• 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.
The fact that he had three knives upon his person is irrelevant to his being shot dead. Nobody, including the men who shot him, knew of the knives until his body was examined. He neither wielded the knives nor threatened anybody with them, so in the course of the incident, he was effectively unarmed. There was no threat, direct or indirect - he was attempting to flee.

the underlined is a total guess

the knives do matter period and the fact that he had them SHOWS he could not be trusted just like you shouldnt trust and criminal that breaks in to you property.

Maybe next time they way the guy finds out he has a knife is when its stuck in him.
 
Last edited:
the underlined is a total guess

Not so, it is a reasonable supposition within the context of the report. But if you prefer, we can say that he was attempting to shelter from the wrath of the armed group. As an analogy, troops who are defeated in a battle will often retreat to the nearest shelter, which will allow them to make an orderly retreat at a later time. Would you not describe that as an intelligent, life-saving retreat?

one the knives do matter period and the fact that he had them SHOWS he could not be trusted just like you shouldnt trust and criminal that breaks in to you property.

Maybe next time they way the guy finds out he has a knife is when its stuck in him.

My point was not whether the knives could be used or not, or whether the intruder was trustworthy (I think it a reasonable assumption that he was not - he was in the process of illegal trespass and attempted theft,) it was that nobody knew of their existence until the dead body was examined. Therefore, they could not be used as a justification for self-defence against an armed intruder.
 
Not so, it is a reasonable supposition within the context of the report. But if you prefer, we can say that he was attempting to shelter from the wrath of the armed group. As an analogy, troops who are defeated in a battle will often retreat to the nearest shelter, which will allow them to make an orderly retreat at a later time. Would you not describe that as an intelligent, life-saving retreat?

reasonable supposition? meaning its a guess LMAO
he could of been hiding to steal later
he could of be planing to ambush
he could of went in there to free one of his three knives
he could have went in there to look for a weapon
all these are just as rational as your guess :shrug:



My point was not whether the knives could be used or not, or whether the intruder was trustworthy (I think it a reasonable assumption that he was not - he was in the process of illegal trespass and attempted theft,) it was that nobody knew of their existence until the dead body was examined. Therefore, they could not be used as a justification for self-defence against an armed intruder.

I know what you point is but since you already admited he cant be trusted how does one find out IF he was armed? after the knif is stuck in you? He is a criminal who cant be trusted why take any risks?
 
Not so, it is a reasonable supposition within the context of the report. But if you prefer, we can say that he was attempting to shelter from the wrath of the armed group. As an analogy, troops who are defeated in a battle will often retreat to the nearest shelter, which will allow them to make an orderly retreat at a later time. Would you not describe that as an intelligent, life-saving retreat?



My point was not whether the knives could be used or not, or whether the intruder was trustworthy (I think it a reasonable assumption that he was not - he was in the process of illegal trespass and attempted theft,) it was that nobody knew of their existence until the dead body was examined. Therefore, they could not be used as a justification for self-defence against an armed intruder.

In the US, most burglers are armed; often with firearms. It is a reasonable assumption here.

In any case, I don't know why anyone cares that this guy got killed. He was just a scumbag. His death probably saved the police from hundreds of hours of work; the court system from many wasted trials and hearings; the prison system from incarcerating him for years at a time; his child from growing up with a meth-head thief for a father and absorbing his bad attitude..... and may very well have saved the life of some innocent person he may have murdered if his life of crime continued. Sure, most of that is speculation, but once you've seen a few dozen meth-head thieves you realize those are reasonable assumptions. He was a waste of a human life and ending it early doubtless saved a lot of people a lotta grief. He set out armed to steal from others... the fact that he went out armed to commit felony theft indicates that using violence in the course of his activities was acceptible to him. When you do these things, you're asking to get killed or spend life in prison for murdering an innocent whose only fault was resisting a thug.

I prefer the thug being dead, than some innocent person. Society is better off; his family and daughter are better off.

I've got a relative who is a meth-head thief. If someone kills him I will shake their hand and say "thank you, you did the whole family a service."
 
In the US, most burglers are armed; often with firearms. It is a reasonable assumption here.

In any case, I don't know why anyone cares that this guy got killed. He was just a scumbag. His death probably saved the police from hundreds of hours of work; the court system from many wasted trials and hearings; the prison system from incarcerating him for years at a time; his child from growing up with a meth-head thief for a father and absorbing his bad attitude..... and may very well have saved the life of some innocent person he may have murdered if his life of crime continued. Sure, most of that is speculation, but once you've seen a few dozen meth-head thieves you realize those are reasonable assumptions. He was a waste of a human life and ending it early doubtless saved a lot of people a lotta grief. He set out armed to steal from others... the fact that he went out armed to commit felony theft indicates that using violence in the course of his activities was acceptible to him. When you do these things, you're asking to get killed or spend life in prison for murdering an innocent whose only fault was resisting a thug.

I prefer the thug being dead, than some innocent person. Society is better off; his family and daughter are better off.

I've got a relative who is a meth-head thief. If someone kills him I will shake their hand and say "thank you, you did the whole family a service."

I care, because we live in an allegedly civilized society, and in such a society we have rules and we have Constitutional Due Process. These three guys took the law into their own hands and decided that some person they've never met, about whom they know nothing, deserved to die. This is not rational, it's not just, and it's not legal.
 
I care, because we live in an allegedly civilized society, and in such a society we have rules and we have Constitutional Due Process. These three guys took the law into their own hands and decided that some person they've never met, about whom they know nothing, deserved to die. This is not rational, it's not just, and it's not legal.

I understand your position. I don't really disagree with the general sentiment that vigilantism is bad; the reason we have due process is because subjective decisions made in haste are often made in error.

But based on the fact that this guy WAS a meth-head thief scumbag, I'd have a hard time penalizing the biz owners for killing him. Yeah, they went about it in an overly aggressive and hasty manner, but it it is hard to argue against the Texas Defense: "he needed killing".
 
I care, because we live in an allegedly civilized society, and in such a society we have rules and we have Constitutional Due Process. These three guys took the law into their own hands and decided that some person they've never met, about whom they know nothing, deserved to die. This is not rational, it's not just, and it's not legal.

wow do you write fiction?
thats a nice false way to tell the story

in a civilized country he should have kept his ass on his side of the fence and then the guy who shot him simply wouldnt have to wonder if he was a threat

no rules were broken
due process wasnt broken
no one took the law in their own hands they used their rights
and they did no something for sure about the guy, he was a criminal and couldnt be trusted

it was rational, just and legal IMO that why they didnt go to jail

but again I invite you to please prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy was not a threat and I also would like you to correct your earlier incorrect statement of "The grand jury uses the same standard of proof as does a civil trial. I've pointed this out at least half a dozen times. Either you're deliberately ignoring information or you have a very poor memory."

but my guess is you wont, again
 
see the blind man, he's shooting at the world
the bullets flying, ooh there taking toll
If you've been bad - ohhh lord I bet you have
and you've not been hit, you've not been hit by flying lead
you'd better close your eyes
you better bow your head
wait for the ricochet....

sweet child in time you'll see the line.
the line thats drawn between the good and bad.
 
I also would like you to correct your earlier incorrect statement of "The grand jury uses the same standard of proof as does a civil trial. I've pointed this out at least half a dozen times. Either you're deliberately ignoring information or you have a very poor memory."

but my guess is you wont, again

Junior, it is as plain that your are completely ignorant of the law as it is that it's past your bedtime. Turn off the flashlight before your dad discovers you posting under the covers.


"Probable cause is a relatively low standard of evidence, which is used in the United States to determine whether a search, or an arrest, is warranted. It is also used by grand juries to determine whether to issue an indictment. In the civil context, this standard is often used where plaintiffs are seeking a prejudgement remedy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
 
Last edited:
Junior, it is as plain that your are completely ignorant of the law as it is that it's past your bedtime. Turn off the flashlight before your dad discovers you posting under the covers.


Moderator's Warning:
I've already posted a warning in this thread that personal attacks and ad-homs were excessive, and no further such attacks would be permitted. That's an infraction and threadban. Anyone else?
 
Junior, it is as plain that your are completely ignorant of the law as it is that it's past your bedtime. Turn off the flashlight before your dad discovers you posting under the covers.


"Probable cause is a relatively low standard of evidence, which is used in the United States to determine whether a search, or an arrest, is warranted. It is also used by grand juries to determine whether to issue an indictment. In the civil context, this standard is often used where plaintiffs are seeking a prejudgement remedy."
Legal burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what on gods green earth are you talking about are you insinuating that civil and criminal proof is the same because you would be in fact WRONG

criminal uses PROOF beyond reasonable doubt
civil does NOT do the same

sorry you are 100% wrong

you are talking about PROBABLE CAUSE something different than how a verdict is rendered LMAO
didnt you say you are a lawyer???????? please save the failed insults and stick to facts.

fact remains his statement is 100% wrong
 
The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case


The American legal system is comprised of two very different types of cases, civil and criminal. Crimes are generally offenses against the state, and are accordingly prosecuted by the state. Civil cases on the other hand, are typically disputes between individuals regarding the legal duties and responsibilities they owe one another.

Here are some of the key differences between a criminal case and a civil case:

Crimes are considered offenses against the state, or society as a whole. That means that even though one person might murder another person, murder itself is considered an offense to everyone in society. Accordingly, crimes against the state are prosecuted by the state, and the prosecutor (not the victim) files the case in court as a representative of the state. If it were a civil case, then the wronged party would file the case.

Criminal offenses and civil offenses are generally different in terms of their punishment. Criminal cases will have jail time as a potential punishment, whereas civil cases generally only result in monetary damages or orders to do or not do something. Note that a criminal case may involve both jail time and monetary punishments in the form of fines.
The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe.

Criminal cases almost always allow for a trial by jury. Civil cases do allow juries in some instances, but many civil cases will be decided by a judge.
A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an attorney, and if he or she can't afford one, the state must provide an attorney. A defendant in a civil case is not given an attorney and must pay for one, or else defend him or herself.
The protections afforded to defendants under criminal law are considerable (such as the protection against illegal searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment). Many of these well known protections are not available to a defendant in a civil case.

In general, because criminal cases have greater consequences - the possibility of jail and even death - criminal cases have many more protections in place and are harder to prove.
The Same Conduct Can Produce Civil and Criminal Liability

Although criminal and civil cases are treated very differently, many people often fail to recognize that the same conduct can result in both criminal and civil liability. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this is the OJ Simpson trial. The same conduct led to a murder trial (criminal) and a wrongful death trial (civil). In part because of the different standards of proof, there was not enough evidence for a jury to decide that OJ Simpson was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the criminal murder case. In the civil trial, however, the jury found enough evidence to conclude that OJ Simpson wrongfully caused his wife's death by a "preponderance of the evidence".



thank you, thank you
 
Last edited:
didnt you say you are a lawyer???????? please save the failed insults and stick to facts.


Moderator's Warning:
And there was another one. Anybody else want to ignore a mod directive to keep it civil? The Hammer is waiting...
 
I understand your position. I don't really disagree with the general sentiment that vigilantism is bad; the reason we have due process is because subjective decisions made in haste are often made in error.

But based on the fact that this guy WAS a meth-head thief scumbag, I'd have a hard time penalizing the biz owners for killing him. Yeah, they went about it in an overly aggressive and hasty manner, but it it is hard to argue against the Texas Defense: "he needed killing".

Being either a thief or a meth head is not a capital offense in this or any other country. Maybe he was a scumbag. Maybe he was one of the rare druggie assholes who would have gotten his life together at some point in the future. We have no way of knowing, and now we never will. Nobody has the right to make that decision.
 
Being either a thief or a meth head is not a capital offense in this or any other country. Maybe he was a scumbag. Maybe he was one of the rare druggie assholes who would have gotten his life together at some point in the future. We have no way of knowing, and now we never will. Nobody has the right to make that decision.

If they'd gone to his house, or his regular hangout, and hunted him down and killed him dead just because he was a drug addict, I'd entirely agree that was murder and completely unjustifiable.

However, that's not what happened. The dead scumbag went to their place of business with intent to rob while armed. Different kettle of fish, IMO.... he was killed in the commission of a serious felony while armed and potentially dangerous.

If he'd stayed home, he'd still be alive.
 
I care, because we live in an allegedly civilized society, and in such a society we have rules and we have Constitutional Due Process. These three guys took the law into their own hands and decided that some person they've never met, about whom they know nothing, deserved to die. This is not rational, it's not just, and it's not legal.

Well said!!

That's should have been the end of thread right there...

There's really nothing else to say. Anyone who disagrees or doesn't understand the core concepts you so succinctly summed up is living in the wrong country.
 
If they'd gone to his house, or his regular hangout, and hunted him down and killed him dead just because he was a drug addict, I'd entirely agree that was murder and completely unjustifiable.

However, that's not what happened. The dead scumbag went to their place of business with intent to rob while armed. Different kettle of fish, IMO.... he was killed in the commission of a serious felony while armed and potentially dangerous.

If he'd stayed home, he'd still be alive.

True. But if he'd been unarmed, they'd still have killed him. They didn't know he was armed at the time they shot him, and he certainly wasn't actively threatening them with physical violence at the time he was shot. According to the article in the OP, they made the decision to shoot anyone trespassing on their property, irrespective of whether or not that person was dangerous. This is not a justifiable action.
 
True. But if he'd been unarmed, they'd still have killed him. They didn't know he was armed at the time they shot him, and he certainly wasn't actively threatening them with physical violence at the time he was shot. According to the article in the OP, they made the decision to shoot anyone trespassing on their property, irrespective of whether or not that person was dangerous. This is not a justifiable action.


Well, Aderleth, I'll tell you something: upon careful reflection, I'm not entirely displeased at how things turned out. They were not prosecuted for murder, which I agree with... but the quarter-million-plus civil judgement is certainly society saying "you did that WRONG, don't do it that way again!"... and perhaps that's not such a bad thing.

They did violate the strict letter of the law, as I've acknowleged several times. I still don't consider it murder, because they were reacting to felonious crimes and protecting their property, and the guy that they actually shot WAS, in my opinion, a scumbag criminal well-deserving of the "honor". However... they did act in a hasty and overly aggressive manner, which can lead to fatal mistakes being made.

In this case they shot the right guy (IMO): a meth-head thief who was indeed trying to burglarize their business. But what if some poor schmuck had been driving past the dealership, needed to pee real bad, and crossed their property line to take a quick whizz? Poor guy might have had his bladder emptied through a new hole, given their hasty and aggressive actions.

IF that had been the actual outcome, I would support criminal sentences for negligent homicide and large cash awards for wrongful death, because they would have killed an honest man whose only crime was a full bladder and poor choice of bushes.

Of course, that isn't what happened... and my position has been based on what the actual outcome was: one felonious scumbag buried, to society's great benefit. I still wouldn't convict them of murder in a million years.

But maybe the civil liability award wasn't really so bad... it certainly sends a message of "hey, dipstick, if there's a NEXT time you might want to do things a little more carefully."

I suppose I'm okay with that.

I still have no sympathy with the dead meth-head, and remain appalled that the family had the gall to sue for "lost wages" for a thief.
 
IF that had been the actual outcome, I would support criminal sentences for negligent homicide and large cash awards for wrongful death, because they would have killed an honest man whose only crime was a full bladder and poor choice of bushes.

Of course, that isn't what happened... and my position has been based on what the actual outcome was: one felonious scumbag buried, to society's great benefit. I still wouldn't convict them of murder in a million years.

I actually almost commented on this issue the last time I posted, because it's an important one, and it highlights a fundamental difference between the way you're thinking, and the way I'm thinking. I am very much coming from a criminal law perspective. By this I mean that I'm thinking in terms of what the law can and should do in situations like this; but also in terms of the philosophy of criminal legal thinking generally...

To prove that someone has violated any given criminal statute, one needs to establish, generally, two things: 1) a physical act, and 2) a mental state. For example, say I see your watch sitting on a table in a restaurant. I know it's your watch. I pick it up and take it home. This could, or could not be theft, depending entirely on what I'm thinking at the time. On one end of the spectrum, I could be thinking, "hey, someone left their watch unattended, I will now steal it." On the other end of the spectrum, I could be thinking "Hey, that's Goshin's watch. He left it here unattended. I should take it home so I can give it to him when I see him tomorrow." The first situation is theft, the second situation isn't. The physical act is the same in both situations, the mental state isn't. This sort of thing is true for pretty much every crime, and it's certainly true for murder. So I'm largely focused on the mental state of these three guys at the time they performed the action that could (and in my opinion should) lead to criminal sanction. In other words, motive and reasoning are quite a lot more important to me than outcome.

Put another way, what I'm concerned about is the legal and ethical validity of the actions of these three guys based on the information they had available to them at the time. Whether or not the outcome was a good one, did these guys do something illegal, and was it ethically or maybe even logically appropriate, based on what they knew?
 
Last edited:
I actually almost commented on this issue the last time I posted, because it's an important one, and it highlights a fundamental difference between the way you're thinking, and the way I'm thinking. I am very much coming from a criminal law perspective. By this I mean that I'm thinking in terms of what the law can and should do in situations like this; but also in terms of the philosophy of criminal legal thinking generally...

To prove that someone has violated any given criminal statute, one needs to establish, generally, two things: 1) a physical act, and 2) a mental state. For example, say I see your watch sitting on a table in a restaurant. I know it's your watch. I pick it up and take it home. This could, or could not be theft, depending entirely on what I'm thinking at the time. On one end of the spectrum, I could be thinking, "hey, someone left their watch unattended, I will now steal it." On the other end of the spectrum, I could be thinking "Hey, that's Goshin's watch. He left it here unattended. I should take it home so I can give it to him when I see him tomorrow." The first situation is theft, the second situation isn't. This sort of thing is true for pretty much every crime, and it's certainly true for murder. So I'm largely focused on the mental state of these three guys at the time they performed the action that would (and in my opinion should) lead to criminal sanction. In other words, motive and reasoning are quite a lot more important to me than outcome.

Put another way, what I'm concerned about is the legal and ethical validity of the actions of these three guys based on the information they had available to them at the time. Whether or not the outcome was a good one, did these guys do something illegal, and was it ethically or maybe even logically appropriate, based on what they knew?

Yes, I see your point.

I tend to be more outcome-oriented, rather than process oriented. I will grant you that process (or correct proceedure, to put it another way) has its points, since doing things a certain precise way tends to lead to desireable outcomes.

However, "in the field" it is often necessary to modify the process "on the fly" in order to achieve the desired outcome. Field conditions are invariably less precise than "lab conditions", and often require improvisation or "quick and dirty patch solutions" to keep the whole project from going down the tubes to the worst outcomes.

I consider the strict letter of the law to be a process formulated as an ideal, but not always directly correlating to what you run into on the street.

I'm an ex-cop, if that explains my thinking any more clearly. One of the first things the old vet who was my mentor told me was something like this: "First thing you got to learn is what not to see. If you run around writing every jaywaking ticket you can, you'll miss the big picture." Things happen in the street where you have to make quick decisions and do what had to be done, then pretty it up in the report so the desk-jockeys upstairs don't get upset. I'm not talking about trampling all over people, but maybe glossing over some choice words that slipped out while the perp was trying to resist arrest. :lol:

In this particular case, the outcome was okay by me. Yes, the biz owners probably did need a stern message that they had their process screwed up and had better be more careful next time... though I don't like seeing that family profit by a quarter-mil because their boy was an armed druggie thief who screwed up so bad he got himself killed by some amateurs from Eastern Europe.

:shrug:
 
Here is the law as it pertains to this subject.

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure this was in Colorado, though, rather than Texas.

Wasn't it?
 
Well, it says El Paso County. The paper was the Colorado Gazette, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Now I'm not sure... is there an El Paso county in Colorado?
 
Ok here is Colorado Statute that pertains to use of deadly force against an intruder
[TR]
[TD="width: 12%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 88%, colspan: 2"]
  1. 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intrude.
    [*]The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
    [*]Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
    [*]Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
    [*]Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
[/TD]
[/TR]
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom