Comments on: Parents sue hot dog shop after son’s shooting death

By: Bumper

Bumper — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:45:25 +0000

Off-duty details are a common way for cops to supplement their income, I suspect that the rebuff that two were necessary was an attempt to keep a detail slot, which probably wasn’t really needed. To which the owner said to himself, “screw it, I don’t need no stinkin’ cops” and fired both, a decision which was wrong from both sides.

Unless the perp chased the deceased out of the store, and/or they allowed the perp to get really intoxicated, it appears that this was a street crime. But I’m sure the jury will see it the other way.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:15:17 +0000

Owners guilty of having tangible assets that can be converted to lawyers’ fees.

By: kimsch

kimsch — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:39:36 +0000

Funny, my take was:
1) shop hires 2 off duty cops
2) shop decides to go with only 1
3) cops say it’d be unsafe
4) shop drops both

for 3) i saw it as cops think only 1 is unsafe FOR THE COP…

By: david7134

david7134 — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:04:27 +0000

How about the situation that would exist if the shop provided security, but something bad happened regardless. Wouldn’t that be grounds for suit as the security was not adequate to prevent all violent incidents? Now, it that is true, then the shop could argue that no matter what they did, it would be in trouble.

By: Bill Robelen

Bill Robelen — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:08:03 +0000

It does bother me that in Mississippi, where I live, the courts have held that a business may in some cases be held liable for someone shooting or robbing someone else in the parking lot. The standard the courts use is if the owner should have known that the area was to dangerous. I personally believe that the legislatures need to shut this avenue of lawsuits down completely. If a business is sued because they did not employ private security to police the parking lots accessible to the general public, then they should be able to get a refund on every cent in taxes they have paid to the city.

By: David M. Nieporent

David M. Nieporent — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 07:21:11 +0000

Max, the question isn’t whether the risk is obvious; the question is why the owners have a duty to avoid it. According to the article, he wasn’t shot to death “at a business”; he was shot to death on the street.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 03:03:15 +0000

Max,

He was shot to death at a business that was so unsafe that the city refused to let its officers serve there off-duty without backup….

Huh?

The off duty officers were let go by the shop – not because the city didn’t allow them to work there without a backup.

Secondly, Sheridan was shot in the middle of the street – not on the property.

Are you saying that the off duty police officers or even “rent-a-cops” have a duty to follow people off the property and engage in a gun battle?

To me, that is the epitome of “risk.”

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:54:45 +0000

Greg Dwyer,

Agreed.

After looking around, I have a few additional questions.

The DA released a series of surveillance stills taken across the street from the shop:

http://www.wtae.com/news/local/allegheny/surveillance-photos-fatal-oakland-shooting/21528666

Zachary Sheridan (the victim) was shot in the middle of the street running away from the shooter, one Isaiah Smith, who appears to be standing either in the street or in the right of way.

This leads to my question of whether private security guards are responsible for actions that happen off of the property, or whether they are responsible if the actual crime is committed off the property but the “start” of the incident starts on their property. (In this case, the sidewalk in front of the shop.)

There is a list of articles that can be seen here on the whole mess:

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/tag/zach-sheridan/

Finally, if previous cases hold any indication, the shop is in trouble because they are looking into changes in the security around the shop.

This gets back to the un-winnable problem that businesses face of:

1) “you should have known”
2) “if you take steps to prevent an incident, you knew there was a problem and did not do enough to address the problem”
3)”after the incident, doing something indicates there was an issue that you failed to address previously.”

By: mjburgess

mjburgess — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:51:37 +0000

Yes, because business owners didn’t properly raise the miscreants who frequent their establishments. I think the parents if the decedent recognize empty pockets and deep ones with assets and/or insurance.

By: gasman

gasman — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:49:49 +0000

@Max:

cheapskate owners? I’m thinking that two cops at 3am would cost at least $100 per hour. That’s a lot of hot dogs just to hire them. So if the price of the hot dog goes up and patrons stay away, who is being cheap.
The alternative is just to throw cities away, gate the ‘burbs so that the undesirables stay in the high crime area and we let them rot some more. Or we can support a viable economy that might someday reverse the urban decay.

Fast food at 3am in any city is a higher risk proposition than at 3pm, and any person who does not know that is hopelessly out of touch. These folks knew that they could run into sketchy dudes, and it was bad luck that they did.