Convicted Murder Sues Former Hostage

Convicted Murder Sues Former Hostage

www.katu.com

An Oregon inmate who killed one man in 2006 is now suing his former hostage.

It all started over an $18,000 order for an ice cream truck.

The hostage victim, Rob Chambers, used to build ice cream trucks and he built one for a customer in New York. That customer turned into a killer, deciding to commit murder when he couldn't get a refund.

Now in prison, the convicted killer - Tremayne Durham - is using the courts to get the refund. And he's having success.

Facing eviction and the loss of his business, Rob Chambers can't afford a lawyer so he's going to fight this convicted kil

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is *Snip*....about as much *Snip* as facing charges for being naked in one's own house. What the hell has become of our justice system to allow for this kinda crap?! It makes me ashamed, as an American...to see these things happening to fellow law-abiding citizens.

I'm not saying the murderer here has a case (or might win)...just the fact that he is ALLOWED to waste a court's time with this ludicrous suit. What Judge would allow this?!
GAAAHHHH!!!!

www.katu.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/27/2009 by semperfortis]

This is the same system that allows convicts that are level three offenders (those most likely to offend again) out to begin with.

I agree with you though any judge that does not tell this convict to shut his pie hole and laugh at him is about worthless. This convict does not deserve the time or money it will take for this case.

Raist

I believe that anyone convicted of a felony should not be able to pursue any citizen in a civil matter stemming from the crime. This extends to surviving family members of criminal killed while committing a felony.

This means if some scuzbucket breaks into your home with the intent of committing burglary, rape, what-have-you and you kill him, his family cannot bring a wrongful death suit against you.

Protection for victims needs to be greater. Of course, I'm a wee bit over the top in that I believe anyone should able to shoot and kill someone breaking into their home or stealing their vehicle from their home and have it ruled as "self-defense."

Originally posted by starsyren
This is *Snip*.. . What the hell has become of our justice system to allow for this kinda crap?! It makes me ashamed, as an American...to see these things happening to fellow law-abiding citizens.

I'm not saying the murderer here has a case (or might win)...just the fact that he is ALLOWED to waste a court's time with this ludicrous suit. What Judge would allow this?!

What if the circumstances were a little bit different?

What if the "victim" worked for a "big insurance company" that "stole" $18,000 of health care benefits from the "criminal" and cancelled his policy?

What if he took matters into his own hands after his chemo- treatment was denied, and took a couple of local agents "hostage" in the local agency office. He shoots one to prove his situation is truly "life and death."

How many people would hesitate to blame the "greedy corporation" for the problem? How many would look at the criminal as the true "victim?"

In this case, the murderer probably took great risks, and used much of his net worth, to deal enough crack to try to make his "business" mobile with Chambers' (the hostage victim) ice cream truck.

If the seller (hostage) didn't deliver the product (dope-mobile) as promised, isn't the customer entitled to a refund?

Finally, Chambers chose not to respect the very courts you seem to think should have protected him.

Since Chambers did not respond to letters from the court, an arbitrator already has ruled in Durham (the murderer)'s favor.

www.katu.com

Even of you think a claim is meritless, frivolous, or B.S.; when you ignore legal proceedings you do it at your own risk.

A simple call, or letter to the Court probably would have helped avoid this travesty. It's not a waste though if the plaintiff WINS, is it (from his and his attorney's POV)?

jw

[edit on 10/27/2009 by semperfortis]

reply to post by jdub297


The situation ISN'T different. This guy is trying to say he was driven to murder because he couldn't get his refund. Now he's trying to re-coop his lost expenses from his own crime?!
I think what I'm tryin to get across is what VelmaLu said:

I believe that anyone convicted of a felony should not be able to pursue any citizen in a civil matter stemming from the crime. This extends to surviving family members of criminal killed while committing a felony.

/\/\/\/\ That right there is the biggest problem with our justice system....there's no JUSTICE in it. This guy killed a man. Someones' father, someone's son, somone's brother.....and now he's allowed to have KFC, Hagen-Daaz, and lawsuits. WHERE'S HIS PUNISHMENT?!

[edit on 27-10-2009 by starsyren]

Originally posted by starsyren
reply to post by jdub297

 

The situation ISN'T different. This guy is trying to say he was driven to murder because he couldn't get his refund. Now he's trying to re-coop his lost expenses from his own crime?!
I think what I'm tryin to get across is what VelmaLu said:

I believe that anyone convicted of a felony should not be able to pursue any citizen in a civil matter stemming from the crime. This extends to surviving family members of criminal killed while committing a felony.

I happen to AGREE with VelmaLu!

BUT, that's not the real world. In American "justice," a felony conviction does not prevent the felon access to the courts. What if he was tortured into confessing? Shouldn't a victim of torture be able to seek compensation?

What if his felony wasn't murder, but extortion (e.g., threatening to take the law into his own hands if the seller didn't live up to his bargain)?

"Civil Rights" have not yet been entirely erased by allowing politicians to set the rules of American "justice."

But they will be, if it leads to popular support and re-election.

And, this ignores the seller's contempt of the courts, in the first place. If he'd spoken up, maybe this wouldn't have gotten this far. Maybe he didn't speak up because the claims were TRUE!

You really need to think this through. If our rights depended upon what was "popular," there wouldn't be a Hawaiian-American President!

Most of our "civil rights" are the result of someone standing up for an unpopular position. We wouldn't have the "Miranda" warning, "Gideon's Rule," or the "Voting Rights Act," if popularity was the decisive factor in our "Justice System."

jw