Page 86 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3676848586878896 ... LastLast
Results 851 to 860 of 1109

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

  1. #851
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

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

    Okay, there is an El Paso County in Colorado, and another one in Texas. I don't know which one this took place in... since it was in the Colorado Gazette, probably Colorado.



    Quote Originally Posted by SgtRock View Post
    Ok here is Colorado Statute that pertains to use of deadly force against an intruder
    1. 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intrude.
    2. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    Yup, that's a pretty good home defense law. I wonder though if that applies to one's place of business?

    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.'.."

  2. #852
    Ayatollah of Rock n Rolla
    SgtRock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 08:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtRock View Post
    Ok here is Colorado Statute that pertains to use of deadly force against an intruder
    1. 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intrude.
    2. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    BTW this statute is 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

  3. #853
    Ayatollah of Rock n Rolla
    SgtRock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 08:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Okay, there is an El Paso County in Colorado, and another one in Texas. I don't know which one this took place in... since it was in the Colorado Gazette, probably Colorado.





    Yup, that's a pretty good home defense law. I wonder though if that applies to one's place of business?
    Im looking for that now. I can't imagine the law would be any different. What if your business was located at your home.

  4. #854
    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 SgtRock View Post
    Ok here is Colorado Statute that pertains to use of deadly force against an intruder
    1. 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intrude.
    2. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    That's for home invasions. The relevant statute for this issue is:

    18-1-705 - Use of physical force in defense of premises.
    A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson.


    The section referenced, re: use of deadly force is:

    18-1-704 - Use of physical force in defense of a person.
    (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
    (2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
    (a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
    (b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
    (c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

  5. #855
    Ayatollah of Rock n Rolla
    SgtRock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 08:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    That's for home invasions. The relevant statute for this issue is:

    18-1-705 - Use of physical force in defense of premises.
    A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson.


    The section referenced, re: use of deadly force is:

    18-1-704 - Use of physical force in defense of a person.
    (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
    (2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
    (a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.
    Looks to me like these gentlemen had the law on thier side when they wasted this pos.
    Last edited by SgtRock; 09-03-11 at 03:09 AM.

  6. #856
    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 SgtRock View Post
    Looks to me like these gentlemen had the law on thier side when they wasted this pos.
    Why do you think that's the case? None of the criteria for deadly force had occurred here.

  7. #857
    Ayatollah of Rock n Rolla
    SgtRock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 08:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    Why do you think that's the case? None of the criteria for deadly force had occurred here.
    you posted it. did you read it. it said
    or (c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402,
    Was the deceased pos not there to commit robbery? ok technically he was there to commit burglary but he was carring a weapon which if he had the opputunity we can assume he would have used it. Why else would he bring it with him when commiting a burglary?
    Last edited by SgtRock; 09-03-11 at 03:18 AM.

  8. #858
    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 SgtRock View Post
    you posted it. did you read it. it said

    Was the deceased pos not there to commit robbery?
    Two things:


    1) You skipped this part "only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate"

    2) The two perps weren't committing robbery, they were committing larceny. Robbery requires the use of force against an individual. Larceny requires stealing something without force. That's what these guys were doing.

  9. #859
    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
    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.
    I understand the ex-cop perspective. I certainly understand that you guys need to make quick decisions in order to protect yourselves, etc. I also understand that sometimes reports get a makeover. On the other hand, I also interned for a public defenders office after getting out of law school, and so I've seen the ways that cops sometimes screw suspects, often for entirely laudable reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    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.
    I get that as well, and of course the civil verdict was a good thing from my perspective (although not good enough). However, it seems fairly obvious that these guys violated criminal laws as well. What I can't understand is how someone could take theft and drug use so seriously, while simultaneously not thinking that people who have murdered someone ought to be in prison. I mean, if theft is a big deal, isn't murder quite a lot worse?

  10. #860
    Educator O_Guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    01-06-13 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    758

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    I understand the ex-cop perspective. I certainly understand that you guys need to make quick decisions in order to protect yourselves, etc. I also understand that sometimes reports get a makeover. On the other hand, I also interned for a public defenders office after getting out of law school, and so I've seen the ways that cops sometimes screw suspects, often for entirely laudable reasons.



    I get that as well, and of course the civil verdict was a good thing from my perspective (although not good enough). However, it seems fairly obvious that these guys violated criminal laws as well. What I can't understand is how someone could take theft and drug use so seriously, while simultaneously not thinking that people who have murdered someone ought to be in prison. I mean, if theft is a big deal, isn't murder quite a lot worse?
    It's pretty simple. I didn't read all of this thread but I scanned through a lot of it and the fact is the vast majority don't think a murder happen. About 4 people think it did but yet can prove that it did. It's a simple matter of opinion and since criminal law needs proof to be without reasonable doubt the grand jury didn't go to trail. The majority here don't think its murder, because well, under those premises there's no reason to.

    Why do you think it is murder and how do you get to the conclusion without reasonable doubt, logically to me with the info present in the article and in the thread its IMPOSSIBLE unless you use many bias assumptions.

    You also proceed to say things like burglary isn't an offense punishable by death and there was no due process and they took the law in their own hands. All things that are your opinions using more bias assumptions.Theses are just appeals to emotion.

    Assault, rape etc aren't punishable by death either but if you get killed doing them it can be legal.

    I guess I'm just confused by your inability to acknowledge that its only your opinion you are stating and why all the double and dishonest talk.
    PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.

Page 86 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3676848586878896 ... 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
  •