Page 91 of 111 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293101 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 910 of 1109

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

  1. #901
    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

    I wish people would quit saying:

    "burglary is not punishable by death" like that matters at all. It doesn't, its a invalid talking point that holds no merit. ITS MEANINGLESS.

    Nobody here is advocating if this guy got caught down the street or if the police showed up that he should be sentenced to death.

    Not to mention that's not what happened this guy got caught in the act, that is a different ball game because NOBODY can prove without reasonable doubt that this guy wasn't a threat which is what would be needed in a criminal case to charge the owner with murder.

    Kidnapping, arm-robbery, rape (in most cases), assault, breaking and entering, car-jacking etc etc

    None of these are punishable by death either but anybody with common sense knows they can get you killed.

    The guy was not punished with death because of trespassing/theft he got himself shot because he put himself in a situation where he was breaking the law and couldn't be trusted, it wasn't worth the risk to find out how big a threat he was, he was a threat as soon as his feet landed on the other side of the fence. The law abiding person shouldn't be forced to take all the risk, not worth it.

    Did he probably over react? yes probably but we only say that NOW, in hindsight. But the reality is that this news story could have EASILY been about a trespassing armed junkie trying to steal who KILLED the owner of the property. THAT'S why they weren't charged with murder, no evidence to do so and of course they are not mind readers.

    If the junkie keeps his ass on his side of the fence then there's no confusion on whether he is a threat or not and the dummy never gets himself shot.
    Last edited by O_Guru; 09-09-11 at 02:33 PM.
    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.

  2. #902
    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 Guy Incognito View Post
    You could start by not taking two-bit potshot at faith.



    Not even slightly. It's on you to grow p and be tolerant and respectful of the religious beliefs of others. Haven't you ever heard of the golden rule? It's in all the mythologies.
    Nonsense. You're upset because I called you out on being off topic. You still haven't demonstrated how "faith" has anything at all to do with this topic; so I will just assume that it doesn't. Also, the golden rule is not unique to Christianity. Perhaps you should learn more about mythology. Furthermore, I have taken no shots at anyone's beliefs in this thread. I only said that it has nothing to do with this topic.

    Also, I am surprised that you call yourself a Believer considering how you treat people here.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    make them sleep with the fishes?
    Something along those lines.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    Yes, to the first question, and a qualified no to the second. First of all, we do not have "rampant" child abuse and rape. Both of those crimes do exist in the US, just like they do in every country in the world, but to suggest that either crime is "rampant" is somewhat hyperbolic. Second, "civilized" is not the same as "perfect." The fact that injustices do exist does not in any way demonstrate either that we do not live in a civilized society or that further injustices (e.g. killing someone without a valid legal reason for doing so) are reasonable.
    Yes, there is rampant child abuse and rape in this country, and all over the world. It doesn't always get reported, but it is everywhere. And those actions say something about us, as a species. What society is willing to tolerate, and especially what is ignored and swept under the rug, speaks volumes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    This is also hyperbole. Sometimes, yes, people need to defend themselves in situations that the police have failed to handle. Sometimes the police do handle situations. Also, "defense" is not what these three guys were doing.
    Not hyperbole at all-but rather a good description of reality.

    It seems that many people here are living on a different plane of reality where bad stuff doesn't happen. Unfortunately, people need to defend themselves against criminals, and it is hard to make a judgment in a split second reaction where one is threatened. Those men involved had been victimized before, and they were apprehensive. IMO, their reactions were understandable as well as justified.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  3. #903
    Don't Mess With Texas
    mertex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    10-14-14 @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,382

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    A minor. Maybe even someone under 15 years of age.
    That's great, that's your definition, don't try and pin it on everyone else. Some may think it is strictly a goat.

    I think O_Guru and evanescence hit the nail on the head on the possibilities. Possibly the burglar could have been loading a weapon, looking for a weapon,trying to ambush and all sorts of other reasons.
    Since you all weren't there, and the cop didn't have x-ray vision, it is all conjecture, and you don't assume anything when taking someone's life.

    He was a burglar that was shot. In many places it is legal to shoot a burglar.
    No one is arguing that he was an angel. The point is that the death penalty is never assigned to anyone for stealing. The fact is that being a "vigilante" is against the law, too. Breaking the law to kill someone that is breaking the law doesn't extricate you from breaking the law. While there are laws that allow homeowners to defend themselves against intruders, there is no law that says that you can lay in wait for someone that you know is going to break into your house. I don't understand why you all are having such a hard time understanding that. Being able to own guns doesn't give you the right to break the law.

    That's why none of the shop owners are in prison for murder (or even a lesser charge) of one burglar and attempted murder of the other burglar.
    The trial was about a wrongful death and awarding compensation for the loss to the daughter. The trial was not about charging the business owners with murder. They are lucky that the judge was lenient and did not pursue it any further, because they were wrong. The thief got undue punishment for his crime and there is no reversing that, he gambled and lost. I think the business owners were probably happy with the outcome of the trial, I haven't read anywhere where they have filed a "wrongful award" charge.


    Even though there was evidence one of the shop owners shot the burglar, evidence the gun belongs to one of the shop owners, evidence that one of the shop owners was the last person to fire the gun,evidence that the bullet came out of the gun that the owner fired, a wittiness that says one of the shop owners shot at the burglars and a confession that one of the shop owners shot the burglars. The US is not some Eurotrash country that values the lives of burglars over that of property owners.
    Yeah, well apparently this country is not one that values vigilantes or there wouldn't be a law against it.



    "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."
    --Adlai Stevenson, Politician





  4. #904
    Don't Mess With Texas
    mertex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    10-14-14 @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,382

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

    Quote Originally Posted by O_Guru View Post
    I wish people would quit saying:

    "burglary is not punishable by death" like that matters at all. It doesn't, its a invalid talking point that holds no merit. ITS MEANINGLESS.
    How is it meaningless. Have you ever heard of anyone getting the death penalty because they stole a car? A child? The vigilantes took it upon themselves to become judge and jury and convicted the thief to death. Since when do we do that in the United States?

    Nobody here is advocating if this guy got caught down the street or if the police showed up that he should be sentenced to death.
    And he wouldn't have been if he had gone through our judicial system and tried for his crime.
    Not to mention that's not what happened this guy got caught in the act, that is a different ball game because NOBODY can prove without reasonable doubt that this guy wasn't a threat which is what would be needed in a criminal case to charge the owner with murder.
    Did you even read the OP? It sounds as if there is a mental block preventing you from understanding what actually happened. The business owners knew that the thief/thieves were coming back, and instead of calling the police like we are supposed to, they decided to take matters into their own hands. That is also a crime, punishable, too.

    Kidnapping, arm-robbery, rape (in most cases), assault, breaking and entering, car-jacking etc etc

    None of these are punishable by death either but anybody with common sense knows they can get you killed.
    Yes, that is true, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to take the law into your own hands. If a thief breaks into your home, and you shoot him, in many states it is allowed. What is not allowed is knowing that someone is going to break into your home, and you set up an ambush. Look it up, it is not allowed.

    The guy was not punished with death because of trespassing/theft he got himself shot because he put himself in a situation where he was breaking the law and couldn't be trusted, it wasn't worth the risk to find out how big a threat he was, he was a threat as soon as his feet landed on the other side of the fence. The law abiding person shouldn't be forced to take all the risk, not worth it.
    There you go again, with that mental block. The business owners were not law abiding people. They were breaking the law. What part of that do you not understand?

    Did he probably over react? yes probably but we only say that NOW, in hindsight. But the reality is that this news story could have EASILY been about a trespassing armed junkie trying to steal who KILLED the owner of the property. THAT'S why they weren't charged with murder, no evidence to do so and of course they are not mind readers.
    So, what's your beef. The business owners got away with their crime, the young thief didn't. What do you care that the thief's daughter was awarded some money? Is it coming out of your pocket?

    If the junkie keeps his ass on his side of the fence then there's no confusion on whether he is a threat or not and the dummy never gets himself shot.
    He was dumb to break into that business, but he didn't deserve to die. The business owners had no business taking the law into their hands. Let that be a lesson to other thieves and to other vigilantes. The END.



    "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."
    --Adlai Stevenson, Politician





  5. #905
    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 mertex View Post
    How is it meaningless. Have you ever heard of anyone getting the death penalty because they stole a car? A child? The vigilantes took it upon themselves to become judge and jury and convicted the thief to death. Since when do we do that in the United States?


    And he wouldn't have been if he had gone through our judicial system and tried for his crime.

    Did you even read the OP? It sounds as if there is a mental block preventing you from understanding what actually happened. The business owners knew that the thief/thieves were coming back, and instead of calling the police like we are supposed to, they decided to take matters into their own hands. That is also a crime, punishable, too.


    Yes, that is true, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to take the law into your own hands. If a thief breaks into your home, and you shoot him, in many states it is allowed. What is not allowed is knowing that someone is going to break into your home, and you set up an ambush. Look it up, it is not allowed.


    There you go again, with that mental block. The business owners were not law abiding people. They were breaking the law. What part of that do you not understand?


    So, what's your beef. The business owners got away with their crime, the young thief didn't. What do you care that the thief's daughter was awarded some money? Is it coming out of your pocket?


    He was dumb to break into that business, but he didn't deserve to die. The business owners had no business taking the law into their hands. Let that be a lesson to other thieves and to other vigilantes. The END.
    No, it's not "THE END."

    If it were a punishment, it would have happened after the fact. Instead the drug addict thief was killed while committing a crime. If the police did their jobs effectively, the business owners wouldn't have needed to defend themselves.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  6. #906
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mertex View Post
    That's great, that's your definition, don't try and pin it on everyone else. Some may think it is strictly a goat.
    Legally he is a grown man.





    Since you all weren't there, and the cop didn't have x-ray vision, it is all conjecture
    What cop?

    , and you don't assume anything when taking someone's life.
    The only think you don't assume is the burglars intent. Its because of the fact you do not know if or what that burglar is going to do to you and that is why you shoot the burglar. Your life,family(and any other people you care about) and personal safety trump those of someone breaking into your property



    The point is that the death penalty is never assigned to anyone for stealing.
    The burglar did not get the death penalty. He was shot while trying to commit a burglary.


    The fact is that being a "vigilante" is against the law, too.
    Using lethal force to defend yourself,others and your property is not illegal nor is it act of vigilantism


    Breaking the law to kill someone that is breaking the law doesn't extricate you from breaking the law.
    If it was illegal for the shop owners to shoot the burglars then then would be in prison for shooting the burglars.There was evidence they shot the burglar.

    While there are laws that allow homeowners to defend themselves against intruders, there is no law that says that you can lay in wait for someone that you know is going to break into your house.
    Does it legally matter if a property owner waits for a burglar to burglarize their property before shooting them?

    I don't understand why you all are having such a hard time understanding that. Being able to own guns doesn't give you the right to break the law.
    No laws were broken.

    The trial was about a wrongful death and awarding compensation for the loss to the daughter.The trial was not about charging the business owners with murder. They are lucky that the judge was lenient and did not pursue it any further, because they were wrong. The thief got undue punishment for his crime and there is no reversing that, he gambled and lost. I think the business owners were probably happy with the outcome of the trial, I haven't read anywhere where they have filed a "wrongful award" charge.
    Do you have any idea what a civil trial and a criminal trial are?




    Yeah, well apparently this country is not one that values vigilantes or there wouldn't be a law against it.
    Shooting someone who is breaking into your property is not vigilantism.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 09-14-11 at 04:10 AM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  7. #907
    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 jamesrage View Post
    Legally he is a grown man.
    That is so, but his status as an adult is not of any significance to this discussion. He was a young man, and to some older people he may be regarded as a 'kid'. I am only two years younger than him, and despite being legally an adult, I am regarded as and treated as a kid by many people.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The burglar did not get the death penalty. He was shot while trying to commit a burglary.
    Not so, he was shot while trying to hide from men who were chasing him with guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Using lethal force to defend yourself,others and your property is not illegal nor is it act of vigilantism.
    That depends upon the jurisdiction, but in most jurisdictions, you may only use lethal force in cases of genuine self defence (where your or someone else's life is in danger), not in the potential defence of property. The burglar was not shot in the commission of a crime, he was shot while attempting to evade his pursuers.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Does it legally matter if a property owner waits for a burglar to burglarize their property before shooting them?
    It does in most jurisdictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Shooting someone who is breaking into your property is not vigilantism.
    It may not be vigilantism, but it is certainly an illegal act if no explicit or implicit threat is present. Ask Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer, who was initially sentenced to life imprisonment for shooting a burglar who was attempting to flee his property.
    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. #908
    Don't Mess With Texas
    mertex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    10-14-14 @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,382

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

    [
    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    No, it's not "THE END."

    It is "The End" - it is over and done with, neither you nor I can change the outcome. The young man is dead, the jury has awarded the money, the business owners got away with being vigilantes. What else is there?

    If it were a punishment, it would have happened after the fact.
    It wasn't punishment from the judicial system, but you would hardly call being killed a reward. Oh, maybe you would.

    Instead the drug addict thief was killed while committing a crime.
    That is where you and other obtuse people seem to go off in another direction. He wasn't killed while committing a crime. He was killed while hiding. If he had been killed while committing a crime he would have been killed driving off in a stolen car.

    If the police did their jobs effectively, the business owners wouldn't have needed to defend themselves.
    Ha,ha, why am I getting the feeling that you are a conservative? The police do a good job. Once in a while we have one that doesn't, don't throw them all under the bus. Oh, by the way, were you one of the ones that was defending the cops durting the Obama/Gates fiasco? Just wondering.




    "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."
    --Adlai Stevenson, Politician





  9. #909
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mertex View Post
    It is "The End" - it is over and done with, neither you nor I can change the outcome. The young man is dead, the jury has awarded the money, IT IS MY BIASED OPINION THAT the business owners got away with being vigilantes. What else is there?
    editted for truth and accuracy




    He wasn't killed while committing a crime.
    once he entered the property illegally and with intent to commit theft, he was committing a crime.

    He was killed while hiding.
    he was still guilty of trespassing, which is a crime. so technically, even if he was just hiding, he was still committing a crime.


    suppose you are getting raped and your rapist pulls out and runs to your closet. is he no longer committing a crime?
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  10. #910
    Don't Mess With Texas
    mertex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    10-14-14 @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,382

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Legally he is a grown man.
    This is not a court of law, it is a forum, and members can describe people they are talking about in whatever way they want. You can use your definition but cannot force others to use your definition. Like I posted and you obviously missed, the dictionary named "young man" as a kid. I suppose you think you are smarter than the people who wrote the dictionary?

    What cop?
    Oops, I meant to say the vigilante.



    The only think you don't assume is the burglars intent. Its because of the fact you do not know if or what that burglar is going to do to you and that is why you shoot the burglar. Your life,family(and any other people you care about) and personal safety trump those of someone breaking into your property
    It was a business, not a home. There was no family, it was at night. Quit exaggerating.

    The burglar did not get the death penalty. He was shot while trying to commit a burglary.
    And he wouldn't have if he had been tried in a court of law. We don't kill people because they steal. But the vigilantes decided to take the law into their own hands and became cop, judge and jury. That is not the American way. While there are some, as yourself, who don't have any use for our laws, there is a majority that prefer to have peace and order and obedience to the laws. You don't happen to be one of those who claims he loves the Constitution, by the way?

    Using lethal force to defend yourself,others and your property is not illegal nor is it act of vigilantism
    Like I said before, which probably went over your head, there are circumstances where a person can shoot someone breaking into their home, if they feel threatened. These two business owners were not feeling threatened, they had guns and were waiting in ambush for the thieves. Big difference. I don't expect you to understand.


    If it was illegal for the shop owners to shoot the burglars then then would be in prison for shooting the burglars.There was evidence they shot the burglar.
    Good question. Probably because it happened in Texas, didn't it? Texas prides itself with executing people, even innocent ones, so, that may be one reason. Another reason could be that the thief came from a poor family, while the business owners have money, probably donate to the campaigns of the DAs, etc. I don't know why, it was the state's responsibility, if the civil court finds it a wrongful death, the state should have charged them with a crime. Many crimes go unpunished, it happens every day. That doesn't mean they are not crimes, just that the people we elect to take care of those situations are not always doing the job they were hired to do.
    Does it legally matter if a property owner waits for a burglar to burglarize their property before shooting them?
    It is against the law, so it does matter legally. However, you have to enforce the law for it to be effective.


    No laws were broken.
    I don't know of any state where vigilantism is not illegal. Of course, it has to be proven. In this case, it was obvious. The "kid" didn't have a gun, the business owners did, and they must have admitted that they knew he was coming back, otherwise how was that in the story?


    Do you have any idea what a civil trial and a criminal trial are?
    Do you?

    Shooting someone who is breaking into your property is not vigilantism.
    In many cases it isn't. In this case it is apparent to anyone with a brain that it was.


    The foundation of the American legal system rests on the RULE OF LAW, a concept embodied in the notion that the United States is a nation of laws and not of men. Under the rule of law, laws are thought to exist independent of, and separate from, human will. Even when the human element factors into legal decision making, the decision maker is expected to be constrained by the law in making his or her decision. In other words, police officers, judges, and juries should act according to the law and not according to their personal preferences or private agendas.

    State and federal governments are given what amounts to a MONOPOLY over the use of force and violence to implement the law. Private citizens may use force and violence to defend their lives and their property, and in some instances the lives and property of others, but they must do so under the specific circumstances allowed by the law if they wish to avoid being prosecuted for a crime themselves. Private individuals may also make "citizen arrests," but the circumstances in which the law authorizes them to do so are very narrow. Citizens are often limited to making arrests for felonies committed in their presence. By taking law into their own hands, vigilantes flout the rule of law, effectively becoming lawmaker, police officer, judge, jury, and appellate court for the cause they are pursuing.



    Read more: Vigilantism - Law, Private, Vigilantes, Justice, United, and Vigilante Vigilantism - Law, Private, Vigilantes, Justice, United, and Vigilante



    "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."
    --Adlai Stevenson, Politician





Page 91 of 111 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293101 ... 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
  •