• 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.
You would think, then again theres lawyers out there that dont give a **** about the law they just want to know how to GAME it. They dont actually want to use it with integrity, just look at the dishonesty that has been posted in this thread. Its pathetic! lol THATS whats wrong with the system.

Quite the opposite, in fact. The lawyers here are simply arguing that the law should have been applied as written. You and the others are arguing that you don't like what the law says and don't think that it should have been followed.
 
depends on your definition of aggressor. If you break onto my property, that is an aggressive action. by illegally forcing their way into the property they became the initial aggressor. and you still want to try to claim you aren't defending them :roll:

the mere fact that the "victim" :roll: and his buddy were there to commit a crime makes them the aggressor.

You're playing word games. Aggressor simply means a person who attacks you physically.
 
Quite the opposite, in fact. The lawyers here are simply arguing that the law should have been applied as written. You and the others are arguing that you don't like what the law says and don't think that it should have been followed.

what are you talking about? LMAO
DO you make things up this often or just in this thread?

MORE DISHONESTY from you LOL
you are so blind to it you cant even see it
 
You're playing word games. Aggressor simply means a person who attacks you physically.

again...opinion :shrug:

Aggressor \Ag*gres"sor\, n. [L.: cf. F. agresseur.]
The person who first attacks or makes an aggression; he who
begins hostility or a quarrel
; an assailant.

by breaking into the property the "victim" :roll: and his buddy began the hostility and are therefore the initial aggressors. cry some more for the dirty methhead criminals
 
Last edited:
Quite the opposite, in fact. The lawyers here are simply arguing that the law should have been applied as written. You and the others are arguing that you don't like what the law says and don't think that it should have been followed.


wrong, the alleged lawyers here just don't like the outcome. they think these guys should be in jail and the law be damned.
 
again...opinion :shrug:

No, not really. According to Black's Law Dictionary:

"Aggressor: One who first employs hostile force.... The party who first offers violence or offense. He who begins a quarrel or dispute, either by threatening or striking another, that justifies a response."
 
AdamT said:
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the burglars did anything but run away when they were confronted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they run into an enclosed building on the premises? Is that what you call running "away"?

In my world, running "away" means hauling more buns than a bakery truck toward anything remotely considered public domain. Besides, if they were trying to get "away" (which seems logical to me), encapsulating themselves into a building on the property seems like a poor way to go about it.

But hey, maybe we vary in our definitions of "away".
 
You're playing word games. Aggressor simply means a person who attacks you physically.

Or the one who makes the first aggressive move. Which in this case would be the thief, as he was the first individual to violate rights and was the initiator of the scenario which led to his death.
 
wrong, the alleged lawyers here just don't like the outcome. they think these guys should be in jail and the law be damned.

are you now an attorney AND a mind reader? they should have been charged, the law demanded it. that they weren't is worrisome.
 
You and the others are arguing that you don't like what the law says and don't think that it should have been followed.

Which is the precise reason as to why we have jury of peers to begin with.
 
No, not really. According to Black's Law Dictionary:

"Aggressor: One who first employs hostile force.... The party who first offers violence or offense. He who begins a quarrel or dispute, either by threatening or striking another, that justifies a response."

by committing a criminal act of breaking onto the property, the drug addict began the quarrel.
 
are you now an attorney AND a mind reader? they should have been charged, the law demanded it. that they weren't is worrisome.

the grand jury thought otherwise.
 
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.

Read more: Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO

On the surface it seems rather unfair, but looking at it from another angle, do we really want to encourage vigilantes? I bet those complaining about this would be the first ones to whine if one of their relatives were killed in what may seem as a crime but actually set up to look like one by someone that would take advantage of a more draconian jury. That's why we have the authorities, to take care of criminals.
 
It also doesn't matter one iota to me who is a lawyer and who is not. The "law" was upheld in criminal court in which they were acquitted. Unfortunately, civil court lawyers are emotional predators who create sympathy for those who deserve none, and are rewarded by a faulty system designed to reward based on emotion and subjectivity.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they run into an enclosed building on the premises? Is that what you call running "away"?

In my world, running "away" means hauling more buns than a bakery truck toward anything remotely considered public domain. Besides, if they were trying to get "away" (which seems logical to me), encapsulating themselves into a building on the property seems like a poor way to go about it.

But hey, maybe we vary in our definitions of "away".

Well, HE WAS BEING SHOT AT and he ran into a storage shed BECAUSE HE WAS BEING SHOT AT. So yeah, I think he was running away.
 
depends on your definition of aggressor. If you break onto my property, that is an aggressive action. by illegally forcing their way into the property they became the initial aggressor. and you still want to try to claim you aren't defending them :roll:

the mere fact that the "victim" :roll: and his buddy were there to commit a crime makes them the aggressor.

Not in the eyes of the law, no. AdamT already gave you the legal definition. Chose to ignore it if you like, but please do stop pretending you're making a legally meaningful argument.
 
by committing a criminal act of breaking onto the property, the drug addict began the quarrel.

No, that is bull****. Burglary is not assault.
 
are you now an attorney AND a mind reader? they should have been charged, the law demanded it. that they weren't is worrisome.

so when the supposed attorney said the same thing on the opposite siad it was fine but when this guy says it, its wrong.

BTW what he said (the supposed attorney) was 100% wrong he was addressing me and was totally dishonest.

lastly the law did NOT demand it thats why they werent tried nor should they have been. No way to prove without a reasonable doubt that they committed murder LMAO

if you disagree PLEASE, prove so now, id be GLAD to hear it and would GLADLY admit to the majority here being wrong if you can do so
 
No, that is bull****. Burglary is not assault.

Burglary is force used against the rights and liberties of another individual. It is force, if the first act it is the aggressor act.
 
AdamT said:
Well, HE WAS BEING SHOT AT and he ran into a storage shed BECAUSE HE WAS BEING SHOT AT. So yeah, I think he was running away.

In that case, define the word "hide" for me.
 
so when the supposed attorney said the same thing on the opposite siad it was fine but when this guy says it, its wrong.

BTW what he said (the supposed attorney) was 100% wrong he was addressing me and was totally dishonest.

lastly the law did NOT demand it thats why they werent tried nor should they have been. No way to prove without a reasonable doubt that they committed murder LMAO

if you disagree PLEASE, prove so now, id be GLAD to hear it and would GLADLY admit to the majority here being wrong if you can do so

the prosecutor couldn't win the case, that doesn't mean they didn't commit a crime, it means they weren't CHARGED with a crime.

Fox was standing inside a small shed when a .45-caliber rifle bullet passed through the shed’s door and pierced his heart.

HOW IS THIS NOT AT LEAST MANSLAUGHTER?
Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury-123946-burglar-lot.html#ixzz1WXvg611K
 
Last edited:
It also doesn't matter one iota to me who is a lawyer and who is not. The "law" was upheld in criminal court in which they were acquitted. Unfortunately, civil court lawyers are emotional predators who create sympathy for those who deserve none, and are rewarded by a faulty system designed to reward based on emotion and subjectivity.

They were not acquitted in criminal court. The grand jury elected not to indict them.
 
On the surface it seems rather unfair, but looking at it from another angle, do we really want to encourage vigilantes? I bet those complaining about this would be the first ones to whine if one of their relatives were killed in what may seem as a crime but actually set up to look like one by someone that would take advantage of a more draconian jury. That's why we have the authorities, to take care of criminals.

cant answer for everyone but ill answer for me if that man was my family id be SAD over the LOST and PISSED that he was so stupid to get himself shot because of his despicable behavior.

I would NEVER blame the people protecting their property from an armed junkie.

My emotions would not interfere with my logic.
 
Last edited:
I bet those complaining about this would be the first ones to whine if one of their relatives were killed in what may seem as a crime but actually set up to look like one by someone that would take advantage of a more draconian jury. That's why we have the authorities, to take care of criminals.

wrongo. I am complaining about it and if I had a POS drug addict, criminal relative who got shot because he broke onto someone else's property to commit theft...I wouldn't whine one bit.
 
They were not acquitted in criminal court. The grand jury elected not to indict them.

correct. so, under the law, they did not commit any crime ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom