Page 101 of 111 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103 ... LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,010 of 1109

Thread: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

  1. #1001
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    He could have used those knives. If I broke into your property looking to steal stuff, and I have a bat slung over my shoulder and I'm either walking towards you or trying to get away once you brandish a gun, am I to assume I'm not to be shot? Why do you defend the meth head/thief/intruder?
    1) I'm not defending anyone. I'm pointing out that these guys murdered someone. I don't have to like the guy they killed or support his actions to reach the conclusion that he was murdered.

    2) Let me see if I'm following your hypo. You break onto my property carrying a bat. I point a gun at you. Is this accurate?
    At that point, yes, you can probably conclude that I'm going to shoot you, and can react accordingly. If I shoot you and you're running away, I have committed murder. If you charge at me with the bat, I am, at that point, under threat of deadly force, and can, therefore, protect myself with deadly force and kill you.

    The whole point is that you're not supposed to assume anything. You're supposed to react with appropriate force under the situation, and the law doesn't support pre-emptive killings. In this situation the killers didn't even know the guy was armed, and they certainly never saw him attempting to use any weapons. The law cannot and does not allow you to kill someone on the off chance that they might represent a threat. You have to wait until they actually indicate that they're attempting to use either deadly force or force that might cause great bodily injury. That didn't happen here. If you think about it a little bit this makes sense. Under your logic, it'd be legal to shoot anyone who unlawfully enters your property under the theory that they might be a threat, even if you have no reason to believe that other than the fact that they're on your property, and even if it turns out that they're totally unarmed and not remotely interested in engaging in any criminal activity. Shooting someone in such circumstances is incredibly reckless, dangerous, and generally a bad idea.

  2. #1002
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    1) I'm not defending anyone. I'm pointing out that these guys murdered someone. I don't have to like the guy they killed or support his actions to reach the conclusion that he was murdered.

    2) Let me see if I'm following your hypo. You break onto my property carrying a bat. I point a gun at you. Is this accurate?
    At that point, yes, you can probably conclude that I'm going to shoot you, and can react accordingly. If I shoot you and you're running away, I have committed murder. If you charge at me with the bat, I am, at that point, under threat of deadly force, and can, therefore, protect myself with deadly force and kill you.

    The whole point is that you're not supposed to assume anything. You're supposed to react with appropriate force under the situation, and the law doesn't support pre-emptive killings. In this situation the killers didn't even know the guy was armed, and they certainly never saw him attempting to use any weapons. The law cannot and does not allow you to kill someone on the off chance that they might represent a threat. You have to wait until they actually indicate that they're attempting to use either deadly force or force that might cause great bodily injury. That didn't happen here. If you think about it a little bit this makes sense. Under your logic, it'd be legal to shoot anyone who unlawfully enters your property under the theory that they might be a threat, even if you have no reason to believe that other than the fact that they're on your property, and even if it turns out that they're totally unarmed and not remotely interested in engaging in any criminal activity. Shooting someone in such circumstances is incredibly reckless, dangerous, and generally a bad idea.
    They didn't "murder someone". They defended themselves against strung-out meth heads/thieves who broke onto their property. Technicall you are defending them as evidenced by your lengthy amount of posts on this issue.

    If you shoot me after I break into your property while walking towards you with a bat and run once I see you with a gun, you do hve the right to shoot because I shouldn't have broken into your property with a deadly weapon. I don't see how it's murder. Can the same argument be used for a soldier in Afghanistan/Iraq who shoots at terrorists who run now that they realize they are outmatched?

    If I see people who look threatening, who have broken into my property, who hae done so before, then yo're darn right I'm going to assume they mean me harm. And if the dumbass flees after he realizes this crab has claws then oh well, one less intruder. I'm not going to wait until the guy tries to kill me. To hell with that.

  3. #1003
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    They didn't "murder someone". They defended themselves against strung-out meth heads/thieves who broke onto their property. Technicall you are defending them as evidenced by your lengthy amount of posts on this issue.

    If you shoot me after I break into your property while walking towards you with a bat and run once I see you with a gun, you do hve the right to shoot because I shouldn't have broken into your property with a deadly weapon. I don't see how it's murder. Can the same argument be used for a soldier in Afghanistan/Iraq who shoots at terrorists who run now that they realize they are outmatched?

    If I see people who look threatening, who have broken into my property, who hae done so before, then yo're darn right I'm going to assume they mean me harm. And if the dumbass flees after he realizes this crab has claws then oh well, one less intruder. I'm not going to wait until the guy tries to kill me. To hell with that.
    you DO NOT have the right to shoot a fleeing intruder who is not an imminent threat. you cowboys need to check yoursleves.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  4. #1004
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    They didn't "murder someone". They defended themselves against strung-out meth heads/thieves who broke onto their property. Technicall you are defending them as evidenced by your lengthy amount of posts on this issue.


    Nonsense. The number of my posts largely indicates that I apparently have to explain the basics of criminal law to a large number of people. You're engaging in some very mushy thinking here.

    Also, they absolutely were not defending themselves. What danger are you in from a fleeing person? Are you concerned that he'll trip and inadvertently fall on top of you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    If you shoot me after I break into your property while walking towards you with a bat and run once I see you with a gun, you do hve the right to shoot because I shouldn't have broken into your property with a deadly weapon. I don't see how it's murder. Can the same argument be used for a soldier in Afghanistan/Iraq who shoots at terrorists who run now that they realize they are outmatched?
    1) Nobody in this situation was walking towards anyone with a bat. Two apparently (though not actually) unarmed people were fired upon with little to no warning based solely on the fact that they'd broken into the property. This is illegal. The statute is very clear. Read it again.

    2) What soldiers can and cannot do while actively engaged in combat in a war zone has absolutely nothing to do with what civilians can and cannot do stateside. This is a terrible, terrible analogy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    If I see people who look threatening, who have broken into my property, who hae done so before, then yo're darn right I'm going to assume they mean me harm. And if the dumbass flees after he realizes this crab has claws then oh well, one less intruder. I'm not going to wait until the guy tries to kill me. To hell with that.
    Good for you. This attitude makes you every bit as much a criminal as the guy who broke in. Given that he's cavalier about small amounts of property, whereas you're being cavalier about taking a life, you're actually a much worse criminal. Be warned, if you ever act on your beliefs, there's a very real chance you'll get to see first hand what life is like in a state prison for a couple of decades.

    Also, we have no indication that they "looked" threatening. The knives were not visible, and once again, they weren't behaving in a threatening manner.
    Last edited by Aderleth; 09-20-11 at 04:01 PM.

  5. #1005
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Huh. Well, you've given me more info to rethink my worldwiew and for that I'm grateful. Thank you.

  6. #1006
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    The true problem is that the lawyer(s) on this thread are right - legally.

    Many other people on this thread are right - ethically.

    What we need to do is change the law to defend life and property against malicious intent.
    The problem isn't just the law. It's the people who support these laws. This mentality that all human life is sacred is nonsense. People in this thread are using the law to defend people who do not deserve to be defended. Yes, in many states, the law is unfortunately tilted in support of criminals. However, at least from my perspective, those laws are unjust. I don't care what the law says: if someone breaks into my house, my place of business, whatever- it's likely that they'll end up either dead or severely injured. I refuse to risk my life, or my family's life on the off chance that the low life breaking in may or may not be a lethal threat.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  7. #1007
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    The problem isn't just the law. It's the people who support these laws. This mentality that all human life is sacred is nonsense. People in this thread are using the law to defend people who do not deserve to be defended. Yes, in many states, the law is unfortunately tilted in support of criminals. However, at least from my perspective, those laws are unjust. I don't care what the law says: if someone breaks into my house, my place of business, whatever- it's likely that they'll end up either dead or severely injured. I refuse to risk my life, or my family's life on the off chance that the low life breaking in may or may not be a lethal threat.

    Most reasonable States, like my own SC, allow for this if someone has broken into your personal home... that is, you get the benefit of the doubt as to whether they were a threat in most cases. Place of business is also included in SC, FL and many states.

    As I've said: me personally, I'm all for one less methhead thief running around and if the details exceeded the letter of the law a bit, I'd probably still vote Not Guilty if I were a juror.

    Having said that though, anybody who carries or keeps arms for defense needs to know what the state laws are, because you violate them at peril of your freedom. Not everyone is lucky enough to run into jurors who put common sense ahead of the letter of the law. Shooting someone who appears to be fleeing is always very risky from a legal standpoint and I don't recommend it. Now, IMHO if you really think your life is in danger, you do what you have to do and worry about justifying it in court later... but keep your mouth shut in the meantime.

    "I called it in, I will sign the complaint. I was in fear of my life, due to actions by that person. I want my lawyer present during all questioning. I feel shaken up and unwell; I think I should see a doctor."

    That's what you say to the cops, and nothing more other than name, address, and your lawyer's name. If you're having ongoing troubles with some low-life, NEVER tell the cops anything like "I'm going to shoot the next bastard who tresspasses on my business!" No no no. No talking. Don't sing it, bring it.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  8. #1008
    Educator O_Guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    01-06-13 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    758

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    Yes it is. Here's the quote from the Colorado penal code:

    "A person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if the person knowingly causes the death of a person." Legal Resources


    "Knowingly" in this context is synonymous with "intentionally." Check out, e.g., Black's law dictionary for a discussion of how the terms intentional and knowingly are used in criminal law.

    Incidentally, given that these guys laid in wait prior to killing the trespasser, they might also be guilty of first degree murder. That's harder to prove, though.

    I've already posted the Colorado penal code statute related to valid affirmative defenses. It's many pages back. If you'd like me to re-post it I'd be willing to do so. You'll find that it's consistent with the post you attempted to reply to. In the future I'd suggest doing some actual research before making bull**** claims that you can't back up with evidence.



    Nonsense. The Colorado penal code is consistent with exactly what I've been saying. You may not like the law, but please stop pretending to understand it.
    I repeat it is not the definition of murder, murder is a legal term, the guy is not a murder no matter how bad you want him to be or try to sell your opinon that he is LMAO

    also you have still only stated your OPINION on the law, nothing more.

    It seems you have a real issue with determining what is your opinion and what facts are. no worries though whether you know the difference or not the fact remains the guy isnt a murder nor have you proved so.
    PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.

  9. #1009
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    "I called it in, I will sign the complaint. I was in fear of my life, due to actions by that person. I want my lawyer present during all questioning. I feel shaken up and unwell; I think I should see a doctor."

    That's what you say to the cops, and nothing more other than name, address, and your lawyer's name. If you're having ongoing troubles with some low-life, NEVER tell the cops anything like "I'm going to shoot the next bastard who tresspasses on my business!" No no no. No talking. Don't sing it, bring it.
    This is very good advice. I've personally reviewed in-custody interviews where the cops say things like "if you just admit what you did, it'll be better for you," and the client's dumb enough to buy it. The first and last words out of your mouth (beyond "my name is x") should be "I'd like to see my lawyer."

    My Criminal Procedure professor once told us a story about a client she had who was arrested after breaking into a home (the residents were out of town or something). While he's standing in the living room of this house, he said to the cops "okay, you got me on a [whatever the statute number is for burglary]." There's not much a defense attorney can do for you at that point except try to get the confession excluded.

  10. #1010
    Educator O_Guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    01-06-13 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    758

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    He doesn't need to. I already proved the third one and you damn well know it, which is why you have failed to reply to any of the half dozen or so posts in which I've challenged you to prove me wrong.
    you have proved NOTHING lmao
    all you did is state your OPINION and ASSUMPTIONS over and over again which does nothing to "beyond reasonable doubt" LMAO
    PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •