jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (13 posts)

Man sues former hostages, says they broke promise

  1. Stacie L profile image89
    Stacie Lposted 4 years ago

    TOPEKA, Kan. (AP)  Can there be no trust between a kidnapper and his hostages?

    A man who held a Kansas couple hostage in their home while fleeing from authorities is suing them, claiming they broke an oral contract made when he promised them money in exchange for hiding him from police. The couple has asked a judge to dismiss the suit.

    Jesse Dimmick of suburban Denver is serving an 11-year sentence after bursting into Jared and Lindsay Rowley's Topeka-area home in September 2009. He was wanted for questioning in the beating death of a Colorado man and a chase had begun in in Geary County.
    http://news.yahoo.com/man-sues-former-h … 02970.html
    so the hostages didn't keep their word? whos taking his case and suing the hostages?
    this is just craziness.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Strikes me that this lawsuit won't get far.

    2. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You can't contract an illegal act.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_agreement

      Hiding someone from police would seem to qualify.

      Even if that didn't apply, the duress is rather obvious.. and a contract made under threat isn't valid either.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I disagree, you can contract an illegal act. It's just that you can't rely on the one writing the law to enforce the contract.

        A contract between a drug dealer and a client is still a contract, it's just that the government won't be the one enforcing it.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This obviously doesn't need to be said, but I feel that this might shed some light on the reason why this is nonsense.

      Let us posit two similar situations against one another:

      1) A criminal is escaping the law, knocks on your door, and you politely let him enter. He explains his situation, and asks if you'll agree to hide him from the law in exchange for the promise of payment later.

      2) A criminal, carrying a gun, breaks into your home, points the gun to you and explains his situation. He then asks if you would hide him from the law for the promise of a future payment.

      His previous actions were of no consequence - the only important information is whether the contract was generated through violence or through voluntary volition.

      If we ignore the reason for his escaping the law -- perhaps this is under a dictatorship and he was accused of worshiping the wrong god, or perhaps he killed someone -- we can see that one of the contracts is much more valid than the other.

      The second situation is NOT a valid contract because it involved a threat of violence. Because someone owns their own life and body, the threat of violence is a usurpation of property rights. This means that there was no contract to begin with because one person is, essentially, making a contract with himself.

      In the first situation, the family IS in a contract. There was no threat of violence, and every action was completely voluntary leading up to the contract.

      In the article, the individual broke into the house, and thus used violence to generate the contract. It is thus void.

      The real tragedy of the situation is that the money in question will likely end up being stolen by the police as "evidence".

    4. 70
      logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What's crazy is there is an attorney with no morals that will take the case.

  2. aguasilver profile image89
    aguasilverposted 4 years ago

    Just cannot resist posting the following....

    Stella Awards
    It's time again for the annual "Stella Awards."  For those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the McDonald's in New Mexico , where she purchased coffee.  You remember, she took the lid off the coffee and put it between her knees while she was driving.  Who would ever think one could get burned doing that, right?  That's right; these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S.  You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head and say WHY.  So keep your head scratcher handy. 

    Here are the Stellas for the past year:   

    Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store.  The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son.

    Start scratching!

    * SIXTH PLACE  * 

    Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles , California , won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

    Scratch some more...

    * FIFTH PLACE * 

    Terrence Dickson, of Bristol , Pennsylvania , who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage.  Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open.  Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut.  Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT days and survive on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental anguish.  Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish.  We should all have this kind of anguish.  Keep scratching .. There are more......

    Double hand scratching after this one.....


    Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place in the Stella's when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard.  Williams did not get as much as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun.

    Pick a new spot to scratch, you're getting a bald spot..


    Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone.  The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

    Only two more so ease up on the scratching....


    Kara Walton, of Claymont , Delaware , sued the owner of a night club in a  nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth.  Even though Ms.Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club had to pay her $12,000 ..... oh, yeah, plus dental expenses.     

    OK.  Here we go!!

    * FIRST PLACE * 

    This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was:  Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , who purchased new 32-foot Winnebago motor home.  On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich.  Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned.  Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set.  The Oklahoma jury awarded her -- are you sitting down? --- $1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home.  Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.

    Wonder how much he will get?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, the criminal is making the right decision - the police will likely confiscate the money in question, and the couple will be screwed!

      LOLOL the real criminal will likely be the police.

    2. Jed Fisher profile image88
      Jed Fisherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hmm. Get the facts straight.
      Like Nancy Grace and Jane Velez-Mitchell...
      The court of public opininon covicts people all the time but a jury looking at the facts comes to very different conclusons.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If I ever run into trouble with the law, I'm definitely getting a jury.

        Trial by jury is one of the absolutely most important parts of a free society.

        1. Jed Fisher profile image88
          Jed Fisherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I found out the hard way, right after I turned 18, all that crap about free speech they taught me in high school...just try saying what you really think in public, see waht happens.
          You got about as many rights as you can afford to pay a lawyer to protect.

          1. aguasilver profile image89
            aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Big Amen to that!

            We have the best legal system money can buy.

    3. Charles James profile image87
      Charles Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this