Dead robber's widow sues shop clerk

This falls along the lines of a prior thread I've posted Armed Robber’s Family Is Angry After He Is Shot Robbing A Dollar Store!

ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) - The wife of an armed robbery suspect shot dead by a shop clerk said the clerk was wrong, and now she has filed a civil lawsuit claiming wrongful death.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday on behalf of the Ramon Sedillo's widow and child. Sedillo was shot and killed in October 2012 after police say he walked into Full Spectrum Smoke Shop armed with a gun and intending to rob the store.

Instead, the store clerk, Matthew Beasley, fired his gun at Sedillo killing him and injuring his 17-year-old alleged accomplice.Sedillo's widow is now suing the store clerk saying he was in the wrong.
Sedillo's attorney, Amavalise Jaramillo, the attorney for Sedillo's widow, said it all comes down to who had more fault in the case.

While Jaramillo acknowledges the suspect's role in what happened, he said Beasley shares more blame. "He does bear some fault, but it's like a pie.

You divide out the fault accordingly, and Mr. Beasley could have done something different," Jaramillo said.

Man pulls a gun on the store clerk, clerk pulls his weapon and fires, killing the robber. The dead scumbag's widow is suing the clerk AND store owner for wrongful death, defamation of character amongst a slew of other things. She also stated the clerk had NO RIGHT to shoot her late husband.
What an idiot.
Law enforcement said the shooting WAS justified, but said the clerk could have fled the premises and notified law enforcement.
This comment by the widow's lawyer made me shake my head:

“He had no basis to believe that his life was in danger. Most robberies end with an attempt to get money. They really don’t kill the clerks.”

Oh no?
How about this Ms. Dumbass Lawyer:
Clerk Shot, Killed During Robbery at Check Cashing Store
Caught on Camera: Shooting Death of Store Clerk, Mother of 5
Man convicted of murder in shooting death of Merrillville convenience store clerk

'They dont really kill the clerks' Frikkin retard.


I disagree. Why should he run from HIS place because some fraktard wants to take what someone has worked hard for? Why should he have to wait for the cops to show up, after losing his money and possibly his life?
I fully believe in 'Stand your ground' laws.
The guy EXACTLY what he deserved. You live by the sword, you DIE by the sword.



Yes I know this is from May 2013, just found it this morning.

So the lawyer is saying the clerk should have done something else.....well....I would rebuttle with..." The same can be said for the robber, ..the robber SHOULD have done something else, like...NOT ROB ThE STORE and his his ass wouldn't have been shot".

reply to post by HomerinNC


What a disgusting pig! I hope she gets promptly shot down in court and put in her place. She should have been helping out by getting a job herself so her POS husband didn't have to go robbing people. If anyone is guilty over her husband getting shot, it's her.

I'm growing so sick of people like this. If you can't face the potentials, like getting shot, don't do it!

reply to post by HomerinNC


Have you found any updates about the lawsuit?

This should just be thrown out. It seems every other day you hear about someone defending themselves, and being made out as monsters.

Why do people believe the cops can save you as the crime is happening?

terriblyvexed
reply to post by HomerinNC

 

Have you found any updates about the lawsuit?

This should just be thrown out. It seems every other day you hear about someone defending themselves, and being made out as monsters.

Why do people believe the cops can save you as the crime is happening?

No, I've been looking, nothing new

double post

First time the judge hears this nonsense, he should toss it out, and award damages to the court and the "defendants" for wasting people's time. This crap takes frivolous lawsuits to a whole new level of stupidity.

reply to post by TKDRL


It is sad that we live in a country that allows this lawsuit to even be filed. It makes me sick, that the victim of a crime, is put on trial for defending his life.

let me get this straight...he was committing a crime, and got wasted in the process. Now his wife is filing...for damages I suppose, because the store owner should have complied when being robbed ?

I can tell you one thing for sure...ONLY IN AMERICA is something like this possible.

Unfortunately in this day and age we could very possibly see a ruling in the favor of the scumbags wife. What better way for the government to push anti-gun propaganda? The lesson would be if you use a gun to defend your life you will lose everything else. I sure hope I am wrong though.

Its cases like this where "losers pays" would be a justifiable policy in the legal system.

It would stop this kind of ridiculous case from ever seeing the light of day.

Now the clerk, business and/or insurance company has to spend probably tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs to defend what should not have to be defended in order to "play the game" with this woman who undoubtedly has a contingency arrangement with her lawyer. Insurance probably made offer to go away but bet declined by plaintiff and attorney out of greed not righteousness.

Crazy and I know from direct business experience that insurance will dole out $5000+ dollars just to make these and far lessor cases go away due cost of going to court no matter how ridiculous the claim - seen it with my own eyes.

We all pay for these kinds of cases through increased business costs so it ain't free by a long shot.

If woman finds judge stupid enough to go along and prevails, then it's basically open season on store clerks going forward.

The widow and her attorney should be hanged in public for this. Its the only way people learn.

i'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is why a lot of big box stores and other companies tell their employees , not to fight back just give them the money.

it's not to save lives as they would have you believe, it's to save from being sued by sorry pos lawyers that talk people into suing.

this is not the first were a criminal, or their family have sued the victims. and if i recall correctly, there have been cases where the jury has awarded the criminal or their family.

Divide out the fault? What division of fault? A scumbag walked into a public business with the intent of committing felony crimes against the people inside it. One of those people chose not to put his life and survival in the hands of a criminal's 'tender mercies' and shot the rodent on the spot. Good for him.

The blame division, if any, ought to be asking what she was doing with such a piece of work to begin with? That she lost him to the way he chose to live is how life works....and I hope she never sees one thin dime out of this nonsense.

IMO, once you point a gun at someone you've just forfeited the privilege of having your intentions second guessed.

If she gets anything more than shown the door, THAT will be the true tragedy.

It seems the gun happy clerk took away this woman's meal ticket. Looks like she will be back tricking on the street corner when she loses that lawsuit.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


I worked for a major pizza chain, in Florida, in the late 80's. One night I was robbed, my car key were taken and thrown away and then as he was running away the guy took a shot at me. I grabbed my gun from under the seat of my car and put a few rounds into the back of his car as he was driving off. The police asked my why I shot and I told them that I didn't want him coming back and shooting me. They had no problem with that. They caught the guy the next day when he tried to have the holes in his car fixed.

I was promptly fired for having a weapon on me, violating company policy. A few weeks later I get a call asking if I wanted my job back. I said "No. I heard what happened in the Orlando store a few days earlier."

The Orlando store Manager, Assistant Manager, two Pizza Makers and four Drivers were forced into the freezer, during a robbery, and all shot in the back of the head.

My main issue with cooperating with a robber is that there is no guarentee that they are not going to kill you after they get what they want. I'm a big guy. You are not going to intimidate me with anything less than a gun.

If somebody uses a gun to rob me, I have to assume that they plan on killing me. I can't trust them not to, so if I get the chance, I'm going to kill them.

The idea of cooperation is what brought us 9-11. The flight crews were trained to cooperate with hijackers and to get the plane on the ground. As far as the "big box" stores are concerned, their cooperation policy is driven by liability. A local grocery store employee tried to apprehend a shoplifter. The shoplifter ran out of the store and into the street where he was hit by a car and killed. The store had to pay over a million dollars to the family of the shoplifter.

reply to post by JIMC5499


that's one of the reasons, i say if you are psychically able to fight back, or if you have a gun and can shoot back do it. you have no idea what these sh@@birds are gonna do to keep from going to jail.

i would rather go down fighting, than on my knees cowering to a sh@@bird or some evil bastard.

reply to post by JIMC5499

The idea of cooperation is what brought us 9-11. The flight crews were trained to cooperate with hijackers and to get the plane on the ground. As far as the "big box" stores are concerned, their cooperation policy is driven by liability.

The idea of cooperation has reached new heights of total absurdity, when it comes down to it. It runs from the extreme you cite there, where we all know the results of it. (I'd love to see them try that again...Oh wait, some have in other ways ...and they haven't enjoyed passenger reaction now),

What hit home for me though was a discussion in a class yesterday where the topic somehow got around to what's acceptable or tolerated in society and shoplifting in particular. Several of the girls in class are late teens/early 20's and work in the mall/big retail stores (to keep names out of it). They all commented and agreed that their company policies were simple. Don't interfere, do NO try and stop or detain and in one case with what is a national chain, don't even SAY anything as they walk right out, even if they directly witnessed the theft.

Liability is the reason. One of them works in a local mall area and security there told them to not even call on it unless it's escalated into something threatening. They don't have time or people to chase shoplifters. (sigh)

...and the little failures lead to big ones, like clockwork. It sounds like a near freebie in some of the stores to have heard the girls describe it...and they were the ones who'd be making the call of reacting or not, too.

There's a Spanish saying "Quien a hierro mata, a hierro muere" which means "Who kills with iron, dies by iron"
literally, live by the sword, die by the sword.

This guy went into the store, with an acomplice, with a 9mm in hand..if he had no intention to kill the clerk then why carry it??

If he was only going to rob the store and spook the guy, why not use a basball bat...

HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED..."QUIEN A HIERRO MATA...!!!"

And as for the wife's lawyer.....

LIONEL HUTZ - Attorney at law..and expert shoe repair..