Target Suing Man Who Saved Teen Girl from Stabbing in Its Store

Rocky1

Rocky1

New member
I guess losing $6 billion dollars in stock value wasn't enough, Target management has to try harder to close their doors.


Quote:Target Suing Man Who Saved Teen Girl from Stabbing in Its Store

by Warner Todd Huston \ 20 May 2016


In 2013, everyone agreed that Michael Turner saved the life of a teenaged girl who was attacked in a Pennsylvania Target store. Now, Target is suing him.

When she was sixteen, Allison Meadows was shopping in an East Liberty, Pennsylvania, Target store when Leon Walls rushed into the outlet and stabbed her.

With the assistance of surveillance video, Walls was convicted of attempted homicide for his attack on the girl.

The only reason the girl did not suffer more injuries is because Michael Turner interceded and, along with several other men, confronted Walls. Turner himself chased Walls out the store with a baseball bat.

Unsurprisingly, Meadows was extremely thankful for Turner’s efforts.

“I thank him,” Meadows has said. “I thank him every time I see him.”

But Meadows launched a lawsuit against Target, saying the store’s lack of security put all shoppers, not just her, in danger.

Target, however, is less grateful for Mr. Turner’s heroics. And now the retailer is suing him for “endangering” the store’s customers.

According to the company’s filing, Target says Turner and several others chased the suspect toward the store’s entrance after the attack on the girl. The store insists Turner put other shoppers at risk with his actions.

The victim of the stabbing and her family are furious with the retail chain and say Target is just trying to shift the blame away from its own security failures.

“Suing Michael Turner is just Target’s way of trying to blame someone else for what happened under their own roof,” the Meadows family attorney said. “The family certainly doesn’t blame Mr. Turner and they are thankful he was there that day.”

Target is already getting negative publicity; the chain is the subject of a major boycott effort due to its announcement that it is allowing men to use women’s bathrooms and changing rooms.

Despite the uproar over its decision–not to mention the loss of up to $6 billion in stock values—Target doubled down on its policy.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...g-in-its-store/
 
CRAZY! First of all, I wouldn't award the Meadows family a cent if I were on a jury; second, I wouldn't convict Turner for his actions.
Guess the prosecution wouldn't want me on either jury!
I remember reading a story about a little girl getting her hand or fingers stuck in the top of one of those local park carousels, the type you sit on and push yourself around with your feet. Apparently the protective cap was missing and she somehow managed to get her hand or fingers stuck in there I think it was somewhere over in NJ, AND NO ADULT THERE WOULD TOUCH HER FOR FEAR OF GETTING SUED BY HER PARENTS! They did call for emergency help, which freed the child, but just shows the consequences of this sue happy nation!
 
this makes my decision to not shop at target years ago seem better and better.


good lord, what the [beeep] is a matter with company's these days. smh.
 
I've been in a Target store 2 times in my life, and I'm sorry for that. I will never even look at that place when I drive by. I will offer up one finger for their viewing pleasure though.
 
Originally Posted By: CastNot a penny, not one penny, I swear target will never see a red cent of mine. No way.

Indeed.

Interesting world we live in now. One has to be so cautious. It's unfortunate. A while back my daughter's bus broke down before making the run down our street, stranding her and another girl. I noticed her standing outside her house, seemingly at a loss. I stopped and offered her the use of my phone to call her parents. 30 years ago I could have just picked her up and toted her off to school with my own kid. Not today though, no way.
 
I'm thinking Target is going to lose in every respect on this one. Jury will likely award on insufficient security, making Target, or at least their insurance pay. Is it right? No... but they'll probably award regardless.

In the suit against Turner, Target will lose. Young lady stabbed, inside the store, Turner picks up a baseball bat and chases the assailant. The assailant headed for the door, he wasn't led that way, he wasn't herded or steered that way, Turner was in pursuit of the assailant, not leading him out of the store. Big money trying to somehow cover their [beeep] and point the finger at the little guy. For what??? He chased the assailant out of the store removing the threat. No one else was harmed. Where's their case here???

I just hope Pennsylvania is a state that will hold them responsible for Turner's legal fees when they lose this case. So they can add that to being kicked in the balls at every turn.
 
That is only part of the story.
Quote:
According to the company’s filing, Target says Turner and several others chased the suspect toward the store’s entrance after the attack on the girl. The store insists Turner put other shoppers at risk with his actions.

The guy that did the stabbing had stabbed someone else away from the store, Turner and 2 others chased the stabber and he ran into the Target store. That is when he stabbed the Meadows girl.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherThat is only part of the story.
Quote:
According to the company’s filing, Target says Turner and several others chased the suspect toward the store’s entrance after the attack on the girl. The store insists Turner put other shoppers at risk with his actions.

The guy that did the stabbing had stabbed someone else away from the store, Turner and 2 others chased the stabber and he ran into the Target store. That is when he stabbed the Meadows girl.

Was this info in another article or???????????? Original article above states that Turner chased the suspect out of the store???

Quote: The only reason the girl did not suffer more injuries is because Michael Turner interceded and, along with several other men, confronted Walls. Turner himself chased Walls out the store with a baseball bat.


Regards,
hm
 
I have to agree with dogcatcher. I read the article a couple of days ago but dangit I don't remember the source. It was not Rocky's source, which is always reliable, it was some msm article. Either way Target has a weak case in my opinion. Turner and his helpers had every right to chase a fleeing felon and are not in control of where he runs. I'm not sure which version is correct, however, this is a prime example of why we need tort reform. Loser should always pay.
 
Quote:this is a prime example of why we need tort reform. Loser should always pay.

Absolutely! Perhaps some sanctions on attorneys who accept frivolous lawsuits, as well but the problem is who decides what is frivolous.

Not surprising that there are two totally opposite statements of "fact" published in this day and age. Would be very interesting to find out how it actually played out.

Regards,
hm
 
since its in target - there's a solid likelyhood of video footage of the entire event....

from the time he entered the property to the time he left. baring camera dead zones there should be very little information they wont be able to produce for the courts in this regard.


i would have to assume that target would need to prove that they intentinoally chased him towards another customer for the lawsuit to have any hope of going their way, which one would think would be [beeep] near impossible.
 
When Turner confronted the guy was when the guy grabbed the girl, this was inside of Target, where Turner and 2 others followed him.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/07/16/east-liberty-target-stabbing-lawsuit/

Quote:At this point, we were standing on Highland Avenue, and then that’s when Walls attacked Jobe Wright. At that point, Roland Smith and Tyreek Walker pursued behind him. At this point, I get in a car with Jobe Wright,” said Turner.

Turner says he and his friend got in a car to find Walls and when they arrived at Target another friend came out of the store and said “he’s in there.”

“I entered Target, I run up the escalator, I make a right, that’s when I encountered Walls in the store,” said Turner.

Turner says he and Walls exchanged words. He also says he went into the store with a baseball bat.

“He grabbed a little girl, 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,'” said Turner. “And that’s when he started saying, ‘Y’all think I’m playing, y’all think I’m playing. I’m not playing.’ And he stabbed her the first time. Then he stabs her again.”

But now the store is saying if Turner had not gone after Walls with the baseball bat, Allison would not have been stabbed.
 
Tort reform is okay until you are the victim and cannot sue the person or corporation that screwed up.

In this case I believe Target will win, if he and the 2 others had not chased Walls, this may not have happened. It also gives Target a better defense against the lawsuit by the girl.

Originally Posted By: hm1996 Quote:this is a prime example of why we need tort reform. Loser should always pay.

Absolutely! Perhaps some sanctions on attorneys who accept frivolous lawsuits, as well but the problem is who decides what is frivolous.

Not surprising that there are two totally opposite statements of "fact" published in this day and age. Would be very interesting to find out how it actually played out.

Regards,
hm
 
on the same argument - if target didnt have a store there, this wouldnt be an issue. so its CLEARLY targets fault for both putting a store there, and allowing violent people with weapons to come onto their property in the first place.
 
Quote:Turner says he and his friend got in a car to find Walls and when they arrived at Target another friend came out of the store and said “he’s in there.”

“I entered Target, I run up the escalator, I make a right, that’s when I encountered Walls in the store,” said Turner.



Sheds a little different light on the subject, don't it?
grin.gif



Originally Posted By: dogcatcherTort reform is okay until you are the victim and cannot sue the person or corporation that screwed up.

In this case I believe Target will win, if he and the 2 others had not chased Walls, this may not have happened. It also gives Target a better defense against the lawsuit by the girl.

hm1996 said:
Quote:this is a prime example of why we need tort reform. Loser should always pay.

Absolutely! Perhaps some sanctions on attorneys who accept frivolous lawsuits, as well but the problem is who decides what is frivolous.

Not surprising that there are two totally opposite statements of "fact" published in this day and age. Would be very interesting to find out how it actually played out.

Regards,
hm


There are two sides to every issue. As far as the loser pays issue, our gun club was sued twice by a neighbor; both cases were pure BS! The neighbor had a very litigious record and, fortunately, had a record of stiffing his attorneys, as well. We poured him out both times. Fortunately had several club members who were attorneys who represented club officers pro-bono + the attorney provided by NRA liability insurance was also a gun shop owner, so we had the upper hand. Had it not been for the club member attorneys, we (ea. club officer) would have ended up having to dig deep. Club agreed to indemnify all officers, but that only goes so far; I chose to carry a personal liability policy as long as I was an officer of the club, but this was an expense that I might not have had if the loser pays was in effect. If loser had to pay, he would have been a bit more reluctant to file those BS claims.

Regards,
hm
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted By: hm1996 Quote:Turner says he and his friend got in a car to find Walls and when they arrived at Target another friend came out of the store and said “he’s in there.”

“I entered Target, I run up the escalator, I make a right, that’s when I encountered Walls in the store,” said Turner.



Sheds a little different light on the subject, don't it?
grin.gif




Regards,
hm




Yep... that one makes a great deal more sense of Target's suit against Turner dc. Thank you!

I still don't think they'll win the suit against Turner in a jury trial however, jury's typically lean on big dollar corporations hard when pitted against the little guy. But win, lose, or draw on that suit, they have to try and establish that Turner was somehow at fault, as a defense against the other suit.

Bottom line is, neither of them are truly at fault; some ambulance chasing attorney figures he can make a fortune suing Target for the girl's family.
 
Back
Top