• 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.
Centrist77 said:
LMAO nice try but you are still wrong if you are insisting that what they felt doesn't matter at all.
Click to expand...

It does not matter at all from the law's perspective.
 
AdamT said:
It does not matter at all from the law's perspective.
Click to expand...

yes it does LMAO
because it impacts the circumstances and law most certainly cares about that!
and so would the jury IF there was even enough to send this to criminal court but there wasnt
 
Centrist77 said:
yes it does LMAO
because it impacts the circumstances and law most certainly cares about that!
and so would the jury IF there was even enough to send this to criminal court but there wasnt
Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't. The case rested on the defense of self defense, which uses an objective, reasonable person test. It does not consider the subjective beliefs of the defendant. That's a matter of black letter law.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Actually, it's a petit jury, not a petite jury.
Click to expand...
No...I believe in this case all the sitting members were tiny...very very small. They were sequestered in a Barbie playhouse. IG Joe transported them to and from the courthouse in the Go Joe attack Humvee.
 
AdamT said:
No, it really doesn't. The case rested on the defense of self defense, which uses an objective, reasonable person test. It does not consider the subjective beliefs of the defendant. That's a matter of black letter law.
Click to expand...

and since they didn't go to trial..... they must have passed the reasonable person test ;) that you don't like it doesn't change the facts
 
AdamT said:
No, it really doesn't. The case rested on the defense of self defense, which uses an objective, reasonable person test. It does not consider the subjective beliefs of the defendant. That's a matter of black letter law.
Click to expand...

You think reasonable is an objective term? Seriously?

Quit looking at this from a vacuum perspective. When you take into account all the variables - shroud of night, current drug abuse, concealed weapons, felony crime committed on private property - the definition of "reasonable" gets skewed.

Seriously, all this does is show that the legal system needs an overhaul. Our forefathers knew better than this. Jefferson shot people at the White House for less.
 
jamesrage said:
What law says this?
Click to expand...

The Colorado penal code. Here's the relevant section:

"18-1-706 - Use of physical force in defense of property.
A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704." [emphasis added]

It also says so in the article you posted.


jamesrage said:
That is your opinion that they had no reason to believe they under thread of deadly assault. You do not know what kind of threat a trespasser poses.
Click to expand...

Obviously not. But based on the facts available, there was no threat. "Threat" in this context, means an actual attempt to harm someone using deadly force. Here's the relevant section of the law:

"(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"

Do we have any indication, any at all, that the shooting victim was attacking, or was about to attack his shooters when he was shot?

jamesrage said:
I am pretty sure most victims of a lot burglaries make that decision to arm themselves because you do not know what kind of harm the intruder intends to do you. That intruder may not want to leave witnesses so he may shoot,stab or use some other method to kill you.That intruder may be horney and decide to rape you. That intruder may decided that he is going to just beat the hell out of you for fun.
Click to expand...

And if and when your hypothetical intruder actually attempts any of those things, you are within your rights to defend yourself with deadly force. But if he hasn't made such an attempt, and you still use deadly force, you are, under the eyes of the law (and sanity) the aggressor, and become a criminal yourself. See above for statutory verification.

jamesrage said:
They are not murderers.What they did was not murder.If what they did was murder, they would have been charged with murder, went to trial and sentence upon a guilty conviction. Are you trying to say that the DA,or who ever is going to ignore a confession,physical evidence and a motive if what these men did was murder or even illegal?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the DA did or didn't do. I am saying that the two juries reached inconsistent verdicts using the same standard of proof. And the one that found in favor of the plaintiff (the shooting victim) was exposed to more evidence in favor of the defendants.
 
AdamT said:
No, it really doesn't. The case rested on the defense of self defense, which uses an objective, reasonable person test. It does not consider the subjective beliefs of the defendant. That's a matter of black letter law.
Click to expand...

see the underlined
that can be impacted by how the subjects felt
OR by how the jury would feel those people felt
Or by how the jury would feel in the same situation knowing how they felt
or how the jury would feel an "objective reasonable person" would feel in said situation.

bottom line like i said it absolutely matters it just isnt the END ALL to the decision but it matters.

example if "I" used self defense because I was bed ridden after two knee surgeries so i FELT cornered and threatened because I cant "fight or flight" an intruder are you telling me my feelings about being trapped dont matter?

well you would be wrong


again

it matters, it just isnt the ONLY factor
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
No, it really doesn't. The case rested on the defense of self defense, which uses an objective, reasonable person test. It does not consider the subjective beliefs of the defendant. That's a matter of black letter law.
Click to expand...

Do you think he's figured out yet that the two people he's arguing with about the law are both lawyers?
 
Gipper said:
You think reasonable is an objective term? Seriously?

Quit looking at this from a vacuum perspective. When you take into account all the variables - shroud of night, current drug abuse, concealed weapons, felony crime committed on private property - the definition of "reasonable" gets skewed.

Seriously, all this does is show that the legal system needs an overhaul. Our forefathers knew better than this. Jefferson shot people at the White House for less.
Click to expand...

I'm just telling you what the law is. You don't have to like it. The law doesn't ask if these particular guys felt threatened (subjective test). What it asks is whether an average, typical person would have reasonably felt threatened under the circumstances (objective test).
 
Gipper said:
You think reasonable is an objective term? Seriously?

Quit looking at this from a vacuum perspective. When you take into account all the variables - shroud of night, current drug abuse, concealed weapons, felony crime committed on private property - the definition of "reasonable" gets skewed.

Seriously, all this does is show that the legal system needs an overhaul. Our forefathers knew better than this. Jefferson shot people at the White House for less.
Click to expand...

he cant and wont he has proved his dishonesty over and over again many times with absurd examples to just plain silliness like comparing gang bangers shooting each other to this case LOL
 
Centrist77 said:
see the underlined
that can be impacted by how the subjects felt
OR by how the jury would feel those people felt
Or by how the jury would feel in the same situation knowing how they felt
or how the jury would feel an "objective reasonable person" would feel in said situation.

bottom line like i said it absolutley matters it just inst the END ALL to the decision but it matters.

example if "I" used self defense because I was bed ridden after two knee surgeries so i FELT corned and threatened because I cant "fight or flight" an intruder are you telling me my feelings about being trapped dont matter?

well you would be wrong


again

it matters, it just inst the ONLY factor
Click to expand...

No, you still don't get it. The test is what a reasonable person UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES woud feel. So in your hypothetical, your lack of mobility would be part of the circumstances.
 
Aderleth said:
Do you think he's figured out yet that the two people he's arguing with about the law are both lawyers?
Click to expand...

No, I think that's a bit beyond his reach.
 
AdamT said:
No, you still don't get it. The test is what a reasonable person UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES woud feel. So in your hypothetical, your lack of mobility would be part of the circumstances.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY THANK YOU

feelings impact circumstances and feelings MATTER
you can try and play word games all you want but feelings do matter they just arent the only factor
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha LMAO

feelings matter in this case too and all you have offered is what YOUR MEANINGLESS OPINION is on the circumstances not FACTS

you don't know how they felt, you don't know what the standard reasonable person will feel in their circumstances and thats already been proved. the vast majority here disagree with you. We all ask the same questions while you offer the same poor answers. HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE WAS NO THREAT and you have offered NOTHING LMAO

You make up what ifs that suit you but ignore the ones that go against you its hysterical.

like I said you are wrong feeling matter because they impact circumstance :D

word it how ever you want nothing changes ;)
 
Hmm, just looking at Colorado's self defense statute, and it's actually pretty deadly for the defendants here:

"3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

...

(b.) He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force...."


I haven't seen anything to suggest that the burglars did anything but run away when they were confronted.
 
Centrist77 said:
EXACTLY THANK YOU

feelings impact circumstances and feelings MATTER
you can try and play word games all you want but feelings do matter they just arent the only factor
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha LMAO

feelings matter in this case too and all you have offered is what YOUR MEANINGLESS OPINION is on the circumstances not FACTS

you don't know how they felt, you don't know what the standard reasonable person will feel in their circumstances and thats already been proved. the vast majority here disagree with you. We all ask the same questions while you offer the same poor answers. HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE WAS NO THREAT and you have offered NOTHING LMAO

You make up what ifs that suit you but ignore the ones that go against you its hysterical.

like I said you are wrong feeling matter because they impact circumstance :D

word it how ever you want nothing changes ;)
Click to expand...

*SIGH*

You are apparently incapable of grasping the legal standard. This is a good example of how juries end up making clearly wrong decisions.
 
AdamT said:
*SIGH*

You are apparently incapable of grasping the legal standard. This is a good example of how juries end up making clearly wrong decisions.
Click to expand...

Juries make bad decisions because lawyers monkey with the make up of a jury of peers to get a jury which is more sympathetic to their case.
 
AdamT said:
*SIGH*

You are apparently incapable of grasping the legal standard. This is a good example of how juries end up making clearly wrong decisions.
Click to expand...

You tell yourself what ever you need to sleep at night buddy Ill gladly stick with the vast majority here and use common sense.
 
AdamT said:
Hmm, just looking at Colorado's self defense statute, and it's actually pretty deadly for the defendants here:

"3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

...

(b.) He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force...."


I haven't seen anything to suggest that the burglars did anything but run away when they were confronted.
Click to expand...

the property owners were not the initial aggressor, so this is irrelevent :shrug:
 
OscarB63 said:
seems to me that two lawyers should know a little bit more about how the law actually works.
Click to expand...

You would think, then again theres lawyers out there that dont give a **** about the law they just want to know how to GAME it. They dont actually want to use it with integrity, just look at the dishonesty that has been posted in this thread. Its pathetic! lol THATS whats wrong with the system.
 
OscarB63 said:
the property owners were not the initial aggressor, so this is irrelevent :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes they were. Unless you're suggesting that we have evidence that the shooting victim or his buddy attacked the property owners.
 
Ikari said:
Juries make bad decisions because lawyers monkey with the make up of a jury of peers to get a jury which is more sympathetic to their case.
Click to expand...

Well, that generally balances out since both sides are looking for the jurors most likely to favor their side.

Bad decisions can result from many factors: poor attorneys on one or both sides, subject matter too complex for jury to grasp, personality conflicts in the jury, one or more jurors who are simply irrational, etc., etc.

As I adverted to above, my wife was on a murder jury where one of the jurors decided the defendant was guilty because she had prayed on it and God said the kid was guilty.
 
Aderleth said:
Yes they were. Unless you're suggesting that we have evidence that the shooting victim or his buddy attacked the property owners.
Click to expand...

depends on your definition of aggressor. If you break onto my property, that is an aggressive action. by illegally forcing their way into the property they became the initial aggressor. and you still want to try to claim you aren't defending them :roll:

the mere fact that the "victim" :roll: and his buddy were there to commit a crime makes them the aggressor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom