Cases like this are exactly why if your state does not have a self defense immunity law, you need to be pushing for one. Many states have laws stating that if a shooting is ruled justifiable you cannot be sued in civil court over the incident.

On to the story. In New Mexico a widow is suing a store clerk who shot and killed her husband when he tried to rob the clerk’s store in 2010.

The widow’s case alleges that the shop clerk bears more of the blame for her husband’s death than her husband does because he had time to call the police instead of shooting her armed husband.

Yes, that’s right, she thinks the clerk is more at fault.

According to KRQE,

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.

Seriously? This isn’t a car accident where two people both did something stupid resulting in a car accident. This suspect chose to rob this store. He chose to bring a gun. He chose to point that gun at the clerk. The only choice the clerk made was refusing to be a victim.

The attorney went on,

“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.”

Really? So the clerk was just supposed to put the trust for his life in the hands of a man who was pointing a gun at him? I’m sure his intentions were nothing but good.

The lawsuit is also going after the owner of the shop as well as the local police department, because you can never sue enough people, right?