Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Target Sues 4 Heroes Who Stopped a Knife Attack in Their Store
Two years ago, a homeless man randomly stabbed Jobe Wright in the shoulder and ran off. Wright and three of his friends went looking for the attacker on the streets of Pittsburgh and learned he had fled into a nearby Target store. They went in after him in order to hold him until the police arrived.
That’s when things got even uglier. One of the victim’s friends, Michael Turner, described what happened when they found the attacker, 41-year-old Leon Walls.
“I entered Target, I run up the escalator, I make a right, that’s when I encountered Walls in the store,” said Turner. The two exchanged words as Turner held a baseball bat he had brought in for protection.
“He grabbed a little girl,” Turner continued, speaking of 16-year-old Allison Meadows. “He didn’t stab her at that point, he was talking, saying… he was trying to get out the store and Jobe told him, ‘You’re not going nowhere ’til the police come.’” At that point, Walls said, “Y’all think I’m playing. Y’all think I’m playing. I’m not playing.” and he stabbed Meadows two times.
The teenage girl has made a full recovery and Walls was recently tried and found guilty, but mentally ill.
Meadows’s family is suing Target for not keeping her safe. But now Target is suing Michael Turner and his friends for following Walls into the store, and thus provoking the stabbing.
The attorney for Allison Meadows thinks that Target is up to no good: “Suing Michael Turner is just Target’s way of trying to blame someone else for what happened under their own roof. The family certainly doesn’t blame Mr. Turner and they are thankful he was there that day.”
Like he did on that day two years ago, Turner is fighting back. He has stood outside the Target store holding a sign saying, “Target sues stabbing victim hero.”
Turner and his friends behaved exactly how I would hope to respond in a similar situation. A dangerous, violent man was on the loose and they sought to stop him from hurting anyone else. Target apparently believes carrying a bat was somehow provocative, but as the Second Amendment allows us to carry a firearm it most certainly is okay with a Louisville Slugger.
Does the multinational retail chain have a case against these men or is it just a smokescreen?
Published in Culture, Law
As AZ Patriot noted, is there possibly a procedural apportionment of damages issue that required Target to take its action?
Yes, you’ve hit on the exact issue that may be forcing Target’s hand. I don’t know how PA law works, but in NJ, a jury can not apportion liability to someone who is not a party. Target has to make Turner and his friends a defendant for the jury to even consider it.
If there is publicity about this, Target will back off. The people of Pittsburgh owe a debt to Mr. Wright.
Consider another set of facts.
Suppose a member of the Crips stabbed a member of the Bloods. The Bloods chased him through the streets, right into your house.
The Crip grabs your daughter and says, “Back off or I’ll stab the girl.”
The Bloods say, “No way, we’re here to see you get justice when the cops come.”
The Crip says, “I’m warning you I’ll stab her if you don’t leave.”
You say, “Look Bloods, don’t endanger my daughter. Just go so he leaves her be.”
The Bloods say, “No we are keeping him cornered until the cops come. To hell with your daughter.”
The Crip stabs your daughter and tries to escape out the back door.
Do the Bloods have any blood on their hands? Are you OK with them making the calculation that holding the Crip for the cop was more important than your daughter?
I surmise you’d rather they defuse the situation by leaving.
On another note, John Gabriel, and this is important considering the point of your piece:
This may not be Target’s decision. They may be insured and the insurance company has complete control over the litigation by contract. The insurance company decides who gets sued. The insurance company conducts the entire defense of the litigation.
For Target to change this, they’d have to agree to forego using the very insurance coverage they paid for.
That’s not very fair to Target.
Target should be liable for buying stupid insurance. If they’re liable for everything else, they may as well be liable for this, too.
And if they don’t like it, they can purchase stupid insurance insurance.