Made with Love

Dead robber's widow sues shop clerk

Maurice Boscorelli

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
19,322







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. 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.
The suit alleges surveillance video shows Beasley watching Sedillo and his accomplice getting ready to commit the crime. Jaramillo claims the clerk should have then called police or left the store instead of shooting Sedillo.
The lawsuit states the clerk decided to "ambush" the thieves.
“He had no basis to believe that his life was in danger," Jaramillo said. "Most robberies end with an attempt to get money. They really don’t kill the clerks."
The clerk's attorney, Tom Briones, said he's seen the surveillance video, too. Briones claims there was no time to call police.
“Mr. Sedillo pulled out a gun and pointed it right at him," Briones said. "That prompted Mr. Beasley to pull his gun and fire his weapon.
“I think it’s a citizen's right to defend their lives. I think that's what Mr. Beasley did.”
The suit also claims the clerk's boss should pay too because he shouldn't have had Beasley working, knowing he had a gun. It also claims the boss knew "Beasley had a dangerous propensity to improperly use a firearm."
The lawsuit is also going after the Albuquerque Police Department. The widow claims officers held her against her will for four hours for questioning and even telling her to call her husband.
All the while she says the officers knew her husband was dead.
The city of Albuquerque said it does not comment on pending litigation.



Of course up here in Canada the hero clerk would have been charged with manslaughter.
 
I think the clerk should be given a medal and the robbers wife thrown in jail for mischief.
 
Lawsuits like this are infuriating.

This part was interesting, though.

The suit also claims the clerk's boss should pay too because he shouldn't have had Beasley working, knowing he had a gun. It also claims the boss knew "Beasley had a dangerous propensity to improperly use a firearm."

Seems like they might be able to score some points there. Was the gun legal? Was the clerk properly trained and licensed? What is this "dangerous propensity" they refer to?

Might be enough for a settlement with the store's insurance company, which I would assume is what they're really after. Suing the clerk too just seems like throwing legal spaghetti against the wall to see what will stick.
 
Lawsuits like this are infuriating.

This part was interesting, though.

The suit also claims the clerk's boss should pay too because he shouldn't have had Beasley working, knowing he had a gun. It also claims the boss knew "Beasley had a dangerous propensity to improperly use a firearm."

Seems like they might be able to score some points there. Was the gun legal? Was the clerk properly trained and licensed? What is this "dangerous propensity" they refer to?

Might be enough for a settlement with the store's insurance company, which I would assume is what they're really after. Suing the clerk too just seems like throwing legal spaghetti against the wall to see what will stick.

I would not settle. Agree that suing the clerk is a bad Lasagna mix.
 
Lawsuits like this are infuriating.

This part was interesting, though.

The suit also claims the clerk's boss should pay too because he shouldn't have had Beasley working, knowing he had a gun. It also claims the boss knew "Beasley had a dangerous propensity to improperly use a firearm."

Seems like they might be able to score some points there. Was the gun legal? Was the clerk properly trained and licensed? What is this "dangerous propensity" they refer to?

Might be enough for a settlement with the store's insurance company, which I would assume is what they're really after. Suing the clerk too just seems like throwing legal spaghetti against the wall to see what will stick.

Me too, let's sue some douche bag and split the coin!:biggrin2:
 
Back
Top Bottom