• 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.
Not in a world that favored law, order, and prosperity. No, we have to live in a world where criminals are given more rights than they deserve. If Plato were alive to see this, he'd vomit in disgust.

Vigilante justice does not favor law and order. Death is not the appropriate punishment for petty theft -- even for the Taliban.
 
but that has not been your arguement. you've been bleating on and on about how the "victim" wasn't a threat, etc. etc. etc. so, yes, you have been defending him

I'd like to see where I actually used that phrase. Please point it out for me.

I've been pointing out that there was no valid basis for a self defense argument. Put another way, the three guys had no actual basis for believing that they were being threatened with deadly force.
 
Abortionist in abortion debates point out that if it is legal to kill someone then it is not murder if it is illegal to kill someone then it is murder. Murder is basically the unlawful killing of another person under circumstances defined by the law. If what these men did was murder then they would have been tried in court, convicted and currently serving time behind bars.



- FindLaw
: the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation)

If gangbanger B shoots and kills gangbanger B in cold blood, he runs away, and the case is never solved, is he any less a murderer? Put another way, has he met the statutory requirements for murder even though the case never went to trial? Yes.

That's also apparently what happened here, based on the information we have available.
 
AdamT said:
Vigilante justice does not favor law and order. Death is not the appropriate punishment for petty theft -- even for the Taliban.

Sorry, not buying the vigilante argument. Which do you think is more likely - that the burglar was caught breaking in to what had to be the world's largest car sales lot if he tried to get away (off the property) and couldn't because a bunch of owners were staking out the property every night in the outside chance that someone may come by to steal a car someday...or that they were caught unaware that a meth-induced scumbag tried to commit grand theft auto carrying multiple knives he would have no qualms about using if he had to?

Actually, scratch that - I'm sure you think you know which one is more likely.
 
material possessions are not worth a life. theirs or mine.

they can have them.

My material posessions are worth a hell of a lot more to me than the life of some thieving, drug addled scumbag. We as a society believe people have the right to benefit from the fruits of their labor, it only goes to follow that we should have the right to defend the fruits of our labor from shiftless scumbags who want steal from us rather than earn their own fruits. The law is wrong here. Property owners should be given a very wide latitude in defending what is theirs from thieves.

These men should have been given a medal for creating a world with one less leech who preys on those who actually contribute to society.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, not buying the vigilante argument. Which do you think is more likely - that the burglar was caught breaking in to what had to be the world's largest car sales lot if he tried to get away (off the property) and couldn't because a bunch of owners were staking out the property every night in the outside chance that someone may come by to steal a car someday...or that they were caught unaware that a meth-induced scumbag tried to commit grand theft auto carrying multiple knives he would have no qualms about using if he had to?

Actually, scratch that - I'm sure you think you know which one is more likely.

I was actually responding to the post where you said you would shoot someone if you caught them breaking into your car.

As for the actual case, we don't really have to guess. The defendants told the police that they were going to shoot anyone who they caught stealing a week before they shot the guy.
 
If gangbanger B shoots and kills gangbanger B in cold blood, he runs away, and the case is never solved, is he any less a murderer? Put another way, has he met the statutory requirements for murder even though the case never went to trial? Yes.

That's also apparently what happened here, based on the information we have available.

more blatant dishonesty seems to be your MO. LMAO
 
If gangbanger B shoots and kills gangbanger B in cold blood, he runs away, and the case is never solved, is he any less a murderer? Put another way, has he met the statutory requirements for murder even though the case never went to trial? Yes.

That's also apparently what happened here, based on the information we have available.


So you are saying these shop owners are on the run from the law? The police know who the shop owners are and where they live and work, they have a confession that one of the shop owners shot the scumbag, they evidence they shot the scumbag as well as motive. These men did not escape anything and they are not on the run. Do you know why they were not charged with murder even though there is evidence,confession and motive they shot the scumbag? It is because they did not murder anyone because murder is the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation). This definition does not have **** to do with your comparison of law abiding shop owners defending their property to gang banging scumbags shooting each other.It is legal to use lethal force to defend yourself,others and property. Since it is legal to those things it is not murder. Maybe if this was some scumbag sympathizing country like the UK where illegal to use lethal force to defend yourself,others and property then it would be illegal to use lethal force to defend yourself,others and your property.
 
Rehash of thread

FACTS:
there are NO murders in this story
Criminal law sided with the owners
Civil outcome sided with the family in part.
Vast MAJORITY AGREES with the criminal law
VAST MAJORITY DISAGREES with the civil "out come"

all except ONE person thinks that there is a little girl with out a father and its MORE the store owners fault than the drug addicted thief who broke into private property while high and armed and got himself shot LMAO
 
So you are saying these shop owners are on the run from the law? The police know who the shop owners are and where they live and work, they have a confession that one of the shop owners shot the scumbag, they evidence they shot the scumbag as well as motive. These men did not escape anything and they are not on the run. Do you know why they were not charged with murder even though there is evidence,confession and motive they shot the scumbag? It is because they did not murder anyone because murder is the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation). This definition does not have **** to do with your comparison of law abiding shop owners defending their property to gang banging scumbags shooting each other.It is legal to use lethal force to defend yourself,others and property. Since it is legal to those things it is not murder. Maybe if this was some scumbag sympathizing country like the UK where illegal to use lethal force to defend yourself,others and property then it would be illegal to use lethal force to defend yourself,others and your property.

It is illegal in the jurisdiction in which this occurred to use lethal force to defend property, and as I've pointed out numerous times, they had no valid reason to believe they were under threat of a deadly assault. In fact, by their own admission (according to the article) they made up their mind to shoot whoever the next intruder was well in advance of that intruder actually being shot.

As I asked you to do before, look at the facts that we have available, and compare them to the statutory definition of self-defense. Their actions do not comport with that definition. Intentionally killing a human being absent some valid defense (such as self defense) is murder. Ergo they committed murder.
 
It is illegal in the jurisdiction in which this occurred to use lethal force to defend property, and as I've pointed out numerous times, they had no valid reason to believe they were under threat of a deadly assault. In fact, by their own admission (according to the article) they made up their mind to shoot whoever the next intruder was well in advance of that intruder actually being shot.

As I asked you to do before, look at the facts that we have available, and compare them to the statutory definition of self-defense. Their actions do not comport with that definition. Intentionally killing a human being absent some valid defense (such as self defense) is murder. Ergo they committed murder.

criminal law disagrees with your opinion
YOU have no way of knowing if they felt they had valid reason or felt they could be under deadly assault/
None, zero, zilch

its merely a GUESS on your part, an assumption

theres no evidence to support they committed murder

ERGO thats why they weren't charged with murder LMAO

FACT: no murder was committed
 
Last edited:
criminal law disagrees with your opinion

How so?

YOU have no way of knowing if they felt they had valid reason or felt they could be under deadly assult/
None, zero, zilch

What they felt is irrelevant. The legal standard is whether or not they had an objectively reasonable basis for belief that they were under impending threat of death or imminent bodily harm. Based on the facts available, they did not have any such objectively reasonable basis.
 
they should be in prison.

Under Colorado’s self-defense laws, the use of deadly force is justified only under the “reasonable belief” that it’s necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. The jury found that none of the men had a legitimate claim of self-defense.

that said, his parents should be smacked for believing their son was "just in the wrong place at the wrong time"....imo, people who break the law should always expect consequences.
 
If I had the money, I would donate to their cause. I wouldn't mind a petition/donation set up to let the people know that property rights activists and people whose heart doesn't bleed for a squished ant side with and advocate for their right to defend what is theirs.

I'd also kick in a little extra if they spit on that thief's grave.
 
How so?



What they felt is irrelevant. The legal standard is whether or not they had an objectively reasonable basis for belief that they were under impending threat of death or imminent bodily harm. Based on the facts available, they did not have any such objectively reasonable basis.

because they werent charged with murder thats how so lol

what THEY felt IS relevant. Sorry but the FACTS remain it DOES matter what they think. Now there is a LIMIT and the police could overrule them and charge them and then a jury would agree with them or agree with the police IF they were charged but the police DID NOT charge them. Bottom line is what they think DOES matter PERIOD its just not the END ALL to right/wrong.

What IS irrelevant is what YOU think they felt and what YOU think is resaonable.

why?
because:
1 you're not them
2 you werent there
3 you werent a witness
4 since they werent charged you not a juror

LMAO

your OPINION is meaningless and they are NOT murders:D
 
they should be in prison.

Under Colorado’s self-defense laws, the use of deadly force is justified only under the “reasonable belief” that it’s necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. The jury found that none of the men had a legitimate claim of self-defense.

that said, his parents should be smacked for believing their son was "just in the wrong place at the wrong time"....imo, people who break the law should always expect consequences.

wrong

again thats YOUR opinion and interpretation and assumption
also that was the out come in CIVIL court.
Criminal court is what is needed to put them in jail for murder and it was deceided theres not even enough to take it to trail.

When these facts change let me know and only than could you be right.
 
If I had the money, I would donate to their cause. I wouldn't mind a petition/donation set up to let the people know that property rights activists and people whose heart doesn't bleed for a squished ant side with and advocate for their right to defend what is theirs.

I'd also kick in a little extra if they spit on that thief's grave.

I said this a couple times earlier, if I had the 300K Id give it to them for doing us all a favor.
 
because they werent charged with murder thats how so lol

what THEY felt IS relevant. Sorry but the FACTS remain it DOES matter what they think. Now there is a LIMIT and the police could overrule them and charge them and then a jury would agree with them or agree with the police IF they were charged but the police DID NOT charge them. Bottom line is what they think DOES matter PERIOD its just not the END ALL to right/wrong.

What IS irrelevant is what YOU think they felt and what YOU think is resaonable.

why?
because:
1 you're not them
2 you werent there
3 you werent a witness
4 since they werent charged you not a juror

LMAO

your OPINION is meaningless and they are NOT murders:D

it's true, most opinions matter not at all.
 
it's true, most opinions matter not at all.

yep, very true, even most of my opinions dont matter but fortunately the facts line up with SOME of my opinions in this case. And they most definitely agree with the fact that there was no murder. :D
 
Last edited:
yep, very true, even most of my opinions dont matter but fortunately the facts line up with SOME of my opinions in this case. And the most definitely agree with the fact that there was no murder. :D

Certainly not if you define murder as requiring criminal conviction. I guess you could also say that the guy who was shot wasn't a burglar, because he wasn't convicted of burglary.
 
Only because he died.

That would be absolutely hilarious - and proper - if these owners took his executors and estate to civil court and was awarded similar punitive damages. Wouldn't that be great?
 
Certainly not if you define murder as requiring criminal conviction. I guess you could also say that the guy who was shot wasn't a burglar, because he wasn't convicted of burglary.

oh lord more dishonesty from you. Could you possible be any more dishonest?
Again please tell me your age its tough to believe that you any older than 14?

do you have anything of substance or facts to back you claims up or will you just continue to play games LMAO
 
oh lord more dishonesty from you. Could you possible be any more dishonest?
Again please tell me your age its tough to believe that you any older than 14?

do you have anything of substance or facts to back you claims up or will you just continue to play games LMAO

Unfortunately this kind of post actually makes you sound like you're 14. And not a particularly bright 14 at that.
 
Only because he died.

That would be absolutely hilarious - and proper - if these owners took his executors and estate to civil court and was awarded similar punitive damages. Wouldn't that be great?

yes it would be great! I think they should do it.
They should sue for mental anguish and endangerment.
 
because they werent charged with murder thats how so lol

They weren't indicted by the grand jury. Not the same thing. Also a somewhat strange thing in this context, because a petite jury did find them guilty using the same standard of evidence, and after weighing the evidence in their favor (which the grand jury did not and could not do). In other words the jury with access to the evidence most favorable to the murderers held them liable, whereas the jury (the grand jury) that had access only to the evidence against them chose not to indict. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


what THEY felt IS relevant. Sorry but the FACTS remain it DOES matter what they think. Now there is a LIMIT and the police could overrule them and charge them and then a jury would agree with them or agree with the police IF they were charged but the police DID NOT charge them. Bottom line is what they think DOES matter PERIOD its just not the END ALL to right/wrong.

Their subjective belief is not relevant to the legal standard for self defense. Take a look at any textbook on criminal law and you'll find that I'm right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom