• Home
  • Blogs
  • Crimesider
Crimesider
November 4, 2009 10:28 AM

Judge: Robber Can Sue Store He Robbed

Posted by Carlin DeGuerin Miller
(CBS)
NEW YORK (CBS/AP) Apparently in Mount Clemens, Mich., crime does pay, especially if the people you rob fight back and beat you to a pulp.

A judge has ruled that Scott T. Zielinski can sue the store that he robbed at knifepoint, because the employees allegedly shot and beat him on the way out.

Zielinski, who is serving an 8-year prison sentence after being convicted of unarmed robbery for the November 2007 heist at Nick's Party Stop in Clinton Township, Mich., claims he was chased, shot twice and beaten excessively by three employees after he robbed the store.

The 23-year-old filed a lawsuit seeking $125,000 in April against the store, its owner John Acho and three employees including Acho's brother-in-law Don A. Kallo, and two nephews, Justin Kallo and Johnathan Kallo.

Justin Kallo allegedly chased and shot Zielinski.

Circuit Judge David Viviano ruled this week that the case can move forward but said that although Zielinski is indigent and imprisoned, he must post a $10,000 bond to cover the store and employees' attorney's fees if he loses the case.

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.

What do you think? Should the allegedly wronged robber have the right to sue or is this a case of the legal system run amuck?
Tags:
Crimesider ,
Mount Clemens ,
Michigan ,
Robbery ,
Lawsuit ,
Excessive ,
Shot ,
Clinton ,
Knifepoint
Topics:
Daily Blotter
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx

More From Crimesider

Add a Comment See all 25 Comments
by Mojavegrean November 18, 2009 4:29 PM EST
Must be a libelar judge. They are soft on crime. Always siding with the criminal unless its politically charged. Didn't the AMA declair Liberalism to be a mental disorder. That would explain a lot. If the Judges for once were to side with the victim of a crime. Crime just might stop. But then the Judges might be out of a job if that were to happen and the Police would be reduced to having to write speeding and parking tickets. Having realised that little problem I can better understand why judges are ultra soft on criminals. They value their repeated bussiness.
Reply to this comment
by w4fid November 6, 2009 9:06 AM EST
This seems wrong on two counts.

How was he convicted of unarmed robbery when he robbed them at knife point? What half butt judge agreed to that plea deal? A knife and a threat to harm is armed robbery.

If he left the store and was leaving the scene why did two people pursue him and shoot him and beat him? You are basically allowed to use deadly force (shoot someone) to defend YOURSELF -- YOUR PERSON -- not property.

If the law wants to be taken seriously then they cannot allow a plea bargin from armed robbery to unarmed robery. If we want to be taken seriously we cannot chase down and shoot and beat someone who has already left us alone over a few bucks.
Reply to this comment
by radnex November 6, 2009 5:57 PM EST
In the state of Michigan we are legally allowed to defend property, according to laws passed in 2006. It was a package of bills called "The Castle Doctrine".

You can read my previous post for more information.
by maccount November 9, 2009 1:26 PM EST
Why is he allowed to sue? His intensions were to rob the store, people have a right to defend themselves, the owners took action, case closed - why spend more of the taxpayer's money? They need to change the judge as well as the laws! Why do criminals get all the break? I thought the law was to pretect the innocent ones or do I have that backwards?
by tiernanlaw November 5, 2009 11:08 PM EST
LESSON: Just kill the piece of ****!
Reply to this comment
by otobesane1 November 5, 2009 8:46 PM EST
When the perpetrator doesn't live through the encounter, yours is the only story that gets told. So what if a family member of the perp is able to pony up the $10K and the case goes forward. The victims still have to pay attorney's fees up front and go through the whole ordeal in court and the press. The thug's lawyer will drag out every skeleton in the victims' closets all the way back to kindergarten in order to discredit them. A convicted thug should never be able to sue his victim...under any circumstances.
Reply to this comment
by phlogiston1 November 5, 2009 8:10 PM EST
What ever happened to "assumption of risk?" Anyone who commits such a coercive and violent crime should have no recourse. And as to the suggestion that the wrong man might have been "punished," wll in that eventuality, the transgressors could pay for their error. It wasn't "the wrong man." Maybe we should be eclectic and adopt some remedies extant elsewhere in the world, such as the Islamic methods of punishment. Without an arm and a leg, the thief would be less likely to repeat his crime. We are too permissive and forgiving.
Reply to this comment
by skyhifun November 5, 2009 8:09 PM EST
This is what we get when we let left-wing bottom feeders run the country. This guy should be locked up for life and his parents sterilized so they can't make any more scum like him. And while he's suing maybe Obamy and Nancy P. can furlough some more Willie Hortons.
Reply to this comment
by Mojavegrean November 5, 2009 5:07 PM EST
This is absolutly ludicris. Some POS scumbag bottom feeding troglodite criminal being allowd to sue their victims for injuries he recieved while in the commision of a crime. If there is anything that needs to be done is the feds or who ever it is that comes up the laws, needs to come up with a law that denies any criminal the right to sue for damages recieved while in the commission of a crime or its immediate after affects (i.e. when hes being chased) He was lucky he got away with his life. Afgter reading this story, I find myself becoming the victim of a crime. Im just gonna kill he sob and be done with it. It is a joke on society as well as a slap in societies face to allow this kind of garbage to continue on unchecked. That judge should be removed from the bench.
Reply to this comment
by radnex November 5, 2009 4:57 PM EST
According to the Castle Doctrine package of bills that were passed in '06, you have no recourse if injured or killed while in the course of a felony. Due to this the judge was wrong in granting this case, but I do find it interesting that he would have a bond paid for to cover the legal fees of the defendants.
Reply to this comment
by kelvinml November 5, 2009 12:51 PM EST
You people are idiots. Read the story. He committed a CRIMINAL offense and then brought a CIVIL suit.

If the people he robbed reasonably believed that they were in danger (and there's quite a bit of leeway with reasonable belief) they could kill him and it would be self-defense.

Here, the robber ran away. I think it's pretty hard to believe that if a man is running away from you, whether he's armed or not, that you are in reasonable fear of bodily harm.

They call it the common law because it's based on common sense - which is frighteningly uncommon. Also, he has to post a bond, which he will be unable to do, so this is a go-nowhere suit. CBS should be ashamed for fanning the flames of the "first, we kill all the lawyers" movement.
Reply to this comment
by SivisPacemParaBellum November 5, 2009 11:45 AM EST
Judge Viviano, this is not Great Britian; it is the United States! We still have a self-defense rule of law whether you believe it or not. You are a disgrace to your profession; a liberal activice judge who cares more for the criminal than the law abiding citizens.
Reply to this comment
by esoxlucios November 5, 2009 11:35 AM EST
The issue that people may be missing here is the "right" --that we all have-- of access to the courts (First Amendment, petition clause). If the legislators want to pass a law that provides that, "any person convicted of an aggravated felony is barred from bringing suit for any forseeable injury arising from his criminal undertaking," fine, let them pass it and let it be challenged on constitutional grounds. But, if a judge is given discretion to use a fiction to create an impediment to suit in this matter, then he also has discretion to create the same obstacle when you sue to get access to your child that's been hidden in another state, or sue the city for an unlawful taking (e.g., eminent domain), or sue a doctor, who's the judge's golfing buddy, when the doctor left a surgical sponge inside you after an operation, which eventually caused a tumor and disfigurement, or sue the mechanic who said you needed a new $3,500 transmission, when he knew that only a $25 shift sensor needed to be replaced. Think about it.
Reply to this comment
by Chaindrive1953 November 5, 2009 11:27 AM EST
If this guy was quilty for is crimes shame on him he should be happy just to be alive for if he would have tried to rob me he would be pushing up daisiesand nothing more ,we have the right to protect ourselfs and proberty in this country .The judge needs to be fired and his lic.to practice law be removed.
Reply to this comment
by johnnyoz12 November 5, 2009 11:02 AM EST
People on here seem to not understand the fundamental premise of our justice system: the FACTS of the case are decided by a jury, not a judge. The judge merely decides whether the facts that the plaintiff has claimed could POSSIBLY be a valid claim under law. It is certainly possible to imagine the store employees using excessive force (i.e., what if the guy was unconscious and they kicked him in the head for 30 minutes and left him for dead?). In all likeliehood the robber got what he deserved and shouldn't recover anything, but why do you think that the judge should take that decision away from a jury? By requiring a "loser pays" bond here, the judge did his best to make sure the plaintiff thinks more than twice about whether he can convince a jury that he didn't deserve what he got.
Reply to this comment
by mollydtt November 4, 2009 2:41 PM EST
Once a robber threatens to kill you, I find it hard to hope he has a nice day. That guy asked for it.
Reply to this comment
by krmopilci November 4, 2009 1:54 PM EST
American justice system is a joke.There is anything there except justice.
Reply to this comment
by mdmill November 4, 2009 12:40 PM EST
I think most of us are missing the point - this is great!

The good part here is that the judge has determined that Zielinski must post a $10,000 BOND - that will go to the defendants (store and employees) if Zielinski loses.
In other words, the judge was able to stop this crazy suit before it starts without violating the 'rights' of Zielinski to sue anyone for anything at any time.

This is known as "loser pays" and is used in several other countries. Essentially, you can sue - but if you lose you're out the money for the bond; it goes to those you sued to cover their legal fees and expenses.

This will put a STOP on such ridiculous cases since those who sue just to see if they can win will no longer put such a financial strain on those who are sued for no valid reason. Imagine - some dolt sues you and you are NOT OUT ANY MONEY FOR LEGAL EXPENSES.
GO JUDGE GO!
Reply to this comment
by tiernanlaw November 5, 2009 11:12 PM EST
As all my police friend say, a dead criminal can't lie!

Here in NY many morons have your same attitude, and that is why you are forced to put these maggots in the grave, rather than take the chance they may try to sue you, or come after you later when a liberal judge sentence him to 1 or 2 years.

Just practice with your firearms and put these maggots 6 feet under.
by mitdgreenb November 4, 2009 12:33 PM EST
It's interesting to me that the rush to judgment on this board argues strongly that the case should go forward. The argument the perp is making is that he was tried and punished by a mob, not by the Courts and the Law. While vigilante justice is superficially satisfying -- especially in cases like this where the person is guilty without a doubt -- we need to beware condoning such behavior. Consider how this case might be different if:
1) The guy who was shot and beaten was the wrong guy... a victim of mistaken identity in the wrong place at the wrong time.
2) Some passerby had been shot by a stray bullet.
3) The perp had died from the beating. Before you say that would be OK, what if you walked out of a store and were being chased down and beaten for shoplifting? (Shoplifting is the equivalent of "unarmed robbery," the crime that the perp was convicted of.)

A civilized society needs a trained police force, an independent judiciary, and the rule of law. If no limits are placed on vigilantism... if there are no penalties for "street justice" doled out by hotheads in the heat of the moment... we have a problem. Worse is when people like shammock advocate violence against the system we have.

That said... I hope the case does go forward and the perp loses. He then gets to pay the court fees for the defendants. And he should be happy he does not live in Texas where many cases have shown that shooting a burglar dead is just fine.
Reply to this comment
by fredlave November 4, 2009 12:19 PM EST
Moral of this story: If you're going to shoot an attacker, shoot to kill. If you leave the attacker alive, you can bet you will be sued for excessive force.
Reply to this comment
by pollroller1 November 4, 2009 11:45 AM EST
Wow!!! It's getting were a person can't make a dishonest living anymore. The nerve of those people going after a crook that way.
Reply to this comment
by faceofus November 4, 2009 11:41 AM EST
An excellent example of what is wrong with our justice system today!
Reply to this comment
See all 25 Comments

Crimesider Topics

Crimesider is the ultimate destination for true-crime fans: riveting crimes, exclusive 911 calls, police interrogations, expert forensics, and more. It's in our DNA. Now it's in yours.

BOOK 'EM

Book 'Em: Mommy's Little Girl -- Casey Anthony and her Daughter Caylee's Tragic Fate

Diane Fanning Goes Behind the Headlines to Provide a Heartbreaking Account of a Case That Shocked the Nation

Photos
Scroll Left Scroll Right