Another Thug Family Lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.

romma

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
3,208
Location
Southeastern,CT
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=5e2865ca-2b8e-41ab-b72b-77007bab76dc Mother Sues Dairy Queen Over Death Of Son In Groton
Childs Was Shot After He Tried To Break Into Shop In 2004

By Joe Wojtas
Click name for author info, most recent articles ...


Published on 6/6/2006 in Region » Region News



Print This E-mail This Most E-mailed
Send Letter Send Correction Add To Cart
Increase Text Actual Text Decrease Text













On June 28, 2004, former Robert E. Fitch High School basketball star Jarion Childs broke into the Dairy Queen on Route 1 in Groton about two hours after it had closed.
Childs was confronted by store manager Stephen Botchis, who shot him in the back and killed him after a struggle.

Now, Childs' mother, Eva, has sued Botchis, ice cream shop owner Matthew Botchis and the Dairy Queen company for the death of her son.

The lawsuit has prompted William Corrigan, the attorney for the Botchis family and Dairy Queen, to ask Stonington Police to release their investigation into the 2003 murder of A. Gordon Jeffrey, an 89-year-old Pawcatuck man who was tied up in his bed and brutally beaten to death.

Childs is listed as the suspect in that murder, according to court documents, but Stonington police have never made a final ruling on who killed Jeffrey. Police have said they will not release their records because the case is still under investigation and therefore exempt from the state freedom-of-information law.

The suit, which refers to Childs an “an invitee at the Dairy Queen,” alleges that Stephen Botchis intended not only to frighten Childs with a handgun but cause his death by shooting him in the upper right and left sides of his back. It also charges that Botchis used excessive and deadly force when he should have known it could cause death.

Eva Childs' attorney, Eroll Skyers of Bridgeport, said that because Childs was a victim in the Dairy Queen shooting, state law allowed him to view the investigation done by Groton Town police and the New London County State's Attorney's Office.

Based on that information, Skyers said he was able to file the lawsuit. He declined to discuss exactly what evidence he obtained from the investigation.

Corrigan said that his clients were “surprised and disappointed” by the lawsuit and that it has no merit.

The incident at the Dairy Queen was “a tragedy all the way around,” and it was the most traumatic thing his clients have ever had to go through, Corrigan said.

Shortly after the incident, a long-time friend of the Botchis family said the family felt bad for the Childs family and the suffering they were going through over the loss of their 27-year-old son.

“Now to have a lawsuit brought starts it all over again,” Corrigan said.

After graduating from Fitch in 1995, Childs went on to play basketball at American University in Washington, D.C., where he graduated with a degree in business.

The warrant police obtained a few days after Childs' death to search his girlfriend's Westerly apartment shows he was a suspect in the robbery and murder of Jeffrey, who had been tied down to a bed frame in his Jeffrey Road home and beaten so badly with a blunt object that part of his upper lip was missing.

Jeffrey's nose was broken and his eyes swollen shut, and he died two weeks after the May 14, 2003 beating from heart failure following facial surgery.

Childs' sister, Sonya Childs, told police he planned to “jack” the old man because he was bedridden and could not defend his home, the warrant showed, a claim she later denied.

Police said Sonya Childs cared for Jeffrey when she worked for a home health care business called Good as Gold Care and told a friend she “screwed up” when she told her brother Jeffrey was alone and elderly, the warrant shows.

Police said that when they asked Childs about the murder on June 9, 2003, he would not talk to them. Eleven days later he was killed in the back room of the Dairy Queen.

Following the shooting, a spokesman for the Botchis family said that after other employees had gone home and Stephen Botchis was alone, a masked man pried open the Dairy Queen's back door with a crowbar.

A struggle occurred in a narrow back hallway. Botchis, who suffered some minor head injuries in the scuffle, fired several shots at the intruder who was later identified as Childs.

The state medical examiner ruled Childs' death a homicide, but Botchis was not charged. Groton Town Police Chief Kelly Fogg could not be reached to comment Monday.

At Childs' autopsy, police took palm prints from his body. The state police forensic lab then matched those prints to a set lifted from the window at Jeffrey's house. Skyers said the Childs family does not think their son was involved in Jeffrey's death.

Stonington Police Chief David Erskine said Monday police will continue their investigation into Jeffrey's murder and at some point will release the results of their inquiry after conferring with New London County State's Attorney Kevin Kane.
 
After graduating from Fitch in 1995, Childs went on to play basketball at American University in Washington, D.C., where he graduated with a degree in business.
You can take a thug out of the hood, but you can't take the hood out of the thug...or that sending him to college was like trying to polish a turd.

I often wonder about judges that allow the relatives of thug killed in the act of crime. How can they allow such a travesty to continue?
 
The judge doesn't have much of a choice. The law says that you bring your suit and then you make your case. If he tosses it now, they don't get the chance to make their case that their boy was an innocent victim. . . and who knows? Maybe every once in awhile that turns out to be true.
 
Another case for which I'd be happy to sit on the jury.

And another case demonstrating that we need stricter laws holding douchebag attorneys financially responsible for filing frivolous lawsuits.
 
Based on the facts we know so far, we don't yet know that this lawsuit is frivolous. Besides, one of the jobs of the trial process is to determine whether or not it is frivolous... if the facts are overwhelmingly in favor of the shooter, this will be dismissed at summary judgement (before it goes to trial).

However, in my amateur judgement, there are two important factors that played a part in this lawsuit happening.

1) Deep pockets. Because Dairy Queen can be sued as well, the lawyer stands a chance of getting paid or at least a chance of scaring DQ into a settlement. Without this link, the only thing the attorney could have gotten was whatever assets Botchis had - and that probably was't enough to motivate most attorneys to take this on contingency.

If you have a lot of assets, or are working for somebody that does (off-duty police officer? Reserve sheriff? Night clerk at store?) then you are a lot more attractive target for a civil lawsuit because they will go after the deep pockets of your employer. Plan your self-defense strategies accordingly.

2) Facts of the shooting. We can all easily understand how in a close hand-to-hand struggle someone can get shot in the back; but that fact right there makes it much more attractive for an attorney looking to sue.

In order for a lawsuit to make it in front of a jury, the plaintiff needs to convince the judge that there is a genuine issue of material fact that a reasonable jury could interpret in their favor. Whether the shot was fired into his back in self-defense during a vicious struggle or as the guy was innocently fleeing after trying to order a late night Blizzard is exactly the type of question that juries get to decide usually.

The mere fact that a case will likely go before a jury often convinces coroporations to settle rather than risk a jury verdict that may be a lot less predictable than whatever settlement is offered. In more general terms, 90% of all civil lawsuits brought are settled before trial... so that should tell you why this case is appealing to a lawyer working on contingency.
 
Apparently the criminal filth 'invited' himself into the restaurant after closing hours with a crowbar.

The dead scumbag was also a suspect in the robbery and beating murder of Dr. Eugene Mallove, a MIT cold fusion scientist.

http://www.greatdreams.com/mallove.htm

So you got breaking and entering, robbery, kidnapping, murder x 2, false imprisonment, and a whole slew of other charges. A model citizen the deceased was not. The dirtbag should be exhumed and shot again. The mother should be shot and thrown into the same grave.
 
why oh why we do not have public hanging anymore... if some elements of the society are not conscious enough to be civil at least they could be taught by example of others.
 
The suit, which refers to Childs an “an invitee at the Dairy Queen,” alleges that Stephen Botchis intended not only to frighten Childs with a handgun but cause his death by shooting him in the upper right and left sides of his back. It also charges that Botchis used excessive and deadly force when he should have known it could cause death.

:confused: :mad: :confused: :mad:

Okay, lots of questsions:

1) An invitee? then why the struggle? Was Botchis threatened?

2) Why was Childs there after hours? Did he work there?

3) No mention of evidence supporting the back door being pried open. Was there evidence?

4) The suit states he knowingly used deadly force-why would someone pull a weapon out without intending to use it?:scrutiny:

A lot of relevent info is missing, but based on the article, I'd say that this case will get tossed based on the facts presented so far.

Oh, and if the Police determine that Childs was involved in the murder of Jefferies, then this case is definately bogus. I hope Botchis is exhonerated from this BS.:barf:
 
Let's face it: Mr Childs had it coming.

The way to stop such nonsense suits is for the deep-pockets to counter-sue for covering their legal expenses after the first suit is thrown out. Make a nice example once or twice and relatives of dead dirtbags will go find somebody else to rip off.
 
Dead Thug

Okay, the lawyers win again. Regardless of outcome, the lawyer will get some money. To file a case like this really personifies what kind of whores lawyers really are. This is laughable.

jeepmor
 
Jeepmor, not necessarily. The lawyer probably represents the mother on contingency, so if he doesn't win anything for her, he doesn't get paid.

However, you hit on something important. If judges in this country would impose sanctions against not only the plaintiff in a frivolous suit, but the attorneys, we'd have a lot fewer of them. Judges already have this available to them, but very few are willing to impose it. Hit these ambulance chasers in their wallets and they'd think longer and harder about bringing these types of cases.
 
Judges already have this available to them, but very few are willing to impose it.
I didn't know that, but the problem is the Judges.

We should legislate manditory fees/fines whatever. If the judge has any leeway, they will use it, normally to the detriment of the decent citizen.

Also, if a judge violates the law by NOT imposing the manditory fees/fines, they should be clapped in handcuffs and leg irons and duckwalked to the nearest jail in their "sacred" robes. Too may "judges" think they are above the law.

I am a victim of one...
 
He was just ordering a blizzard at a CLOSED DQ using a crowbar, the BACKdoor, and a ski mask. That sounds perfectly normal to me.

And it's apparent that the manager was lying in wait in the backroom for an unsuspecting customer to wander into the LOCKED building so he could frighten and murder them. What other reason would the manager of a DQ be in the backroom of the place after closing for?

</sarcasm>

If this isn't frivolous I don't know what is.
 
The way to stop such nonsense suits is for the deep-pockets to counter-sue for covering their legal expenses after the first suit is thrown out. Make a nice example once or twice and relatives of dead dirtbags will go find somebody else to rip off.

The deep pockets can counter-sue for their legal expenses. However, they rarely do it because:

1. Publicity - Headlines for these types of suits can occasionaly read like "Dairy Queen sues grieving mother of dead student. Slain honor student at American University's family sued by his killer." If you want to see one of the more egregious hack jobs along those lines, look at the gun distributor who sued the Grunow family after getting a frivolous lawsuit against them thrown out.

2. Cost/Benefit - You have to pay your lawyers to do the countersuit and then at the end of the day, your big win is you have a judgement against someone who can't pay. So basically you win more legal expenses and no money.

I think the best solution is the one the NRA has proposed in its "Stand your ground" laws. If the shooting is found justifiable during a criminal investigation then you are immune to civil suit. Several states already had this law prior to Florida and several more states will be passing one like it soon.
 
Childs' sister, Sonya Childs, told police he planned to “jack” the old man because he was bedridden and could not defend his home, the warrant showed, a claim she later denied.

Police said Sonya Childs cared for Jeffrey when she worked for a home health care business called Good as Gold Care and told a friend she “screwed up” when she told her brother Jeffrey was alone and elderly, the warrant shows.

As far as I'm concerned, the sister is no better than the brother.

Accessory to murder, baby. Book'em Daniel.
 
this is why I think property owners, property managers, renters, etc should be immune from prosecution or civil suit if it can be determined the dead guy broke into the place where he was shot.
 
this is why I think property owners, property managers, renters, etc should be immune from prosecution or civil suit if it can be determined the dead guy broke into the place where he was shot.

Nowadays the benefit of the doubt always goes to the criminal. Even though he broke in and assaulted the victim he is given the benefit of the doubt.

Criminal: Innocent until proven guilty

Victim: Guilty until proven Innocent

And civil law is gotten completely out of hand. AS much as I think O.J. did it. That civil suit should have been thrown out based on him being found not-guilty criminally. IMHO it's double jeopardy.
 
I think the best solution is the one the NRA has proposed in its "Stand your ground" laws. If the shooting is found justifiable during a criminal investigation then you are immune to civil suit. Several states already had this law prior to Florida and several more states will be passing one like it soon.

I agree that "Stand Your Ground" laws are the best solution here.

I'd also like to see laws that state that if you are injured during the commission of a crime you (or your survivors) are unable to sue regardless of the validity of your claim. A "Stand Your Ground" law wouldn't cover a burglar who is injured breaking into an unoccupied building or the guy who got trapped in the garage of a house he was breaking into.
 
I grew up in that town and visited that particular DQ many dozens of times. My best friend, Joe, lived in the home directly behind the DQ. Joe and I were on a first-name basis with the manager who shot the thug. He's a very decent, friendly, hard-working man. If he had to shoot the thug, then the thug needed to be shot.

This suit is garbage, like most post-self-defense suits filed by the estates of criminals.
 
Somebody young ( 27 ), athletic, and brandishing a crowbar breaks into a closed business, should be shot anywhere you can shoot him. Front, back, foot, hand, anything you can hit, to tip the scales to your favor ASAP.
If he happens to die from the shooting, so much the better.

Tuckerdog1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top