Page 72 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... LastLast
Results 711 to 720 of 1109

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

  1. #711
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Your opinion is irrelelvent in this matter. If they were murders they would be in prison right now. You seem to forget that murder is nothing more than a legal technicality and these men do not meet that legal definition.
    Exactly some one wake me when something changes currently theres no murders in this story just peoples currently wrong opinions
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #712
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Actually you do not have the right to defend your property with lethal force.
    Which completely undermines the concept of property rights. If you can't use lethal force, then all attempts to detain, stop, or run off would be burglars are empty bluffs.

    Let me give you a hypothetical (And admittedly unlikely) scenario. I wake up in the middle of the night and hear strange sounds coming from my living room. I grab my gun and go to investigate. I see a man in my living room grabbing my TV. I pull me gun out and order him to stop. He looks at me, smirks and says, "You can't shoot me. That's murder," and then turns his back to me, picks up my TV and walks out the door.

    What am I supposed to do? Just watch the guy go and then call the police so they can document the theft after the fact and I can hope they stumble onto the thief at some later date. (Because let's be honest a stolen TV isn't going to be a top priority case for many departments). Can I shoot him after he ignores my order to stop? Even though his back is to me? Can I tackle him and risk initiating a physical confrontation with a man who's physical abilities are unknown to me and who may or may not be armed himself?
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  3. #713
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoclown View Post
    Which completely undermines the concept of property rights. If you can't use lethal force, then all attempts to detain, stop, or run off would be burglars are empty bluffs.

    Let me give you a hypothetical (And admittedly unlikely) scenario. I wake up in the middle of the night and hear strange sounds coming from my living room. I grab my gun and go to investigate. I see a man in my living room grabbing my TV. I pull me gun out and order him to stop. He looks at me, smirks and says, "You can't shoot me. That's murder," and then turns his back to me, picks up my TV and walks out the door.

    What am I supposed to do? Just watch the guy go and then call the police so they can document the theft after the fact and I can hope they stumble onto the thief at some later date. (Because let's be honest a stolen TV isn't going to be a top priority case for many departments). Can I shoot him after he ignores my order to stop? Even though his back is to me? Can I tackle him and risk initiating a physical confrontation with a man who's physical abilities are unknown to me and who may or may not be armed himself?
    No, you can't shoot him if the only thing you're worried about is him taking your TV. We don't have the death penalty for property theft.

  4. #714
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    It appears to have been the ulawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, i.e. murder in the first degree. It was, at minimum, second degree murder.
    Castle Doctrine allows people to do that in various situations. So, think what you want, you aren't the court system and the court says otherwise.

  5. #715
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoclown View Post
    Which completely undermines the concept of property rights. If you can't use lethal force, then all attempts to detain, stop, or run off would be burglars are empty bluffs.

    Let me give you a hypothetical (And admittedly unlikely) scenario. I wake up in the middle of the night and hear strange sounds coming from my living room. I grab my gun and go to investigate. I see a man in my living room grabbing my TV. I pull me gun out and order him to stop. He looks at me, smirks and says, "You can't shoot me. That's murder," and then turns his back to me, picks up my TV and walks out the door.

    What am I supposed to do? Just watch the guy go and then call the police so they can document the theft after the fact and I can hope they stumble onto the thief at some later date. (Because let's be honest a stolen TV isn't going to be a top priority case for many departments). Can I shoot him after he ignores my order to stop? Even though his back is to me? Can I tackle him and risk initiating a physical confrontation with a man who's physical abilities are unknown to me and who may or may not be armed himself?
    blow a hole right threw his back! Looks to me the only reason you got him in the back is because he was winding up to throw that tv at you, oh well dead bad guy


    lol
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #716
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    No, you can't shoot him if the only thing you're worried about is him taking your TV. We don't have the death penalty for property theft.
    and after I shot him "we" still wouldnt have the death penalty for property theft. More dishonest talk.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #717
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Castle Doctrine allows people to do that in various situations. So, think what you want, you aren't the court system and the court says otherwise.
    yeah PA changed its Castle Doctrine not to long ago they removed the STUPID rule that you must retreat first before you use deadly force. Im glad they did.

    EDIT: just read it also protects them from the stupid CIVIL suits. TO bad the guy in these story didnt have a similar law in his state, then the weaker suit would have never of happened.
    Last edited by AGENT J; 09-01-11 at 03:56 AM.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #718
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    yeah PA changed its Castle DOctrine not to long ago they removed the STUPID rule that you must retreat first before you use deadly force. Im glad they did.
    Hell yeah good for them.

  9. #719
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Hell yeah good for them.
    Im actually pretty pumped about it, I cant believe I didnt know? It happened in June? not THAT long ago but geez you think I would have heard news like that.

    Oh well glad it happened, not that it really changes how I would respond it just gives me a better piece of mind that the law is where it should be on the side of the victim now.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #720
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT
    Yes, I still understand what you are saying, but what I think you are still missing is the purpose of punitive damages, which made up the bulk of the jury's award. Punitive damages are awarded to reform or deter's the defendant's conduct, where actual damages would not suffice to accomplish that goal. It is clear that McDonalds had no intention of changing its policy prior to the punitive damage award. A spokesman for McDonalds testified that they had done a cost benefit analysis and had determined that it was cheaper for them to seriously burn 70 of their customers a year than it was for them to make a common sense change to their coffee brewing policy. The company also lied about their reason for maintaining the policy. They claimed that they kept the coffee so hot because most of their customers didn't drink it until they reached their destinations, and they wanted it to still be hot when they arrived. But McDonald's own research showed that most of their customers actually drank the coffee in route. I don't know why you keep bringing up the lid, because it was not an issue in the case. The case was about the temperature of the coffee, which was established by a uniform policy throughout the company.

    So once again, I don't think the jury's decision was irrational. McDonalds knew that the temperature they prescribed for their coffee could and WOULD cause approximately 70 people per year to suffer serious burns. In reality I'm sure the number is much higher, but that is the number who actually complained to McDonalds. It was apparent that McDonalds would not change it's policy if it only had to compensate the burn victims with relatively modest settlements, even though some were as high as $500,000. McDonalds made an economic decision to endanger its customers, and the jury made the decision to change McDonald's economic equation.
    So what's next? Signing a waiver at the drive-thru? Will there be escape clauses written on posters outside Wal-mart during the winter when grounds may be icy?

    You're actively creating a hyper-litigious society, which I am assuming you would enjoy, given your profession. What about McDonalds? I know lots of people - my mom tops of that list - who love McDonalds coffee. She, and they, and many others would not want it to change. They don't want coffee that turns luke warm by the time they're out of to-work traffic. What about opportunity costs? What if several hundred thousands of people decide that Burger King coffee is better now that it doesn't turn into ice by the time you reach your parking space?

    If you don't want McDonalds coffee, that really hot coffee, don't go there. It's that simple. McDonalds was never negligent, which is necessary to award punitive damages. This was just an ambulance chaser and a bunch of irresponsible folk trying to get rich off the back of a major corporation. Nothing more.

Page 72 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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