• 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.

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I think judge and jury should be piss tested to see if maybe they were high when they came to the conclusion that a burglar's family should be able to sue someone defending their property.


Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
An El Paso County jury on Friday awarded nearly $300,000 to the daughter of a burglar who was fatally shot in 2009 while breaking into an auto lot.
Parents of the victim, Robert Johnson Fox, embraced their attorneys after a judge announced the jury’s verdict, capping a two-week-long civil trial in which business owner Jovan Milanovic and two relatives were painted as vigilantes who plotted a deadly ambush rather than let authorities deal with a string of recent burglaries.
Phillip and Sue Fox, who filed suit for wrongful death in 2010 on behalf of Fox’s 3-year-old daughter, called the jury’s award a victory in their fight to seek accountability for the death of their son, who they say never posed a threat to the heavily armed men.
“Rob was in the wrong place doing the wrong thing, but the punishment didn’t fit the crime,” Sue Fox said afterward. “I can’t excuse his actions, but he didn’t deserve to be executed.”
The exact amount of the award was $269,500, for factors such as loss of companionship and loss of future earnings. The family will also be awarded some of the costs associated with the more than yearlong legal battle.
The jury of three men and three women deliberated for 2½ days over closely contested testimony about the predawn shooting on April 19, 2009.
 
I will never stop being amazed when people attempt to defend the actions of murderers. Frankly, these guys got off lucky. They should be in prison, not just in debt.
 
I think judge and jury should be piss tested to see if maybe they were high when they came to the conclusion that a burglar's family should be able to sue someone defending their property.


Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
An El Paso County jury on Friday awarded nearly $300,000 to the daughter of a burglar who was fatally shot in 2009 while breaking into an auto lot.
Parents of the victim, Robert Johnson Fox, embraced their attorneys after a judge announced the jury’s verdict, capping a two-week-long civil trial in which business owner Jovan Milanovic and two relatives were painted as vigilantes who plotted a deadly ambush rather than let authorities deal with a string of recent burglaries.
Phillip and Sue Fox, who filed suit for wrongful death in 2010 on behalf of Fox’s 3-year-old daughter, called the jury’s award a victory in their fight to seek accountability for the death of their son, who they say never posed a threat to the heavily armed men.
“Rob was in the wrong place doing the wrong thing, but the punishment didn’t fit the crime,” Sue Fox said afterward. “I can’t excuse his actions, but he didn’t deserve to be executed.”
The exact amount of the award was $269,500, for factors such as loss of companionship and loss of future earnings. The family will also be awarded some of the costs associated with the more than yearlong legal battle.
The jury of three men and three women deliberated for 2½ days over closely contested testimony about the predawn shooting on April 19, 2009.

This isn't even self-defense given the context of the crime.
 
This isn't even self-defense given the context of the crime.

Did burglars trespass and were attempting to steal from the property owner? Yes? then I would say the property owner was justified in using lethal force.
 
I will never stop being amazed when people attempt to defend the actions of murderers. Frankly, these guys got off lucky. They should be in prison, not just in debt.

I wouldn't exactly expect the business owners to have bean bag guns. I hope this story spreads to scare those thinking of committing burglary.
 
I wouldn't exactly expect the business owners to have bean bag guns. I hope this story spreads to scare those thinking of committing burglary.

I hope the story spreads to discourage business owners from behaving like thugs. Congratulations to them. Instead of being out a couple hundred bucks for a car stereo or two, they're out $260k. Clearly that was a wise decision they made.

Also, bean bag guns? Seriously?
 
I will never stop being amazed when people attempt to defend the actions of murderers. Frankly, these guys got off lucky. They should be in prison, not just in debt.

It is not murder to use lethal force to defend yourself and property against burglars especially armed burglars.If what the property owner did was murder then he would be in prison right now.



Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
Police said in a 145-page investigative report that the intruder had knives in his pockets and one strapped to his ankle

Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury-123946-burglar-lot.html#ixzz1WOFEHwxx
 
Did burglars trespass and were attempting to steal from the property owner? Yes? then I would say the property owner was justified in using lethal force.

You and the law are in disagreement on this issue.
 
From the article: "Under Colorado’s self-defense laws, the use of deadly force is justified only under the “reasonable belief” that it’s necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. The jury found that none of the men had a legitimate claim of self-defense."
 
It is not murder to use lethal force to defend yourself and property against burglars especially armed burglars.

It is if the intruders aren't attempting to use lethal force (with some exceptions for home invasions). Your own article points that out.

If what the property owner did was murder then he would be in prison right now.

Because the grand jury didn't indict. Frankly I'm surprised by that. It suggests that possibly something else is going on. Nevertheless, again according to your own article (not to mention my own knowledge), these men violated the law.
 
It is if the intruders aren't attempting to use lethal force (with some exceptions for home invasions). Your own article points that out.

The intruders were armed.

Because the grand jury didn't indict. Frankly I'm surprised by that. It suggests that possibly something else is going on. Nevertheless, again according to your own article (not to mention my own knowledge), these men violated the law.

All it proves is that the standard used for civil trials is too lax and should be just as strict as the standards for criminal trials.
 
You and the law are in disagreement on this issue.

So the property owner was found guilty in a criminal trial and serving time?
 
The intruders were armed.

Yes. We've established that. They weren't attempting to use deadly force.


All it proves is that the standard used for civil trials is too lax and should be just as strict as the standards for criminal trials.

The fact that the grand jury chose not to indict despite the fact that these men violated the criminal statute for murder without valid self defense proves that the standard for civil trials is too lax?
 
I wouldn't exactly expect the business owners to have bean bag guns. I hope this story spreads to scare those thinking of committing burglary.

I don't know why people lift cultural norms from the Old West and insert them into the 21st century. As far as I know, we all stand in line for our groceries. The human condition has changed radically from when we were howling for blood in the Colosseum.
 
Last edited:
I hope the story spreads to discourage business owners from behaving like thugs. Congratulations to them. Instead of being out a couple hundred bucks for a car stereo or two, they're out $260k. Clearly that was a wise decision they made.

Also, bean bag guns? Seriously?

So let's just expect the owners to sit there and watch some piece of crap human steal from them? If you don't like lethal shots or bean bag guns, perhaps you prefer taser guns?

You criticize their decisions like they should have known some ignorant jury was going to award money to the criminal's family.
 
So the property owner was found guilty in a criminal trial and serving time?

No, but he probably should have been. Sounds like a case of jury nullification.
 
So the property owner was found guilty in a criminal trial and serving time?

As I've explained twice now, I find the behavior of the grand jury baffling based on the facts we have available. You probably would too if you actually looked at what the law says and what actually happened.
 
Last edited:
So let's just expect the owners to sit there and watch some piece of crap human steal from them? If you don't like lethal shots or bean bag guns, perhaps you prefer taser guns?

You criticize their decisions like they should have known some ignorant jury was going to award money to the criminal's family.

What they should have done is called the police and, if possible, hold the guy until they got there. The kid was hiding in a shed and they shot him through the door.
 
As I've explained twice now, I find the behavior of the grand jury baffling based on the facts we have available. You probably would to if you actually looked at what the law says and what actually happened.

Sounds like a case of jury nullification. They weren't going to indict someone for shooting a burglar even if the law said otherwise. It's not uncommon.
 
So let's just expect the owners to sit there and watch some piece of crap human steal from them?

Or, they could simply point their guns at the criminals, tell them to freeze, and wait for the cops to show up. Y'know. Like civilized people. According to the article, these guys planned to shoot intruders as a first option, rather than looking to see if they had less extreme and more lawful options available to them. I'm not sure why you think that's defensible.

You criticize their decisions like they should have known some ignorant jury was going to award money to the criminal's family.

I criticize their decision because they deliberately sought to and did kill someone, which is a substantially greater crime than is theft. The fact that it bit them in the ass is just gravy.
 
Sounds like a case of jury nullification. They weren't going to indict someone for shooting a burglar even if the law said otherwise. It's not uncommon.

I agree, but I've been trying to avoid going down that road in this particular conversation.
 
The outcome of this case will probably strengthen public opinion on the issue of extending the Castle Doctrine to businesses and automobiles in addition to residences.
 
material possessions are not worth a life. theirs or mine.

they can have them.
 
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....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom