Kelly J
03-22-2012, 08:50 AM
KEVIN L. JAMISON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
20 March 2012 IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WOUNDED CRIMINAL LOSES LAWSUIT
The dismissal of a $10 million lawsuit has provided the first known test of a Missouri statute (RSMo 563.074) designed to protect persons who act in self-defense.
A neighborhood disturbance awakened Anthony Costanzo at 4 AM on 7 July, 2009. The disturbance later proved to be gunshots and evolved to unknown persons vaulting fences into his grandmother’s yard. Mr. Costanzo, who has a License to Carry, left his home to check on his grandmother’s safety taking his cell phone and .40 Glock Model 27 pistol. He was confronted by the cause of the disturbance, Mr. Elijah Flores Sr., who leveled a shotgun at him. Mr. Constanzo drew his pistol and directed Mr. Flores to lower the shotgun. Mr. Flores instead moved to take cover. Mr. Costanzo, exposed in the middle of the street, had no choice but to fire. Mr. Costanzo called an ambulance and the police. Mr. Costanzo was never arrested, charged or even handcuffed.
Mr. Flores survived to sue Mr. Costanzo and the Kansas City Missouri police from prison for $10 million. His petition complained of being shot and that the police did not arrest Mr. Costanzo. Mr. Costazo engaged Kansas City area attorney Kevin L. Jamison whom he knew from his DVD Missouri Concealed Carry and Self-Defense Law see http://www.LearnToCarryProductions.com. Mr. Jamison filed a counter-claim demanding dismissal and attorney fees allowed by the statute. At a Jackson County hearing before Judge W. Brent Powell on 19 March, 2012 Mr. Jamison succeeded in dismissing the lawsuit and obtaining a judgment for attorney fees against Mr. Flores. “There is a history of cases like this being filed to scare parties into settlement,” said Mr. Jamison. “It was more difficult and expensive to litigate than to settle. The statute (RSMo 563.074) was designed to reduce the difficulty and place the expense where it belongs. We intend to garnish his inmate account at the Department of Corrections for the rest of his incarceration. We hope that this case serves to discourage such suits in the future.” The case against the police department had already been dismissed, however they did not ask for attorney fees.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
20 March 2012 IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WOUNDED CRIMINAL LOSES LAWSUIT
The dismissal of a $10 million lawsuit has provided the first known test of a Missouri statute (RSMo 563.074) designed to protect persons who act in self-defense.
A neighborhood disturbance awakened Anthony Costanzo at 4 AM on 7 July, 2009. The disturbance later proved to be gunshots and evolved to unknown persons vaulting fences into his grandmother’s yard. Mr. Costanzo, who has a License to Carry, left his home to check on his grandmother’s safety taking his cell phone and .40 Glock Model 27 pistol. He was confronted by the cause of the disturbance, Mr. Elijah Flores Sr., who leveled a shotgun at him. Mr. Constanzo drew his pistol and directed Mr. Flores to lower the shotgun. Mr. Flores instead moved to take cover. Mr. Costanzo, exposed in the middle of the street, had no choice but to fire. Mr. Costanzo called an ambulance and the police. Mr. Costanzo was never arrested, charged or even handcuffed.
Mr. Flores survived to sue Mr. Costanzo and the Kansas City Missouri police from prison for $10 million. His petition complained of being shot and that the police did not arrest Mr. Costanzo. Mr. Costazo engaged Kansas City area attorney Kevin L. Jamison whom he knew from his DVD Missouri Concealed Carry and Self-Defense Law see http://www.LearnToCarryProductions.com. Mr. Jamison filed a counter-claim demanding dismissal and attorney fees allowed by the statute. At a Jackson County hearing before Judge W. Brent Powell on 19 March, 2012 Mr. Jamison succeeded in dismissing the lawsuit and obtaining a judgment for attorney fees against Mr. Flores. “There is a history of cases like this being filed to scare parties into settlement,” said Mr. Jamison. “It was more difficult and expensive to litigate than to settle. The statute (RSMo 563.074) was designed to reduce the difficulty and place the expense where it belongs. We intend to garnish his inmate account at the Department of Corrections for the rest of his incarceration. We hope that this case serves to discourage such suits in the future.” The case against the police department had already been dismissed, however they did not ask for attorney fees.