• 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.
I actually pretty much agree with your second paragraph. The firs...well...it isnt for ANY of us to to say what is good for the child. That question is irrelevant and was made irrelevant by the actions of the father which resulted in him getting his meth addicted 3 knive carrying self shot. Opinions on the outcome? That we got plenty of.

It was in response to emotional appeal like the claim that he molested his daughter without showing evidence that he did. Or your use of "meth addicted 3 knives carrying". Was the knives even in his hands when he was shot?

The question of what is good for the girl is relevant for the jury. And since most of us are not privy to what the jury know, I don't see anyone here qualified to say whether the award of damages is correct or not.


I agree...he shouldnt have been charged with murder. I have said that were it me (and knowing only the limited info that we do) I wouldnt have shot. The civil suit sounds OK though I think them claiming as much as they did for loss of income and companionship is a helluva stretch. This one particular meth addict is out of society. They got him out of society before he happened upon his next victim with his three knives and something bad happened. Im not seeing too many tragic downsides, and what downside their is can be laid at the feet of meth daddy.

So what if you don't see "too many tragic downsides"? That is irrelevant. And you just said it is not for you to say anyway. This is about whether laws were broken, or if the Law should be on the book in the first place.
 
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.

Thankfully the law disagree with you. Lethal force must be proportionate.
 
and who gets to decide if YOU feel that YOU are in eminent danger?

It doesn't matter what you feel. The standard is not subjective, it is objective. It only matters what a reasonable person in your situation would feel.
 
It doesn't matter what you feel. The standard is not subjective, it is objective. It only matters what a reasonable person in your situation would feel.

and since the criminal case never went to trial...apparently the grand jury agrees with me ;)
 
There are just so many things that strike me as wrong about this story. First of all, you're going to tell me that multiple people, owners, lay in wait night after night in the mere possibility that someone may rob the lot? Seems a little far-fetched. Also, they found them financially liable based on loss of companionship and loss of future wages?

You know, in all my time preparing taxes, I have yet to find someone with the official title of "substance-abusing carjacker" give me a W-2 with realized wages. Kinda wonder how they could determine this...
 
It was in response to emotional appeal like the claim that he molested his daughter without showing evidence that he did. Or your use of "meth addicted 3 knives carrying". Was the knives even in his hands when he was shot?

The question of what is good for the girl is relevant for the jury. And since most of us are not privy to what the jury know, I don't see anyone here qualified to say whether the award of damages is correct or not.
So what if you don't see "too many tragic downsides"? That is irrelevant. And you just said it is not for you to say anyway. This is about whether laws were broken, or if the Law should be on the book in the first place.
since none of us are involved in the jury process, and since there were no criminal proceedings, and since none of us had a relevant bearing on whether or not there WOULD be criminla charges, ALL that remains is opinion. My personal opinion is that a meth addict armed with three knives including one strapped to his leg is a dangerous human being. Meth addicts are not exactly famous for their mental stability and capacity for reasoned rational choices...especially when they are specifically on a mission to get money to score more meth. Id be a little interested in seeing the autopsy photos and just how much brain damage he had suffered. Wicked beastie, meth is.

I disagree...it ISNT about whether or not laws were broken. The county prosecutor and grand jury spoke pretty clearly on that issue. Opinion on if the law should change...well...isnt that what everyone is expressing? their opinion? As to the civil award...its not really relevant to what the girl needs...what is relevant is what she was deprived of and what the father could reasonably be expected to provide. Anything over a jury award of say...12 bucks...Id say that was stretching things a bit.
 
and since the criminal case never went to trial...apparently the grand jury agrees with me ;)

I'm talking about torts. This whole thread is about torts. You are wrong about torts.
 
I'm talking about torts. This whole thread is about torts. You are wrong about torts.

torts, smorts, eat my shorts.... I am correct in that these guys are not murderers since they were never tried and convicted. innocent until PROVEN guilty.
 
A shoot first attitude may sound macho to some but in reality it's irresponsible and the shooter in this case is fortunate not to be facing criminal charges.

It's not about being "macho" or anything of the sort. It's about defending my property from vermin and scum. To me it's no different than killing a rat or a cockroach you find in your basement.


The law is clear and the police have the same restrictions. You don't fire unless you feel you our another are in an eminent life threatening situation.

That's nice. I look to the laws of the land much less than I do what I believe to be Right and Wrong. Always have.


You may think it makes one sound like a tough guy but it's silly and the law is clear.

Again, it's not about being tough, it's about how I view Right and Wrong.


I have taken a course in carrying a concealed weapon and it's use and the laws are clear. BTW I scored 100% on both the written test and the the firing range qualifying test. But I have been shooting since I was about 10.

Those test scores and $2.00 will get you a $1.50 cup of coffee. I say that as someone who has maintained a CCW license here in Massachusetts for more than a decade, along with several other non-resident permits over that period of time. I have also been an NRA certified pistol instructor and a range safety officer for two different shooting disciplines. I carry a handgun on a regular basis and have one at hand in my apartment at all times.
 
and who gets to decide if YOU feel that YOU are in eminent danger?

Common sense is the first judge.

If someone is breaking into your car you can yell at them saying hey what are you doing and they will run away 9 times out of 10.
 
I'm not willing to be #10.

I'd rather rid the world of 9 strung-out felons than 1 of me. So would the world.
 
Common sense is the first judge.

If someone is breaking into your car you can yell at them saying hey what are you doing and they will run away 9 times out of 10.

and time #10 they will turn and blow your ****ing head off. I'd rather not take my chances.
 
I'm not willing to be #10.

I'd rather rid the world of 9 strung-out felons than 1 of me. So would the world.

That's a bit of a zero sum game, as you'd become a felon the minute you shot him.
 
Not in a world that favored law, order, and prosperity. No, we have to live in a world where criminals are given more rights than they deserve. If Plato were alive to see this, he'd vomit in disgust.
 
Thankfully the law disagree with you. Lethal force must be proportionate.

If the law disagreed with me then the property owners who were defending their property and themselves against scumbags would have been tried and sentenced.So apparently the law does agree with me.

The fact the scumbag's daughter was allowed to sue and win only proves that the standard for civil trial is incredibly low.
 
If someone is breaking into your car you can yell at them saying hey what are you doing and they will run away 9 times out of 10.

Yep, and the next time they try it with someone else they're even more dangerous because they're even more desparate and maybe that time they do bring a club, knife, gun, etc... with them and things don't go so nicely for Granny or that nice college girl down the road. These guys did the world a favor by removing a pice of crap from it and thereby improving the gene pool at the same time. Unfortunately he'd already procreated and passed his thieving genes on to his daughter, but it was worth a try.
 
Common sense is the first judge.

If someone is breaking into your car you can yell at them saying hey what are you doing and they will run away 9 times out of 10.

And there is the chance that scumbag may kill you or beat the living **** out of you right there on the spot or that scumbag may come back later to do those things.
 
The LAW sided with the owners. I don't know why people keep saying otherwise.

The JURORS sided, at least in part, with the victim's family. It's the fallacy of civil court. In criminal court, you're innocent until proven guilty. In civil court, you're liable until proven not liable. It's set on a percentage, which is entirely too subjective, and based on the whims of emotions. It's why Democrat lawyers make such great civil litigators. They are masters of telling a giant sob story to find those with money liable and responsible for anything and everything. Gore and Edwards got disgustingly rich off this crap in "tort court" and class-actions. Kerry would have too, if he didn't marry a woman worth 300 mil, only to divorce her for another worth 700 mil.

If civil cases were tried in a method similar to criminal cases, these owners wouldn't have owed a red penny. That would have been a victory for the side of law-abiding citizens and a warning to drugged-out pieces of trash.
 
In a common law country - the jury.

Those property owners were not found guilty in a criminal court by a jury. Criminal trials must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil trials require the preponderance of the evidence(more probable than not), which basically means the evidence for it is much significantly lower than the evidence that is required for beyond a reasonable doubt conviction.
 
you are :shrug:

You cannot possibly be suggesting that by disagreeing with the actions of one group of people (the murderers) I must, by default, support the actions of the other group (the junkies). Surely you're not that simple minded. Right? You are aware that it's possible to believe that both groups were basically engaged in bad actions, yes?
 
The LAW sided with the owners. I don't know why people keep saying otherwise.


I think its funny how they keep claiming murder.If what these men did was murder then they would have been charged.There is pretty convincing evidence that one of the shop owners shot the burglar. One of the owners admitting to shooting the burglar, which I am sure they did when they called 911 to report a break in and shooting and when they talked to the police and whoever else, which basically a confession. I am pretty sure if they did a ballistics test on the bullet in the dead scumbag then they should be able trace it to the gun that fired it, which by itself is not proof who shot the gun but there is a confession which strengthens this evidence. They got motive which is protect their property after being previously robbed. So these people saying its murder or that these men violated the law can not claim that a grand jury or who ever simply did not have any evidence what ever to criminally charge these men
 
Last edited:
You cannot possibly be suggesting that by disagreeing with the actions of one group of people (the murderers) I must, by default, support the actions of the other group (the junkies). Surely you're not that simple minded. Right? You are aware that it's possible to believe that both groups were basically engaged in bad actions, yes?

but that has not been your arguement. you've been bleating on and on about how the "victim" wasn't a threat, etc. etc. etc. so, yes, you have been defending him
 
You cannot possibly be suggesting that by disagreeing with the actions of one group of people (the murderers) I must, by default, support the actions of the other group (the junkies). Surely you're not that simple minded. Right? You are aware that it's possible to believe that both groups were basically engaged in bad actions, yes?

Abortionist in abortion debates point out that if it is legal to kill someone then it is not murder if it is illegal to kill someone then it is murder. Murder is basically the unlawful killing of another person under circumstances defined by the law. If what these men did was murder then they would have been tried in court, convicted and currently serving time behind bars. Apparently what these men did was legal seeing how they were not tried in court,convicted and serving a sentence.



- FindLaw
: the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation)
 
Last edited:
oscar said:
you've been bleating on and on about how the "victim" wasn't a threat

That's the part I don't get. If you, a stranger, illegally traspass onto my property, at night, unbeknownst to me, you are a threat to me. I don't give a good hot damn what the LAW says. All it says is that we need to remedy what the LAW says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom