Page 83 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3373818283848593 ... LastLast
Results 821 to 830 of 1109

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

  1. #821
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    It doesn't matter what your opinion is -- what matters is the FACT that there are people walking around who have committed all sorts of crimes that they haven't been convicted of. If you had committed pedophilia against your young cousin, but he didn't tell anyone, does that make you not a paedophile?
    I'm sorry, this caught my eye. How exactly do you "commit pedophilia?" That's like "committing gay", it's not a crime, its a personal preference.

  2. #822
    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 dontworrybehappy View Post
    I'm sorry, this caught my eye. How exactly do you "commit pedophilia?" That's like "committing gay", it's not a crime, its a personal preference.
    Pedophelia is defiend as, "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object". Pedophilia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    But if you want to be anal about it ... call it child sexual abuse.

  3. #823
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

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

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    Yes, there was a direct threat. He was armed. Therefore, there was a threat. An indirect threat could mean that he was unarmed.



    That depends. A meth addict is low life scum. I wouldn't lose ten cents because of someone like that. They are nothing but a drag on society, and a burden to everyone around them.



    The victim???

    I read nothing about a victim. I read about a low life, thieving drug addict who got put out of his misery by someone defending themselves and their property. But there was no murder, and no victim.

    To be honest, that's about how I feel about it too.

    I will admit that the business owners certainly pushed the envelope; legally, and perhaps morally as well. It is hard to argue that their response didn't exceed the strict letter of the law; it probably did.

    But I believe in jury nullification; that is, that the jury has the right and duty to judge not only the facts, but whether the law as written should apply in this particular case. A grand jury decided not to prosecute; a civil jury found the owners liable for a "wrongful death".

    Personally... I wouldn't have charged them with murder, nor have found them liable, if I were on either jury. Not because of the letter of the law, but because they acted in response to repeated thefts that the police were not stopping, and the guy they shot was an armed meth-head thief. I don't see punishing biz owners for that.

    OTOH, I'm not saying I would have done likewise. The law in most states does not allow for lethal force in defense of property, absent an imminent and serious threat to a human being... and on the whole I think that's reasonable. If someone steals my lawnmower and drives away on it, and I shoot him in the back as he is running away, I don't think that is justifiable either legally or morally. Now if he has broken into my house, that's a different story... his mere presence inside my home as a burgler, there along with my self and my family, raises the stakes by an order of magnitude. In my home state, a burglar is shootable in your house, yard or outbuildings, if there is the slightest reason to believe he may be a threat.

    This particular case is a bit different. The phrase being used is that the owners "set an ambush". Well, perhaps... another way of putting is "they were guarding their property because of recent thefts." The difference is a matter of intention. Yes, they had previously told police they were going to shoot the next thieves... but people often say things in the heat of passion that they don't literally mean.

    They were armed, some might say, by way of showing intent. Well, of course they were armed! Many thieves go armed, and the thief that was shot was armed! If you're going to guard your business against expected theft, you'd better be ready to defend yourself against armed criminals!

    What were their actual intentions? Would they have shot him dead if he'd put his hands in the air and said "I give up!"

    I don't know, you don't know, the jury doesn't know. The only people who know are the biz owners.

    What the thief actually DID was to run and hide in a shed, still on the property of the owners. What was he doing in there? Well, apparently just hiding... but the owners didn't know that. For all they knew he could have been trying to get his gun out of his waistband, if he'd had one, or starting a fire as a distraction to aid his escape, or most anything. Does this justify shooting into the shed? Well, that's debateable... the guy had already committed a felony in attempting to steal/burglarize/etc, and another felony for doing so while armed. To assume he would NOT stoop to killing to make his escape is dubious.

    What would I have done? Probably called the cops and watched the shed from cover, observing... if he did anything threatening I would have fired, if not then not.

    There's a bit of a caveat here though... I wasn't there. These decisions were made on the fly, in an adrenaline-charged moment of fear and excitement, by men who knew the perps were trying to rob them AGAIN, but didn't know whether the perps had guns or were willing to shoot back.

    Given that, regardless of the facts of the law, I couldn't vote as a juror to punish them for killing off a meth-head thief. My sympathies lay with the much-put-upon business owners, not the felon drug addict.

    I'm truly astonished that the family had the gall to sue for "lost wages" for a drug-addict THIEF. I'd have been too ashamed, were I this thug's parent. I might have even had mixed feelings about Little Miss growing up without her meth-addicted felony-thieving daddy.... if the grandparents or whoever gets guardianship are halfway decent folks, she now has a better chance of growing up right than if her scumbag Daddy had lived to be a bad influence on her.

    Morally, I put a high value on human life... but I hold the lives of those who are innocent and honest in higher regard than the lives of armed-burglar scumbags. People like the deceased make the world a much more dangerous and difficult place, and if they live long enough they tend to put their stamp of selfish idiocy on the next generation too.

    If he had lived and got clean and gone straight and remade himself into a decent human being, that would have been the morally-highest and most desireable outcome.... but the odds are against it. Most meth-heads don't go straight; they just self-destruct and often carry others with them. I just can't muster any great regret that this guy got what was coming to him... and when you set out armed to steal, something like this is all too predictable as an outcome.

    My $2.50....
    Last edited by Goshin; 09-02-11 at 04:45 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  4. #824
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    To be honest, that's about how I feel about it too.

    I will admit that the business owners certainly pushed the envelope; legally, and perhaps morally as well. It is hard to argue that their response didn't exceed the strict letter of the law; it probably did.

    But I believe in jury nullification; that is, that the jury has the right and duty to judge not only the facts, but whether the law as written should apply in this particular case. A grand jury decided not to prosecute; a civil jury found the owners liable for a "wrongful death".

    Personally... I wouldn't have charged them with murder, nor have found them liable, if I were on either jury. Not because of the letter of the law, but because they acted in response to repeated thefts that the police were not stopping, and the guy they shot was an armed meth-head thief. I don't see punishing biz owners for that.

    OTOH, I'm not saying I would have done likewise. The law in most states does not allow for lethal force in defense of property, absent an imminent and serious threat to a human being... and on the whole I think that's reasonable. If someone steals my lawnmower and drives away on it, and I shoot him in the back as he is running away, I don't think that is justifiable either legally or morally. Now if he has broken into my house, that's a different story... his mere presence inside my home as a burgler, there along with my self and my family, raises the stakes by an order of magnitude. In my home state, a burglar is shootable in your house, yard or outbuildings, if there is the slightest reason to believe he may be a threat.
    I agree with this, although at times I do put the value of property over certain human lives, like the one in question. As someone who has had both direct and indirect experience with thieves, I feel no sympathy when one of them is shot. Instead, I feel relief that there is one less low life in the world. We have too many of them as it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    This particular case is a bit different. The phrase being used is that the owners "set an ambush". Well, perhaps... another way of putting is "they were guarding their property because of recent thefts." The difference is a matter of intention. Yes, they had previously told police they were going to shoot the next thieves... but people often say things in the heat of passion that they don't literally mean.
    "Set an ambush" is ridiculous terminology. The police didn't do their jobs. The business owners unfortunately had to take care of the problem themselves. I doubt they were happy with that situation, but that's how it was. The same applies in my dad's situation. He attempted to involve the police, but the police failed miserably at their jobs. Be that as it may, the police can't be everywhere at once, neither can they get there in time to prevent most crimes. Furthermore, their solve rate is pathetic, even in cases of murder. Actual murder, that is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    They were armed, some might say, by way of showing intent. Well, of course they were armed! Many thieves go armed, and the thief that was shot was armed! If you're going to guard your business against expected theft, you'd better be ready to defend yourself against armed criminals!

    What were their actual intentions? Would they have shot him dead if he'd put his hands in the air and said "I give up!"

    I don't know, you don't know, the jury doesn't know. The only people who know are the biz owners.

    What the thief actually DID was to run and hide in a shed, still on the property of the owners. What was he doing in there? Well, apparently just hiding... but the owners didn't know that. For all they knew he could have been trying to get his gun out of his waistband, if he'd had one, or starting a fire as a distraction to aid his escape, or most anything. Does this justify shooting into the shed? Well, that's debateable... the guy had already committed a felony in attempting to steal/burglarize/etc, and another felony for doing so while armed. To assume he would NOT stoop to killing to make his escape is dubious.

    What would I have done? Probably called the cops and watched the shed from cover, observing... if he did anything threatening I would have fired, if not then not.

    There's a bit of a caveat here though... I wasn't there. These decisions were made on the fly, in an adrenaline-charged moment of fear and excitement, by men who knew the perps were trying to rob them AGAIN, but didn't know whether the perps had guns or were willing to shoot back.
    I would have done exactly what those business owners did. And I wouldn't have lost a single moment of sleep because of it. Having had ample experience with crack heads and the like, I know that their lives aren't worth more than anything they steal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Given that, regardless of the facts of the law, I couldn't vote as a juror to punish them for killing off a meth-head thief. My sympathies lay with the much-put-upon business owners, not the felon drug addict.

    I'm truly astonished that the family had the gall to sue for "lost wages" for a drug-addict THIEF. I'd have been too ashamed, were I this thug's parent. I might have even had mixed feelings about Little Miss growing up without her meth-addicted felony-thieving daddy.... if the grandparents or whoever gets guardianship are halfway decent folks, she now has a better chance of growing up right than if her scumbag Daddy had lived to be a bad influence on her.
    I'm not. Sadly, they have the same mentality of many of the people in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Morally, I put a high value on human life... but I hold the lives of those who are innocent and honest in higher regard than the lives of armed-burglar scumbags. People like the deceased make the world a much more dangerous and difficult place, and if they live long enough they tend to put their stamp of selfish idiocy on the next generation too.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    If he had lived and got clean and gone straight and remade himself into a decent human being, that would have been the morally-highest and most desireable outcome.... but the odds are against it. Most meth-heads don't go straight; they just self-destruct and often carry others with them. I just can't muster any great regret that this guy got what was coming to him... and when you set out armed to steal, something like this is all too predictable as an outcome.

    My $2.50....
    The vast majority of crack addicts and meth heads never straighten their lives up because they are pathetic human beings to begin with. They spend their worthless lives making excuses for their actions and blaming others for their mistakes. Their deaths would improve society.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  5. #825
    Professor
    Leo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,674

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

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    Yes, there was a direct threat. He was armed. Therefore, there was a threat. An indirect threat could mean that he was unarmed.
    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.
    I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country. E.M. Forster

  6. #826
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    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 by AGENT J; 09-02-11 at 11:47 PM.
    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. #827
    Professor
    Leo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,674

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    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.
    I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country. E.M. Forster

  8. #828
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    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?
    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

  9. #829
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    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."

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  10. #830
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    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.

Page 83 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3373818283848593 ... 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
  •