major problem in this country. (not attacking you, but the subject of lawyers and court system).

victim sues Target because they couldn't defend themselves? should just be a life lesson that the best person to defend yourself is yourself! the crazy man goes away, and the victim learns a valuable lesson. should be end of story.

What this country really needs is an "Affordable Litigation Act".

Limits fees for all lawyers and makes them share responsibility for letting nut cases off with little or no bail and/or punishment by making everyone responsible for damages and making them accessories in the event someone plea bargained out commits another crime. Judges homes become halfway houses for those out on bail or dangerous felons released by equally nutty parole boards and sanctuary cities. Imposes mandatory jail time for all parties to frivolous lawsuits. This could drag out to several thousand pages.

I'll bet the enrollment in law schools would plummet.

Caveat: I know there are some excellent and useful lawyers out there - somewhere. My apologies if you are in the profession. Nothing personal.

Thank you for ratcheting my cynicism up to a new level, and reinforcing my belief that, by and large, I only defend me and mine. As a blue-collar working man, I don't make enough money to try and save your life, no specific offense to anyone on here intended. I'll do my best to call 911 for you after I get me and mine clear of the trouble. I'm sure a lot of people are very, very proud and happy with themselves for creating these conditions.

Wow..just wow.

I know Texas has a “Good Samaritan Act which keeps you from being sued if you injure someone while rendering CPR if you are acting “in good faith” and sincerely trying to do the right thing. There are also protections in the CHL laws.

Interesting. The case is probably based on the fact that they "chased him into the store," which led to the injuries. Hmmmm.

Ruark wrote:Interesting. The case is probably based on the fact that they "chased him into the store," which led to the injuries. Hmmmm.

I'd say they chased him and he fled into the store knowing he could use it to his advantage, and they followed.