• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Umm, if it's just a thought running through my head, no. If I run across the street and hide behind a car, no. OTOH, if I run towards you aggressively then it would be reasonable for you to defend yourself.

If you're a meth-head then the thoughts running through your head probably are dangerous. Probabilistically speaking, there's a heck of a lot greater chance that you're going to turn your thought of attacking into reality than an individual who is clean.
 
The fact that people are debating whether this killing was a crime or not, prompts the comment "Only in America!"

Under British law, all three men would have been indicted on charges of murder, and accomplice to murder. Under Australian and New Zealand, and possibly Canadian, law the same thing would have happened. And that is what should have happened, in any civilised jurisdiction, to the three men concerned.

The facts of the matter are - they lay in wait armed, and they shot someone dead who was hiding in a shed (and thereby posed no threat to any of them). They should have gone to prison for life. Yours is a seriously flawed justice system.
 
The assumption is that just because the guy had knives on him, he planned on using them. But there's no evidence that he intended to use them, AFAIK. Nor is there any evidence, AFAIK, that the shooters even knew he was carrying knives.

...and when your date spots the condom in your wallet you can try to convince her there is no evidence that you were planning to get into her pants.
 
This post is horrible in about a dozen different ways and I bet you're not aware of any of them.

Which is better, no father or an alcoholic father who molests his daughter? I rest my case.
 
Suspected burglar? Trapped? You make it seem like this guy was the victim. How about the people he hurt with his drug habit? What about the fact that he committed burglary while armed with several knives?

I really can't relate to this train of thought, that somehow the victim of a crime must wait to be attacked and even run away from a burglar. It's truly ridiculous.

Burglary is not a capital offense. Let me try to pound that into your brain. The guy WAS the victim. They murdered him... without a trial, without due process... just murdered him. The only reason they knew he had a pocket knife was that they took it out of his corpse's pocket. This dead burglar had no history of violence. He was a drug addict trying to steal car parts for dope. Dispicable, yes. An excuse for cold-blooded murder? No. He was trapped in a shed in an auto dealership, with men pointing guns at the door. All they had to do was call the police, but they murdered him instead.

Yeah, he was a junkie. He had a kid. Perhaps, if he'd cooled his heels in prison for a couple of years, kicked the habit and gone into rehab, he might have turned out to be a good father to his child someday... only we will never know because he didn't get a second chance. He... was... murdered.
 
Burglary is not a capital offense. Let me try to pound that into your brain. The guy WAS the victim. They murdered him... without a trial, without due process... just murdered him. The only reason they knew he had a pocket knife was that they took it out of his corpse's pocket. This dead burglar had no history of violence. He was a drug addict trying to steal car parts for dope. Dispicable, yes. An excuse for cold-blooded murder? No. He was trapped in a shed in an auto dealership, with men pointing guns at the door. All they had to do was call the police, but they murdered him instead.

Yeah, he was a junkie. He had a kid. Perhaps, if he'd cooled his heels in prison for a couple of years, kicked the habit and gone into rehab, he might have turned out to be a good father to his child someday... only we will never know because he didn't get a second chance. He... was... murdered.

But ... but ... you don't know that! Maybe he was in the shed McGyvering together a predator drone that he was going to use to take them out ... and ... and ... maybe the elementary school down the street!!!
 
The burden of proof is much higher in criminal court than in civil court. It is quite possible that there was not enough evidence to gain a murder conviction; which could be why the grand jury didn't push for criminal trial.

Grand Juries don't determine guilt or innocence. They decide whether or not to take a case to trial at all, and the standard of proof is the same as with a civil suit. The standard a grand jury uses is preponderance of the evidence, and they're basing this analysis solely on the evidence of the prosecutor. There is no defense attorney in a Grand Jury.

Given that a civil jury did find the defendant's guilty in a civil suit, which, again, has someone actually defending the accused, one has to wonder what the hell was going on with the Grand Jury.
 
Last edited:
Didn't President Obama just authorize the commission of murder against Al Queda's #2. The man had no part in planning or executing 9/11. The man wasn't tried before a court for any alleged crimes he may have committed since 9/11. The man was killed acting in self-defense. There was no Constitutional Due Process. Obama just ordered him to be executed by launching a missile at his car/house.

I also have issues with that, but it's not the topic of this thread.
 
The Laws on the use of deadly force are pretty consistent and they clearly say you may use deadly force only when there is a perception that you or another is in eminent threat of harm. That does not extend to any place outside of the home.

If you break into my car I can't shoot you. But if you enter my home your a dead person and I am within my right the feel that My life or anyone who is in my home is in danger.

When I got my Concealed Carry Permit this was rule number 1, I must be in eminent danger of loss of life, to use deadly force. The same applies to Police as well.

Killing to stop the theft of a stereo of other item in a car does not justify a killing.

Sorry if you are a Conservative that thinks it's okay but the Laws say no it's not.
 
The fact that people are debating whether this killing was a crime or not, prompts the comment "Only in America!"

Under British law, all three men would have been indicted on charges of murder, and accomplice to murder. Under Australian and New Zealand, and possibly Canadian, law the same thing would have happened. And that is what should have happened, in any civilised jurisdiction, to the three men concerned.

The facts of the matter are - they lay in wait armed, and they shot someone dead who was hiding in a shed (and thereby posed no threat to any of them). They should have gone to prison for life. Yours is a seriously flawed justice system.

Under British Law the property owners would have been required to turn their entire year's salary and all their property over to the hoodlums and then allow themselves to be butchered because they have no right to self-defense.

There is a seriously flawed system at work. That much you're right about....

1. A flawed system that allowed these known criminals to be on the streets to begin with.
2. A flawed system that even bothered to arrest this man who had done nothing more than protect his property and exterminate vermin on it.
3. A flawed system that allowed the other perpetrator to escape.
4. A flawed system that even allowed this man's daughter to attempt to seek damages for what happened.
 
All they had to do was call the police, but they murdered him instead.

What good would that have done? Do you really believe that there would have been any sort of significant punishment handed out? I don't. He would have been back on the streets soon after, looking for another opportunity to do what he'd been caught at. These gentlemen did society a favor. They put down the rabid dog that would simply have bitten someone else in the future.
 
Sorry if you are a Conservative that thinks it's okay but the Laws say no it's not.

I'll defer to the late Colonel Jeff Cooper on this issue.... "I'd rather be judged by twelve men than carried by six."

I'm a "shoot first, don't bother to ask questions" type and always will be. I have no more problem shooting a burglar in the back as he's running away than I do shooting him in the chest.
 
But ... but ... you don't know that! Maybe he was in the shed McGyvering together a predator drone that he was going to use to take them out ... and ... and ... maybe the elementary school down the street!!!

He doesn't need to be McGyvering anything. The simple fact that he has trespassed on Private Property is sufficient cause to expect to be shot so far as I'm concerned.
 
The fact that people are debating whether this killing was a crime or not, prompts the comment "Only in America!"

Under British law, all three men would have been indicted on charges of murder, and accomplice to murder. Under Australian and New Zealand, and possibly Canadian, law the same thing would have happened. And that is what should have happened, in any civilised jurisdiction, to the three men concerned.

The facts of the matter are - they lay in wait armed, and they shot someone dead who was hiding in a shed (and thereby posed no threat to any of them). They should have gone to prison for life. Yours is a seriously flawed justice system.

all OPINION not fact LMAO
why do people have such trouble with fact vs opinion
 
Burglary is not a capital offense. Let me try to pound that into your brain. The guy WAS the victim. They murdered him... without a trial, without due process... just murdered him. The only reason they knew he had a pocket knife was that they took it out of his corpse's pocket. This dead burglar had no history of violence. He was a drug addict trying to steal car parts for dope. Dispicable, yes. An excuse for cold-blooded murder? No. He was trapped in a shed in an auto dealership, with men pointing guns at the door. All they had to do was call the police, but they murdered him instead.

Yeah, he was a junkie. He had a kid. Perhaps, if he'd cooled his heels in prison for a couple of years, kicked the habit and gone into rehab, he might have turned out to be a good father to his child someday... only we will never know because he didn't get a second chance. He... was... murdered.

perhaps he would of came out swinging his knives while waiting on the cops and killed somebody
perhaps he had a gun and was planing on coming out shooting or would have shot through the door himself
perhaps if would have escaped and next time killed two children after rapping their mother

but we'll never know because he got himself shot

the perhaps game is fun isnt it? IT HILARIOUS that people think it only works ONE way. :shrug:

there was NO murder thats why no one was convicted of it
 
Last edited:
I think judge and jury should be piss tested to see if maybe they were high when they came to the conclusion that a burglar's family should be able to sue someone defending their property.


Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
An El Paso County jury on Friday awarded nearly $300,000 to the daughter of a burglar who was fatally shot in 2009 while breaking into an auto lot.
Parents of the victim, Robert Johnson Fox, embraced their attorneys after a judge announced the jury’s verdict, capping a two-week-long civil trial in which business owner Jovan Milanovic and two relatives were painted as vigilantes who plotted a deadly ambush rather than let authorities deal with a string of recent burglaries.
Phillip and Sue Fox, who filed suit for wrongful death in 2010 on behalf of Fox’s 3-year-old daughter, called the jury’s award a victory in their fight to seek accountability for the death of their son, who they say never posed a threat to the heavily armed men.
“Rob was in the wrong place doing the wrong thing, but the punishment didn’t fit the crime,” Sue Fox said afterward. “I can’t excuse his actions, but he didn’t deserve to be executed.”
The exact amount of the award was $269,500, for factors such as loss of companionship and loss of future earnings. The family will also be awarded some of the costs associated with the more than yearlong legal battle.
The jury of three men and three women deliberated for 2½ days over closely contested testimony about the predawn shooting on April 19, 2009.

File bankrupsy, never pay a dime of the judgement, win.
 
But you probably would be well advised to load your gun ahead of time if your intention is to use it.

being well advised is not one of the hallmarks of a methhead :shrug:
 
So in this thread we've had the arguments that somehow trespassing into a place of business =

1. attempted rape
2. a solider in a warzone
3. a home invasion

Stick to the topic at hand so I can understand if you think the verdict was wrong, or you think the law that requires reasonable cause for self defense, wrong. Please.

and now we have burglary by an armed criminal equated to trespassing.

pot....meet kettle
 
Did burglars trespass and were attempting to steal from the property owner? Yes? then I would say the property owner was justified in using lethal force.

I know this reply was on the first page, but I did want to say that does not justify lethal force. Obviously, you've never been through a concealed weapons class. You CANNOT use deadly force to defend property or stop someone from trespassing on your land. Only if they break into your home where you reside or they attempt to harm you or someone else personally can you use deadly force. For instance, someone was charged with murder for shooting someone dead trying to steal his jet ski. The guys life wasn't in danger so he committed murder.

I don't agree with it, but it's the way it is. You kill someone trying to steal your car out of your driveway and you'd be lucky to only do 15 years in the clink. However, if you are IN THE VEHICLE when this occurs, put a bullet in the bastards head. But don't put one in the BACK of his head while he's under the dash trying to hotwire it when you aren't in the vehicle. However, if upon discovering he's been caught and he brandishes a weapon, any weapon worse than a screwdriver, put a bullet in his head. He is, at that point, considered armed and dangerous and you have a right to confront him (at least in Louisiana) on your property. He cannot pull a weapon without the risk of being killed. But if he just takes off running when you catch him, you can't shoot in the back. That's murder.
 
Which is better, no father or an alcoholic father who molests his daughter? I rest my case.


What is best is if you stop using fallacies and stick to facts. Where is the evidence that he molested his daughter? How do you know what the daughter feel? Some children want to know their parents despite a criminal past, who are you to say this girl wouldn't?



This thread is full of hypocrisy, on the one hand people are using the fact that there was no criminal trial to say that the owners didn't commit murder, then turn around and say the jury was wrong in convicting him of wrongful killing. Either the system works, or it doesn't, you don't get to say that it works when it suit your arguement then say it's not when it doesn't.
 
What is best is if you stop using fallacies and stick to facts. Where is the evidence that he molested his daughter? How do you know what the daughter feel? Some children want to know their parents despite a criminal past, who are you to say this girl wouldn't?



This thread is full of hypocrisy, on the one hand people are using the fact that there was no criminal trial to say that the owners didn't commit murder, then turn around and say the jury was wrong in convicting him of wrongful killing. Either the system works, or it doesn't, you don't get to say that it works when it suit your arguement then say it's not when it doesn't.
I actually pretty much agree with your second paragraph. The firs...well...it isnt for ANY of us to to say what is good for the child. That question is irrelevant and was made irrelevant by the actions of the father which resulted in him getting his meth addicted 3 knive carrying self shot. Opinions on the outcome? That we got plenty of.

I agree...he shouldnt have been charged with murder. I have said that were it me (and knowing only the limited info that we do) I wouldnt have shot. The civil suit sounds OK though I think them claiming as much as they did for loss of income and companionship is a helluva stretch. This one particular meth addict is out of society. They got him out of society before he happened upon his next victim with his three knives and something bad happened. Im not seeing too many tragic downsides, and what downside their is can be laid at the feet of meth daddy.
 
I'll defer to the late Colonel Jeff Cooper on this issue.... "I'd rather be judged by twelve men than carried by six."

I'm a "shoot first, don't bother to ask questions" type and always will be. I have no more problem shooting a burglar in the back as he's running away than I do shooting him in the chest.

A shoot first attitude may sound macho to some but in reality it's irresponsible and the shooter in this case is fortunate not to be facing criminal charges.

The law is clear and the police have the same restrictions.

You don't fire unless you feel you our another are in an eminent life threatening situation.

You may think it makes one sound like a tough guy but it's silly and the law is clear.

I have taken a course in carrying a concealed weapon and it's use and the laws are clear.

BTW I scored 100% on both the written test and the the firing range qualifying test. But I have been shooting since I was about 10.
 
You don't fire unless you feel you our another are in an eminent life threatening situation.

and who gets to decide if YOU feel that YOU are in eminent danger?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom