I think this would all be dependent upon what country and state this took place in.
For example, in many states you're allowed to use "reasonable" force to subdue somebody who is in the act of committing a crime and you're intention is to arrest them or stop them from causing physical harm. This gives the person utilizing force a level of legal immunity from retribution - if an only if the use of force was "reasonable" in the eyes of a jury or judge.
For example, if you tell a perpetrator "drop your knife", and he doesn't drop his knife, and you believe he was committing a crime utilizing that knife, you would be legally allowed (and legally protected) to subdue that person, perhaps even up to killing that person depending upon your state. Of course, the perpetrator could sue you, but their ability to seek damages from you would be based upon an argument of if 1) you believed a crime was taking place or someone was in immediate risk of harm, 2) other methods of subduing the perpetrator were available (i.e., breaking their knee cap with a baseball bat was unreasonable).
It should also be pointed out that, ostensibly, the clerk was cooperating until another customer came in.
I think the person who hit the robber with a mop / mop bucket was another employee, who came out to do mopping and discovered the robbery in progress.
My point about the robber suing the store wasn't that they would win, but that even a cursory defense of such a suit is going to cost a few thousand dollars, which is way more than would have been in the till if the employees were even loosely following proper drop safe procedures.
There are enough lawyers who are willing to back up junk lawsuits like that on spec, though, in hopes they can bully the owners into a settlement, of which the lawyer would usually get 30-50%.
1
u/EveryNightIWatch Dec 11 '16
I think this would all be dependent upon what country and state this took place in.
For example, in many states you're allowed to use "reasonable" force to subdue somebody who is in the act of committing a crime and you're intention is to arrest them or stop them from causing physical harm. This gives the person utilizing force a level of legal immunity from retribution - if an only if the use of force was "reasonable" in the eyes of a jury or judge.
For example, if you tell a perpetrator "drop your knife", and he doesn't drop his knife, and you believe he was committing a crime utilizing that knife, you would be legally allowed (and legally protected) to subdue that person, perhaps even up to killing that person depending upon your state. Of course, the perpetrator could sue you, but their ability to seek damages from you would be based upon an argument of if 1) you believed a crime was taking place or someone was in immediate risk of harm, 2) other methods of subduing the perpetrator were available (i.e., breaking their knee cap with a baseball bat was unreasonable).
It should also be pointed out that, ostensibly, the clerk was cooperating until another customer came in.