• 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.
material possessions are not worth a life. theirs or mine.

they can have them.

So I guess that it's safe to assume that you oppose this aftermarket accessory for cars in South Africa

 
So I guess that it's safe to assume that you oppose this aftermarket accessory for cars in South Africa

obviously. that is not how a civilized society should act.

some of the comments on the youtube clip are rather interesting. they sound like the deranged rantings of the savages/Terrorists in the ME. it's shocking how much some people are like those they complain the most bitterly about.
 
No, but he probably should have been. Sounds like a case of jury nullification.

Well that's one of the reasons we're supposed to employ it. However, criminal cases require a much higher burden of proof than civil cases. So the likely scenario was that there probably wasn't enough evidence to move forward in a criminal trial.
 
Im just...so...so freqin sad. this poor victim...a methhead (and you know...meth addicts are well known for their passion, compassion, and stability) was innocently browsing these mens car lot and would have used whatever money he could get for stolen goods to provide for his chirrun and NOT to score more drugs...and just HAPPENED to be carrying three knives including one strapped to his leg...but that was just in case...you know...he needed to...I dont know...slice apples or other fruit for a snack for his buddy. Im just...so...sad...because this fine, upstanding meth addict will no longer be with us...we...will...sniff...no longer benefit as a society from his tremendous contributions he has made...and can be expected to make...sniff sniff...Im just. We'll just miss him so dang much...
 
Im just...so...so freqin sad. this poor victim...a methhead (and you know...meth addicts are well known for their passion, compassion, and stability) was innocently browsing these mens car lot and would have used whatever money he could get for stolen goods to provide for his chirrun and NOT to score more drugs...and just HAPPENED to be carrying three knives including one strapped to his leg...but that was just in case...you know...he needed to...I dont know...slice apples or other fruit for a snack for his buddy. Im just...so...sad...because this fine, upstanding meth addict will no longer be with us...we...will...sniff...no longer benefit as a society from his tremendous contributions he has made...and can be expected to make...sniff sniff...Im just. We'll just miss him so dang much...

Not as sad as the fact that 3 people who conspired to commit murder got off with only a $260k penalty instead of a lengthy prison sentence. Unless, of course, you think robbery should be punished with the death penalty. Without a trial or other Constitutional Due Process.
 
Not as sad as the fact that 3 people who conspired to commit murder got off with only a $260k penalty instead of a lengthy prison sentence. Unless, of course, you think robbery should be punished with the death penalty. Without a trial or other Constitutional Due Process.
My heart is just bleeding for him. Personally? I wouldnt have shot him. However a meth addict carrying three lethal weapons in the commission of a crime doesnt exactly extract much by way from sympathy from me. So...there is a lesson to be learned here...hey...kids...dont do meth, dont attempt to steal ****, and dont break into a private citizens business or property. You go ahead and cry enough for all of us...k?
 
The only time it is morally acceptable to kill somebody, in my opinion, is to protect your own safety or somebody else's safety, not your stuff. Stuff is just stuff. Killing somebody over mere stuff is murder in my opinion. Somebody who kills a human being to defend say $100 worth of stuff isn't a whole lot better than somebody who kills a human being to steal $100 worth of stuff. Either way the real core of where they went wrong was to value a human life at less than $100.

Legally it varies by state. In some states that is the law- you can only kill somebody in actual self defense. In other states they extend it to defending your home. In a few they extend it to defending mere property outside of your home.
 
Last edited:
Unless, of course, you think robbery should be punished with the death penalty. Without a trial or other Constitutional Due Process.

actually, in cases like this where the "victim" is caught redhanded. I do. let them come try to rob my property and not only will I shoot and kill them...I will feed their remains to my freakin dogs and burn the bones the dogs don't eat.
 
The only time it is morally acceptable to kill somebody, in my opinion, is to protect your own safety, not your stuff. Stuff is just stuff. Killing somebody over just stuff is insane.

Legally it varies by state. In some states that is the law- you can only kill somebody in actual self defense. In other states they extend it to defending your home. In a few they extend it to defending mere property outside of your home.
A refugee that has come from a despotic country and worked to build a business might view things a little differently...like...theft from business as a matter of survival. Especially when that businessman had attempted to engage the police following previous incidents.
 
actually, in cases like this where the "victim" is caught redhanded. I do. let them come try to rob my property and not only will I shoot and kill them...I will feed their remains to my freakin dogs and burn the bones the dogs don't eat.
Yeah...that whole 'trial' thing looks a little differently when you are caught in the act huh?
I personally would not shoot someone stealing an item from my home. Breaking in? Walking down a hallway? Armed? No problem.
 
My heart is just bleeding for him. Personally? I wouldnt have shot him. However a meth addict carrying three lethal weapons in the commission of a crime doesnt exactly extract much by way from sympathy from me. So...there is a lesson to be learned here...hey...kids...dont do meth, dont attempt to steal ****, and dont break into a private citizens business or property. You go ahead and cry enough for all of us...k?

You're making a mistake by characterizing my attitude as emotional. This is a common enough trope from certain types of right wing mentalities, and it's just as ignorant and misguided as people on the left assuming that right wing conservatives are heartless and selfish. I suggest you rid yourself of this particular prejudice, then go back and look at my comments again.
 
Yeah...that whole 'trial' thing looks a little differently when you are caught in the act huh?
I personally would not shoot someone stealing an item from my home. Breaking in? Walking down a hallway? Armed? No problem.

if they are just out in the yard trying to steal stuff, yeah a simple warning shot or just letting them see my weapon and a friendly warning to GTFO and never come back. but if they ever try to come inside...I will not hesitate to engage with extreme prejudice.
 
actually, in cases like this where the "victim" is caught redhanded. I do. let them come try to rob my property and not only will I shoot and kill them...I will feed their remains to my freakin dogs and burn the bones the dogs don't eat.

Ah, the Charles Bronson mentality. I'd advise you not to do that. You probably won't be as lucky as these guys were, and you'll end up serving a lengthy prison sentence as the murderer you seem interested in becoming.
 
Yeah...that whole 'trial' thing looks a little differently when you are caught in the act huh?
I personally would not shoot someone stealing an item from my home. Breaking in? Walking down a hallway? Armed? No problem.

Arderleth seems to think that there was a conspiracy to shoot "this" man. There was not, and the fact that a civil jury was duped into believing that a "robbery" plan was any different thatn having one for your home is insane, and goes to show that Arderleth would have fit nicely into this jury.. :)


Tim-
 
Ah, the Charles Bronson mentality. I'd advise you not to do that. You probably won't be as lucky as these guys were, and you'll end up serving a lengthy prison sentence as the murderer you seem interested in becoming.

a single tear rolls down my cheek. maybe if people like you didn't coddle criminals we would have less of these type events.
 
Arderleth seems to think that there was a conspiracy to shoot "this" man. There was not, and the fact that a civil jury was diped into believing that a "robbery" plan was any different thatn having one for your home is insane, and goes to show that Arderleth would have fit nicely into this jury.. :)


Tim-

I think we should just give every thief in the country Arderleth's home address and see how he reacts when they come to take his **** ;)
 
You're making a mistake by characterizing my attitude as emotional. This is a common enough trope from certain types of right wing mentalities, and it's just as ignorant and misguided as people on the left assuming that right wing conservatives are heartless and selfish. I suggest you rid yourself of this particular prejudice, then go back and look at my comments again.
Ive read your comments. All of them. So where is your compassion for the immigrant businessman that is being robbed blind by the meth addict. The same businessman that left everything back in his home country and actually built a business that is being robbed by a scumbag meth addict leech...that attempted to call the police with no results. Nah...they arent the 'victims'....they conspired to commit murder...remember?
 
a single tear rolls down my cheek. maybe if people like you didn't coddle criminals we would have less of these type events.

Actually, I have no interest in coddling criminals, which is why when people like you talk about committing murder, I call them on it. I derive a certain pleasure from pointing out hypocrisy.

As I pointed out to Vince, this has ****all to do with feeling bad for the junkie who got shot.
 
Ah, the Charles Bronson mentality. I'd advise you not to do that. You probably won't be as lucky as these guys were, and you'll end up serving a lengthy prison sentence as the murderer you seem interested in becoming.

I don't think he professed interest in murdering anyone. However, it was stated that if they were in his house, he would defend himself. It's not outrageous. Someone stealing something in your yard; yeah maybe you can chase them off. Someone in your house, a different story. There's no necessity to wait to see in that few seconds how much of a threat they are; the mere fact that they broke into your home is threat enough.

I can see rules against shooting a fleeing suspect. You shouldn't have carte blanche right to shoot anyone on your property for any reason. But one is most certainly allowed to defend themselves and their property and should a person be a threat, such as the one created if they break into your home, then people may respond in a way to protect themselves.

You said "This is a common enough trope from certain types of right wing mentalities, and it's just as ignorant and misguided as people on the left assuming that right wing conservatives are heartless and selfish. I suggest you rid yourself of this particular prejudice, then go back and look at my comments again." I believe you should heed your own words.
 
Ive read your comments. All of them. So where is your compassion for the immigrant businessman that is being robbed blind by the meth addict. The same businessman that left everything back in his home country and actually built a business that is being robbed by a scumbag meth addict leech...that attempted to call the police with no results. Nah...they arent the 'victims'....they conspired to commit murder...remember?

Again, you're making an emotional appeal. I have no compassion for either the murderers or the robber. I do have an interest in seeing people behave in a civilized fashion and within the bounds of the law. The three businessmen you're so fond of deliberately set out to kill someone. They did so independent of any actual threat this (at the time hypothetical) intruder might represent. They were taking revenge. A civilized society cannot and generally does not condone such actions. It's murder, pure and simple. Why you'd want to focus on petty theft as some hugely bad thing, but then give deliberate murderers a free pass is completely beyond me. How is the hypocrisy of such a thing not readily apparent?
 
I wonder if this attitude extends to other cases. Would it have been acceptable, for example, for one of Madoff's victims to go to Madoff's house and shoot him in cold blood? Certainly Madoff was a much bigger criminal....
 
Actually, I have no interest in coddling criminals, which is why when people like you talk about committing murder, I call them on it. I derive a certain pleasure from pointing out hypocrisy.

As I pointed out to Vince, this has ****all to do with feeling bad for the junkie who got shot.

who is talking about committing murder? you just keep on bending over and taking it up the butt from criminals ;)
 
I think we should just give every thief in the country Arderleth's home address and see how he reacts when they come to take his **** ;)
I actually really ,ike that idea. In fact...if they had the balls to back their conviction they would just put up signs in their yard..."come and get it!!!"

My+Neighbor+is+Unarmed!.jpg
 
Again, you're making an emotional appeal. I have no compassion for either the murderers or the robber. I do have an interest in seeing people behave in a civilized fashion and within the bounds of the law. The three businessmen you're so fond of deliberately set out to kill someone. They did so independent of any actual threat this (at the time hypothetical) intruder might represent. They were taking revenge. A civilized society cannot and generally does not condone such actions. It's murder, pure and simple. Why you'd want to focus on petty theft as some hugely bad thing, but then give deliberate murderers a free pass is completely beyond me. How is the hypocrisy of such a thing not readily apparent?
They set out to protect their business. Why? Because they were being robbed by (armed) meth addicts and scumbags and the police didnt help. I personally wouldnt have shot them. Then again...I personally am not in their position.
 
I don't think he professed interest in murdering anyone. However, it was stated that if they were in his house, he would defend himself.

You might want to re-read the article. No one was in anyone's house. This is from the article:

"Corbin testified he saw two armed men charge out of a building and run in their direction, one of them shouting “we’re gonna get you” in an obscenity-laced threat. Corbin, who escaped by climbing over a car and jumping a fence, said he felt a bullet pass by him as someone fired four gunshots."


and...

"The three men were accused of keeping an armed vigil over the auto lot and firing on the first burglars they saw. The men were angry over a series of thefts that began when someone broke in a week earlier and stole keys to customers’ automobiles as well as keys to buildings on the property."

So. In a nutshell. Some other person or people (or possibly the guys who got shot or shot at) had been stealing from these three men out of their place of business. They armed themselves, waited at their place of business (NOT at their homes), then fired - with no provocation - at the first intruders they saw. They had no reason, at the time, to believe the two intruders represented a threat to them, let alone the sort of deadly threat that might justify self-defense. They could have armed themselves with tazers and incapacitated the intruders. They could have held them at gunpoint and waited for the police to arrive. They chose to fire multiple gunshots at people who were not attacking them and not visibly armed. If you look to the standards for self defense laid out in the article, it's pretty obvious that the law does not support such an action which is, essentially, a revenge killing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom