Robber's mom sueing Kroger

[Beau]

Pathetic. Her son didn't succeed in robbing Kroger so she is giving it a try.

 

[ghuns]

Kroger will offer her 50K, she'll settle for mid 60's. Both sides lawyers will make money, end of story.

She musta landed a real legal-superstar for an attorney for the bidding to only start at 75K.

 

[GBuck]

Kroger will offer her 10k, she'll settle for mid 30's. Both sides lawyers will make money, end of story.

She musta landed a real douche bag for an attorney to bring this lawsuit before a court.

FTFY

 

[Stschil]

Kroger will offer her 50K, she'll settle for mid 60's. Both sides lawyers will make money, end of story.

She musta landed a real legal-superstar for an attorney for the bidding to only start at 75K.

I'd offer her a Kroger Plus card and check cashing priviledges and tell her to GTFO.

 

[halfmileharry]

She sure did a great job of raising her kid to be a BG. I'll just bet she misses his income and is looking for the bucks.
What a low life bunch they are. Good riddance

 

[indybuell]

The state should sue her for the bill at Wishard.

 

[wizard_of_ahs]

Her son failed to hold up the store, so now she is trying to.

Pathetic. Her son didn't succeed in robbing Kroger so she is giving it a try.

 

[TopDog]

Actually, the suit is based on the claim that the manager violated company policy. If the company did not have that policy, there would be no basis for the suit. Seems to me it is best for the company to take a neutral position. Or to support local law, which would allow LTCH holders to carry while at work. The company would then not be part of the suit.

+1 ^^^^

Can someone more involved with corporations than I and have a better understanding of the apparent under handed polices of corporations explain how they are protected by not allowing self defense? On the surface I can see the reasoning its cheaper to pay for a dead employee than keep neutral and let the standing law rule. But then you run into dirt bags that raise douche bags like the character here that was in the act of several crimes and the "mother" is attempting to profit. Would the corporation be better off in the long run just to be neutral?

 

[mrjarrell]

Kroger will settle before it even gets to court. They'd rather do that than change their rules.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I would think the company would be well legally insulated as long as their employment contracts had stipulations that anything an employee did above and beyond their job descriptions were of their own and they are not thereby acting on behalf of the company. Step up and cap some gang-banger trying to jack yo' sheet, that's on you, not Kroger. Ride to the rescue and let go with a flyer that ends an innocent by-stander, that's on you, not Kroger.

 

[charles.wolff]

I wonder if the public should sue the mother for raising a public nuisance and all of the money that it cost the city (i.e. tax payers) for every time he was arrested, and the coroner, and any other official that was involved with this obvious waste of life and piece of crap.

Sorry, but I am trying to quit smoking. My tolerance for stupidity is going way down.

 

[KLB]

+1 ^^^^

Can someone more involved with corporations than I and have a better understanding of the apparent under handed polices of corporations explain how they are protected by not allowing self defense? On the surface I can see the reasoning its cheaper to pay for a dead employee than keep neutral and let the standing law rule. But then you run into dirt bags that raise douche bags like the character here that was in the act of several crimes and the "mother" is attempting to profit. Would the corporation be better off in the long run just to be neutral?

I believe as stated above it has more to do with possibly shooting an innocent than a bad guy. Big payout is they did and the employee's carrying was sanctioned by the corporation.

 

[Jack Burton]

You would expect her to be mocked and belittled on INGO, but the comments on the media story are all saying similar things to what are noted here. The public is fed up with bottom feeders like this.

 

[pearlman1966]

If Kroger settles everyone who was in the store that night should sue the dead BG estate for emotional distress.

 

[Mark 1911]

I think the fact that this mother would file a lawsuit against Kroger for her son's criminal activity starts to paint a picture as to why her son could justify robbery in his own mind in the first place.

Seems like a second attempt to victimize Kroger by the same family, only this time its the queen bee attempting the sting. I hope Kroger gets out the big can of Raid in court.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

There is a special place in hell for an attorney that would even bring this suit.

Is this the one?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pCvUwuysg8[/ame]

 

[EdC]

I believe the $75,000 referred to in the complaint is probably a "not less than" allegation. The $75,000 is the minimum for federal jurisdiction, where parties are from different states, and the issue is not a federal law question, but just good old fashion tort law.

Otherwise, she would have to sue in state court.

 

[Ryno300]

Somebody hold my hair...Somedays humanity is really a disappointment. I hope they fight but we all know they'll settle and pay the ransom.

 

[TTravis]

Doesn't she realize that if she wins $75K, she will have to report it as income and she and the other 11 kids will not qualify for food stamps?

 

[Denny347]

And this is why I am current on my FOP dues...LEGAL DEFENSE!!! Having been named in a few of these BS suits, I can tell you that having a good lawyer on your side is what lets me sleep well at night and allows me to do my job without worrying about lawsuits. Nothing like doing everything right, above board, and still end up in Federal Court...ugh.