Regarding: "Shooting at someone, that has not shot at you first, is attempted murder".

Hey if this guy is wielding a knife and threatening your life, he could run into your nearest & dearest right around the corner and slit some throat.

I believe I'd have a greater responsibility to the innocent public to take the guy down because this situation is volatile and could turn on a dime.

So now I'm lamenting with the Republicans, that Government shouldn't interfere in my rights to protect my loved ones and me!

Bob, I wasnt comparing this situation with the castle doctrine. I asked if you thought it was wrong to have such a law (as the castle doctrine). To think that a violent criminal turns into a law abiding citizen the second they are done committing the crime is foolish. To claim a criminal has more rights to defend themselves than a victim is also foolish. If this idiot didnt want to get beat up and shot, he should have gotten a job to support his drug habit. Next thing we'll see is the taxpayer buying drugs for addicts so they dont go and commit crimes to pay for it themselves (already being done on some levels). Why do we feel the need to turn the criminal into the victim and the victim into the criminal? Its been a slow process, but over time the legal system has turned 180 degrees. Lawyers are making a killing on these types of things. They get to defend the idiot against the charges, then get to try and extract money from the victims of crime if they take action against the criminals. Shouldnt surprise anyone. Most lawmakers are lawyers.

Shooting at someone, that has not shot at you first, is attempted murder. I will assume that your comment about being in the teens puts you as an adult now, and laws have changed.

Please do not use the laziness of your police force (in all situations you mentioned) for an assault on the limits of written laws. Of course in any situation if your life is in danger, defend it. If the immediate danger has passed, call the police. Your car chase would be considered a MAJOR OFFENSE today, and probably ALL occupants would be arrested for ATTEMPTED MURDER, if you were to chase the other car off the road with your vehicle, you would have defended yourself and clear of any damages that would have occurred.

I don't know why people use extreme situations to explain their point... why don't you tell me?

The example you use is a "home invasion". That would be different than a store hold-up. A business is by their nature "open for business". A home, is a person's castle, and by nature, private. The laws are different because the situation is different.

While the first wrong, is wrong; the second wrong, of being chased, shot, beaten, outside of an immediate danger (which I wonder if he got to his car, he would be able to use the same logic you are, he is in HIS property and can shoot back, even AFTER he has committed a crime, because he is no longer endangering anybody), that is also wrong, and this is where one crime stops and another begins.

Vigilante justice is no justice at all. If you logic were to hold, you would lose your drivers' license for parking tickets or speeding. Because both prove that you are not responsible enough to operate a vehicle, right? This would get people to drive safe? Or is it that only the safe people would then own cars?

"at some point you need to call the police"
that is what you said I know of 6 instances where police were called to help a woman being BEATN by her Boyfriend, they merely watched except they issued warnings to the man to stop, he was finally stopped by passers by then the police arrested him one woman was stomped in the head several times in front of the police officer (a movie was actually made about this one) calling the police is like saying you will bake a cake, It sounds great but in the end dont accomplish much, the average response time of 18.3 mins allows a criminal to rob tie up execute and leave the area before the police arrive.
one way to slow down crime is to have all people armed, and allowed to shoot a criminal, criminals would think twice about doing a crime, I know you will come with the arguement it will cause more murders but by our laws already if you kill a victim you are far more likely to get not only less time but are also less likely to be arrestedso that point will be mute.
our laws are designed to protect criminals not the public,
being a young teen I went on a fishing trip with my brother and his friend,on our way home some punks decided to mess with us shooting a gun at our vehicle blowing out the window next to me we got all info ,license number,car make,even gave them a description of the people inside the car, guess what they got out of the deal a wreckless driving ticket, because we could not identify the person holding the gun and shooting it out of 5 people in their car.
had we had a gun with us at that time legally owned we could have returend fire, possibly killed the shooter and rid the world of what was soon to become a life long criminal.by the way they chesed us 58 miles at speeds over 100 mph and a major expressway you would think in that distance we would have passed a cop.the last shot they fired was 50 feet from the police station we turned into, several police heard the shots and instead of chasing the shooters they went into the station....

Threaten to kill ME at knifepoint and I wouldn't have stopped at two bullets.

More like, empty the chamber into his skull, burn the body to ashes, take the ashes and put them in a CERN accelerator and reduce the POS to nature's original elements.

But that's just one person's, your mileage may vary.

Bob, Why do people insist on extreme comparisons? People who commit crimes such as these are cowards. If they thought they might get killed robbing a place, they would likely not try. For you to think that the criminal has more rights than the victim is lunacy. Protecting ones self has nothing at all to do with middle eastern religon. What you are saying is this... People should just cower down to the criminals, give them whatever they want, and dont attempt to protect themselves? We all better hope that you dont end up making the laws in this country. We'd all be held hostage by our own fears and inability to legally defend out lives and property.

I dont know what the statistics are, but i can imagine that home invasions have gone down since the passage of the "castle doctrine" in michigan. Again, if some loser thinks he'll get shot if he breaks into someones house, he will probably think twice about doing it. I suppose you are opposed to that law too eh? It is due time that people take a stand against crime. We already know the results if we do nothing.

Cit X - if everybody had common sense, there wouldn't be a crime committed. But since there are, we have to assess the severity of the crime. BEATING SOMEONE UP, even after they threatened you, is a FAR WORSE crime than taking physical property (which for a business, is insured against this sort of thing).

Shooting a weapon in city limits, is a far worse crime than taking physical property.

Chasing down someone, who you just shot, is a far worse crime. But this is not a criminal case, he is bringing a CIVIL case, which means, they are liable for the damages they caused HIM, the cost of hospital stay, or any medical care needed for injuries sustained.

As someone pointed out, if the crime was in defense of immediate danger, fine, if you had to chase out of the store - you are no longer in physical danger, thus no longer justified to use lethal force.

PS. Al-Quida/Taliban believe in the absolute use of force too in their sharia law. Are you trying to compare our legal system to that of religious nuts?

O.K. This guy is a ward of the state for the next 8 years, convicted of robbery. (WE THE PEOPLE are taking care of his every need for the next 8 years, guaranteed. (NO.. Non-violent..Jenny'll release him early) And now he is being given the chance to steal even more from this victim. Given the opportunity to become a millionaire for the measly price of $10,000? If I were as corrupt as our government I'd be investing $10,000 in this dude's plight, for the small return of ..oh say..half of what he gets.
I just don't think criminals should be allowed the same rights as upstanding citizens.
EARN your wealth...not STEAL it!

Where i come from, we teach our kids that it is wrong to take things that dont belong to them. They know there are consequences to their actions. It seems that sort of information has been withheld from children over the past couple decades. Once the government decided how people should raise their kids, kids adapted to the situation, and took full advantage of not having consequences. Now we have a bunch of lazy younger people who dont like to work. What do they do then? They steal.

Lets be real about this. If someone goes into a store and steals something, nobody is going to kill them for it. If someone robs a store with a weapon, they bring out the instinct in others to defend themselves. Two totally different situations. Run out the door with a pack of gum or a video game, not much fear and anger mixing there. Stick a gun in someones face, you bring about a different reaction.

This is a joke right? The majority are saying that if you get robbed and after the crime is committed you are allowed to chase down the criminal and shoot him after your life is out of danger? That to you is legal letahl force? YOUR NUTS. All that is going to do if it is allowed to continue is these guys are just gonna walk in and blow your heads off then take the money and smokes. Granted it is disgusting that these types of robbery continue to happen but what separates us from the scum of the earth committing these crimes? If he was shot in the store during the robbery GOOD DEAL he did earn it but to just chase him down and shoot him outside of the store(where you are not in danger)makes you no better than they are. In fact they are lucky they did not kill him outside of the store because then here comes the wrongful death suit especially if the court does not justify the shooting as proper use of lethal force. Heck the owner could end up with jail time too. If not then instead of being just a messed up justice system there is a pure lack of one.

Your right Mick. If people knew that they would or could get shot for vandalizing or robing someones personal property, than the perp. would think twice before doing it. Crime would got DOWN!!

But it's ok, you can let people do things to you with little to no consequence if you want to. Just not around my family. Not many people understand the true value of ones labor. In a way, it is a part of yourself, that you made manifest into the fruit of you labor. So lookout if you try to rob me of anything that belongs to me.

From CBS News:
"Zielinski held up the employees at knifepoint and allegedly threatened to kill them in order to steal cigarettes, liquor and $873 in cash. As he fled the scene he says he was hit twice from three or four shots fired by Justin Kallo as Zielinski fled the Cass Avenue store after the robbery. He claims he was beaten excessively by Justin and Johnathan Kallo. "

Since the offender was armed, the use of force is justified, but since the shots were fired OUTSIDE the establishment, there is a case for discharging a firearm within city limits (this happens BECAUSE you are in public, inside, private and rights are justified) which would make him a criminal too.

The excessive force is because AFTER he was hit, they did not subdue him, they hit and went into a mob rage OUTSIDE THE ESTABLISHMENT.

This is a very useful case where two wrongs DO NOT make a right.

With our legal system the way it is (best in the world IMHO), if he loses the argument, he has to pay THEIR attorney fees. So, if the owner/family members can pick an expensive attorney they can in turn sue him for payments.

This case will provide the necessary limitations to be placed on the right to use force. At some point, YOU NEED TO CALL THE POLICE!!!

Yes, it is disgusting when criminals are allowed to sue after they have been convicted of a crime. Still, I have to wonder about those of you who say he should have been shot dead…. Would you feel the same if it were your son or nephew who was chased down and shot at after walking out of a store with expensive goods tucked in his pants?

If this guy TRULY WAS UNARMED, and had already left the store, is it justified to chase him down and shoot him? If we start doing that, we’re going to have gunfire all over the place. We’re setting a dangerous precedent if we allow people to chase and shoot anyone committing a crime. We’ll have people shooting at kids who steal their pumpkins or toilet-paper their trees.

Hey reasonable, just because he was convicted of unarmed robbery, doesn't mean he WAS unarmed. Most of the time, charges are changed or lowered by the prosecuter to help make sure a guilty verdict is found. With the bleeding heart juries out there, which you would fit into fine, you never can tell if justice will be served or if the CRIMINAL will get away with the crimes, and innocent people continue getting hurt! Reading the article has nothing to do with these post's, try understanding the article, it may help you not sounding like a moron! He should have been shot dead because when he gets out in what, 2-3 years of the 8 year sentence, he'll just be out there committing MORE crimes, for sure! It's because of people like you, and this MORON of a judge, that our country is imploding!

He attempted to rob the store. He is a criminal, he deserves what he gets, the justice system needs to send this message to all. The courts are not here to protect the bad guys, sorry.

Consider the situation here. The guy robbed the store. He must have had some sort of weapon, or made the clerk think he had a gun. I doubt the guy walked in without a threat and they just gave him the money. The clerk should have dropped him right in the store. Seeing as the suspect left the building, the people involved made a citizens arrest. If they felt their lives were in danger, they had the right to use force. The plaintiff will have a hard time finding a jury that will feel sorry for him. Seems everyone but you is tired of criminals taking advantage of the system. Law abiding citizens vs. criminal thugs. would be a shame to see the jury or courts side with the criminal. What kind of precedent will this set?

I can't believe you could say such a thing! Point being HE was in the wrong - armed or not! What would you say if he came into your house to hold or rob you - then turn around and try to sue you, you can have my house. YOUR FRIGEN CRAZY!

If they'd killed, him his family would be suing for 10 times as much. For good reason. Did you read the part where he was unarmed, chased, then shot. There's such a thing as reasonable force even for private citizens. Hopefully Zielinski ends up owning the store. You people really need to read the article more carefully and don't bother posting if you don't understand what you are reading.

They did shoot him. However they failed to make it a fatal shooting and now here comes the trial. However if they chased him out of the store and left their property and shot him off their property they are screwed. Leaving their property is where they went wrong.

And who says crime doesn't pay??? LOL The judge needs the cell right next to him.

Shoot the crook next time. Saves you money and the judicial system money.

What kind of crap is this? First your robbed then sued for protecting your property and business that you have worked so hard to build so you can employ other people.
That judge should come back to the REAL world!

This is totally absurd. When will the frivolous lawsuits in this country come to an end? They're destroying our judicial system.

The judge in this case is named David Viviano. He was the city attorny for Centerline, Michigan before he was elected to the seat. The mayor of Center Line is a woman named Mary Ann Zielinski. The guy who is bringing the lawsuit happens to share the same last name as the mayor of the city that the judge was once the attorny for....hmmmmmm. Must be just a coincidence...... X

This is the big problem in Michigan, bleeding heart judges. They coddle prisoners and criminals, giving them more rights than the average taxpayer. In the future, the media should print the name of the judge who makes these decisions, and an address they can be contacted at.

The judge who made that asine decision should be sharing a cell with the thief. Stupid judicial deecisions like this are why many people get disgusted with the court system when in fact it's just a few meatball bench decisions that do the damage!

While I agree this moron deserves everything he got, except the light sentence, HOWEVER, SHAME ON THE JUDGE FOR EVEN ALLOWING THIS SHAM OF JUSTICE!!! THIS ITS WHATS WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM!! VOTE THIS JERK OF THE BENCH!

I guess we'll have to beat them to point where they can't talk or write. lol If this goes thru and he wins- do you know what this will mean for how many inmates to pull the same crap?

I guess they didn't beat him bad enough. If he was dead he wouldn't be able to sue, wasting the time of the screwed up justice system. Plus our tax dollars wouldn't be being wasted supporting another loser in prison. He got what he had coming to him and shouldn’t be able to sue because of it. Rob me off and see what happens if I catch you. Loser thugs shouldn’t have rights, except maybe the right to be royally beat by their victims.

If your a true idiot, and rob the store in the first place, you deserve what you get.