Murderer/home invader sues couple he kidnapped

mikea

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name
iWin
Home Airfield
C81
Dimmick was fleeing a murder charge in a stolen van when he drove over some spikes laid by Topeka police. The van came to rest in the Rowleys' front yard, and Dimmick then invited himself in at knifepoint to enjoy some involuntary hospitality.

.. Dimmick sued the city of Topeka over the shooting, and (possibly because of the prospect that he might get money from that suit) the Rowleys sued Dimmick last September for trespass, intrusion and negligent infliction of emotional distress. That seems to have given Dimmick the idea to sue the Rowleys, and he brought a counterclaim against them for breach of contract.

You see, Dimmick alleges that, after breaking into the Rowleys' home with a knife and gun, they all then sat down and hashed out a deal under which they would hide him from police (the police who were right outside) for an unspecified amount of money. "Later," he complained, "the Rowleys reneged on said oral contract, resulting in my being shot in the back by authorities." Ergo, breach of contract.

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2011/11/man-sues-couple-he-kidnapped.html
Click to expand...

Is this why David is not a civil lawyer?
 
I think he should also have been charged with criminal dumb-assery.
 
It has about the same merit as the millions of other BS lawsuits that are filed every year. I see no reason why this criminal should be denied his chance to spin the wheel of the legal lottery. A lottery that has become the backbone of our legal system.

John
 
Last edited:
John Baker said:
It has about the same merit as the millions of other BS lawsuits that are filed every year. I see no reason why this criminal should be denied his chance to spin the wheel of the legal lottery. A lottery that has become the backbone of our legal system.

John
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, I believe a contract entered into under threat is not legally binding.
 
Palmpilot said:
Well, for one thing, I believe a contract entered into under threat is not legally binding.
Click to expand...

Ever read a contract? They're full of threats, it's about all they consist of.

Like I said, it's a BS lawsuit, but hey, under our system, you can win big bucks for spilling coffee on yourself. Why wouldn't our courts let him have his chance? Our whole legal system has gleefully emerged itself in such nonsensical garbage, it's what makes our country what it is today.

This thing pretty much sums it all up.>>>>>>>>>>:goofy:

John
 
John Baker said:
Ever read a contract? They're full of threats, it's about all they consist of.
Click to expand...

Those are threats of legal actions, which the parties agreed to when they entered into the contract. I'm talking about threats of illegal actions, that were not agreed to, which coerce a party to enter into the contract in the first place. The attorneys here can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if someone holds a gun to your head to force you to sign a contract, the contract is not legally enforceable. An armed person breaking into your home sure sounds coercive to me.

Why wouldn't our courts let him have his chance?
Click to expand...

I'm hoping the judge will dismiss the case before it runs up big legal bills for the homeowners.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
The attorneys here can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if someone holds a gun to your head to force you to sign a contract, the contract is not legally enforceable. An armed person breaking into your home sure sounds coercive to me.
Click to expand...

Especially when you have several LEOs that can testify to said duress.
*Not a lawyer, didn't stay at the Holiday Inn or watch Perry Mason last night.

I'm hoping the judge will dismiss the case before it runs up big legal bills for the homeowners.
Click to expand...
He's counter claiming, so the case probably goes on. Besides, wouldn't the contract be void since "agreed upon" terms are illegal?
 
Pi1otguy said:
He's counter claiming, so the case probably goes on.
Click to expand...

I would hope that the counter claim could be dismissed while allowing the original suit to proceed.

Besides, wouldn't the contract be void since "agreed upon" terms are illegal?
Click to expand...

I sure hope so!
 
Palmpilot said:
Those are threats of legal actions, which the parties agreed to when they entered into the contract. I'm talking about threats of illegal actions, that were not agreed to, which coerce a party to enter into the contract in the first place. The attorneys here can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if someone holds a gun to your head to force you to sign a contract, the contract is not legally enforceable. An armed person breaking into your home sure sounds coercive to me.
...
Click to expand...

Nuh, uh! If you can't believe the movies....


I guess that bandleader needed a good lawyer.
 
Palmpilot said:
Those are threats of legal actions, which the parties agreed to when they entered into the contract. I'm talking about threats of illegal actions, that were not agreed to, which coerce a party to enter into the contract in the first place. The attorneys here can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if someone holds a gun to your head to force you to sign a contract, the contract is not legally enforceable. An armed person breaking into your home sure sounds coercive to me.
Click to expand...
In addition, most states have a provision for backing out of a contact entered into while in ones residence providing the request for rescinding is done within xx hours of signing.
 
pilot_dude said:
In addition, most states have a provision for backing out of a contact entered into while in ones residence providing the request for rescinding is done within xx hours of signing.
Click to expand...

The three day cooling off period only applies to unsolicited sales - door-to-door or cold call.

The reason Empire can say "Carpet tomorrow" is because you called them and in that case there is no cooling off period.
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
The three day colling off period only applies to unsolicited sales - door-to-door or cold call.

The reason Empire can say "Carpet tomorrow" is because you called them and in that case there is no cooling off period.
Click to expand...
I believe this would qualify as "unsolicited" ;)
 
Pi1otguy said:
Especially when you have several LEOs that can testify to said duress.
*Not a lawyer, didn't stay at the Holiday Inn or watch Perry Mason last night.


He's counter claiming, so the case probably goes on. Besides, wouldn't the contract be void since "agreed upon" terms are illegal?
Click to expand...

If I recall from my business law days, in order to have a valid contract, you need COAL:

C - Consideration
O - Offer
A - Acceptance
L - Legality of the subject matter

I think it fails the "L" test at least!
 
John Baker said:
It has about the same merit as the millions of other BS lawsuits that are filed every year. I see no reason why this criminal should be denied his chance to spin the wheel of the legal lottery. A lottery that has become the backbone of our legal system.

John
Click to expand...

It's a Zoomer style free countersuit methinks. They have to entertain it, because dismissing it without review of the facts is against the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top