Kroger security guard suing for "Mental Duress"

[Concerned Citizen]

You remember the story...when the armed intruder tried to rob the Kroger last year, and he brought the manager & security guard into the back room, the manager had his Personal Protection Piece (legal but against company policy), shot & killed the BG.

Just heard on the news, that the security guard that had a very good possibility of being murdered that night, is now suing Kroger & the ex-manager for "Mental Duress" for having to witness a man being killed.

This is an example of the worst example of a person. Typical of our litigious, piece of cr*p, 'society owes me' mentality.

A security guard, for goodness sake. So what, you have PTSD because you didn't have the backbone to do your job, you saw a real man save your life, now you want your "Obama phone"?

 

[rockhopper46038]

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (c).
(f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(g) Notwithstanding subsections (c) through (e), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(h) Notwithstanding subsection (f), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass
on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1; P.L.161-2012,
SEC.1.

He can **** off.

 

[Valvestate]

That sewage better get thrown out.

Edit-link: http://fox59.com/2012/12/20/securit...-following-fatal-shooting-of-would-be-robber/

 

[G582]

He needs to grow a pair and find something to do he is good at because this isn't it.

 

[Concerned Citizen]

It might very well be a 'she'.

But keep in mind, this is not a criminal suit, but a civil suit. You can sue for anything.

 

[littletommy]

I've found that, in the last year or so, Kroger has seriously gone down hill, seemingly catering to the lowest common denominator. this is what you get when you go that route.

 

[G582]

You are right. It could be a she but either way probably needs to make a career move. It also just goes to show you when it comes down to it you need to be able protect yourself not be solely dependant on something or somebody else

 

[SecondAmendment]

Anybody hear what happened with this case?

The robbers mother sued Kroger for "failure to protect her son" who was actively committing armed robbery.

The manager who shot the robber was either fired or forced to resign by Kroger.

Did Kroger settle this out of court? (Out of fear of bad publicity and a possible monetary judgement against them?)

This country is not moving in the right direction.

 

[GLOCKMAN23C]

No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

He can **** off.

IANAL, but wouldn't this stop criminal and civil action before it begins?

 

[88GT]

IANAL, but wouldn't this stop criminal and civil action before it begins?

Not civil.

 

[G582]

Maybe the manager should sue the mother for lack of parenting causing him to have to go through all of this

 

[Concerned Citizen]

Maybe the manager should sue the mother for lack of parenting causing him to have to go through all of this

Now THAT I can get behind.

 

[DRob]

Great idea

Maybe I should sue Kroger and you guys who have posted about this for making me cry and wring my hands in despair!

 

[GuyRelford]

I am proud to say that Elijah Elliott, the former Kroger manager, has hired me to defend this lawsuit.

That is all I'll be able to say about it for a while.

Guy

 

[Concerned Citizen]

Congrats Guy, and good luck! BTW, looked good on wxin tonight.

 

[stephen87]

You always get the good cases, Guy. If I'm ever in a predicament, i know who I'm calling. I hope I never have to, but you're my one phone call. Lol

 

[G582]

I am proud to say that Elijah Elliott, the former Kroger manager, has hired me to defend this lawsuit.

That is all I'll be able to say about it for a while.

Guy

Good luck to you both. It's unfortunate that a suit can be filed to begin with

 

[shortyforty]

Maybe the manager should file suit because if the "security guard" was securing or guarding then the manager wouldn't have had to "secure" his safety and "guard " others from harm

 

[po7g]

Wow that is one big baby of a security guard, I hope he loses and has to pay the lawyer fees of his and the managers. That security guard should be sue Kroger for not allowing him to be armed? (I assume he wasnt due to they policy stating no guns) and getting some beers with the ex manager.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

In civil cases...generally ones stemming from "wrongful death" type things - where a criminal's family sues a person for killing them while they were attempting to rob someone...

I'm wholly in favor of suing THEM, and ALL of their family for 10x the amount for having raised such a robber to commit the crime. A term of the suit "If you drop your lawsuit, I drop mine."