• 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.
civil juries don't determine whether or not a crime occurred. you would think a lawyer would know that.

Actually in this case they did. In order to find fault they had to determine that the defendants were not acting in self defense.
 
in fact, they ambushed the burglars.
 
liblady said:
Milanovic and his father told police a week before the shooting they would shoot any intruders who returned. Police say the men concealed the rifle in the trunk of a car so well that a police detective initially missed it during a search.

So were they searching his car before this incident, or after the fact? One means that they owned a weapon on their own property obviously so well-hidden that it couldn't be used even if they wanted to...or their Fourth Amendment rights were being grossly violated.

What's it gonna be, sweetheart? Pick one.
 
Ok lawyers, so help me out - they were put before a grand jury, the defendants chose to keep quiet and not self-incriminate (as per the Bill of Rights, about halfway down somewhere), and just by looking at strict physical evidence the GJ concluded that there was no way in hell the prosecution could get a conviction in a trial. Is that about it?

No. The defendant and his lawyers are not present at all during a grand jury. It's just the prosecutor and a room full of jurors. No judge, even (usually). It's just the prosecution's evidence, none of the defense side, and based on the preponderance of the evidence standard.

Or do they often fail to indict cases that have a legal leg to stand on?

That is an excellent question, and it's the crux of what I was getting at in my last post to you. Because remember, the civil jury actually did find these guys guilty of exactly the same behavior, and that jury heard both the prosecution evidence (actually plaintiff's evidence, because it's a civil trial), and the defense version of events. Put simply:

- The civil trial had evidence in favor of the defendants, and found them guilty
- The grand jury just heard the evidence most favorable to the prosecution, and never heard the defendant's side of things at all. No indictment.

Both used the same standard of proof. So how, exactly, does that make any sense? Can we square these two conclusions? No we cannot.
 
First of all, yes, they very probably were looking for this guy.

They were looking for this specific guy? ****, why didn't you tell the police that the whole thing was a set up to lure this specific individual to their lot so they could kill him! Holy crap. Oh...wait, they were looking for the guy who kept breaking into their business and stealing their stuff....not some random drug addict on the street.

They apparently told the cops that they intended to shoot the next intruder on their property, then they did exactly that.

Guess the cops should have done something. Oh well...whenever you need a cop; they're 10 minutes away.

Second, your force argument is legally meaningless for self defense purposes.

Wrong. It is the fundamental basis for rights. It should be understood by those living in a democratic republic built upon the protection and proliferation of an individual's rights.

If you want to get the law changed so it reflects that definition, run for legislative office and get that bill passed. As things stand, to invoke self-defense in a situation in which you've used deadly force, you first have to be in imminent fear of death or great bodily harm. That's not at all what happened in this situation.

Well the Grand Jury didn't indict.
 
Yes. yes they do. It was acknowledge, encouraged, and used in our history.

It certainly is not encouraged NOW. The jury is the finder of FACT. The law is provided in the form of jury instructions. It is the jury's duty to determine the facts and apply them to the law according to the jury instructions. If, on appeal, it's determined that the jury did not apply the law correctly, the decision can be overturned. That doesn't happen often because it's hard to prove.
 
in fact, they ambushed the burglars.

Guess they shouldn't have been stealing. You cannot argue that had they not first chosen to break the law and violate the rights of others that he would still be dead.
 
It certainly is not encouraged NOW. The jury is the finder of FACT. The law is provided in the form of jury instructions. It is the jury's duty to determine the facts and apply them to the law according to the jury instructions. If, on appeal, it's determined that the jury did not apply the law correctly, the decision can be overturned. That doesn't happen often because it's hard to prove.

Ron Paul endorses it. It is in fact a VERY important aspect of our judicial system and one of the ultimate checks on government power and authority. It should still be well understood and encouraged. The jury has every right to weigh case and law.
 
Note to self: If you don't want to get shot by a property owner, don't break onto his/her property high on drugs and armed with 3 knives
 
Ron Paul endorses it. It is in fact a VERY important aspect of our judicial system and one of the ultimate checks on government power and authority. It should still be well understood and encouraged. The jury has every right to weigh case and law.

Ron Paul isn't the Supreme Court ... thank God.
 
They were looking for this specific guy? ****, why didn't you tell the police that the whole thing was a set up to lure this specific individual to their lot so they could kill him! Holy crap. Oh...wait, they were looking for the guy who kept breaking into their business and stealing their stuff....not some random drug addict on the street.



Guess the cops should have done something. Oh well...whenever you need a cop; they're 10 minutes away.



Wrong. It is the fundamental basis for rights. It should be understood by those living in a democratic republic built upon the protection and proliferation of an individual's rights.



Well the Grand Jury didn't indict.

color me surprised. colorado springs, after all. the prosecutor didn't need a grand jury.
 
Ron Paul isn't the Supreme Court ... thank God.

More like "too bad". I have always felt the rightful place for libertarians were in the courts as they have a better understanding the basic limitations of the courts and the proper power of the People to police and control the authority of the government. There are others sympathetic to the rightful power of the jury to nullify unjust law.

Clay Conrad, a jury scholar and attorney, argues that there is nothing "wrong" with jury nullification; nullification is part and parcel of what a jury is all about. Conrad argues that the nullification power has sometimes been abused, as has all power. However, the abuses have been exaggerated to discredit the nullification idea itself.[39]

The late Chief Justice of the Washington State Supreme Court William C. Goodloe was an advocate of jury nullification and suggested that the following instruction be given by judges to all juries in criminal cases:[40]
“ You are instructed that this being a criminal case you are the exclusive judges of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, and you have a right also to determine the law in the case. The court does not intend to express any opinion concerning the weight of the evidence, but it is the duty of the court to advise you as to the law, and it is your duty to consider the instructions of the court; yet in your decision upon the merits of the case you have a right to determine for yourselves the law as well as the facts by which your verdict shall be governed. ”

The United States Libertarian Party's platform states, "We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law."
 
Last edited:
and time #10 they will turn and blow your ****ing head off. I'd rather not take my chances.

Well, that would be where you beat him to the punch. But shoot an unarmed man breaking into your car and make sure you give me your contact info, I'll write you in prison.

Nobody said you can't hold him at gunpoint, they said you can't SHOOT him. If you have a gun pointed at this man yelling at him to get his hands up and he still manages to reach into his pants, pull a handgun and shoot you before you have time to pull the trigger, then you are one slow ass mother ****er. The fact of the matter remains, shoot someone in a situation where a reasonable jury would say you were not in danger and you will SPEND THE REST OF YOUR LIFE IN PRISON. You can tell your cell mate how tough you were shooting an unarmed man and he can probably tell you a story one better. Then you can stare at the walls of an 8x10 room for the rest of your life.

Is it worth it to shoot someone who poses no threat to you? No, I don't think so. I refuse to let some unarmed SOB ruin the rest of my life.

But for the record, knives are weapons. He wasn't prosecuted because the perp was armed. Had he not have knives, I would be willing to bet the world that he would have been prosecuted as a murderer.
 
Last edited:
Aderleth said:
That is an excellent question, and it's the crux of what I was getting at in my last post to you. Because remember, the civil jury actually did find these guys guilty of exactly the same behavior, and that jury heard both the prosecution evidence (actually plaintiff's evidence, because it's a civil trial), and the defense version of events. Put simply:

- The civil trial had evidence in favor of the defendants, and found them guilty
- The grand jury just heard the evidence most favorable to the prosecution, and never heard the defendant's side of things at all. No indictment.

Both used the same standard of proof. So how, exactly, does that make any sense? Can we square these two conclusions? No we cannot.

Ok, I'm no lawyer. I didn't go to law school, and all my law classes were business law. Having said that, I was told ad nauseum (yeah, I had to know some Latin) that you're not found guilty or not guilty in civil court, you're found liable or not liable. I was also informed that it's not so much that you're found liable, but how much you're found liable, and punitive reparations are made based on that (often based on percentage).

If that's right, it also makes for a screwed-up civil litigation basis. After all you can always put a tiny bit on anyone. In theory, McDonalds could've been partially liable for that woman spilling hot coffee all over herself because they gave it to her when she paid for it.

Therefore, all you have to do is find a liberal lawyer adept at spinning tales of woe about how this poor druggie's daughter will never grow up knowing exactly what a dead-beat daddy really was, and that the big, bad entrepreneurs were all to blame. Then you surgically remove the wallet.

Any addendums or alternations you want to make?
 
They were looking for this specific guy? ****, why didn't you tell the police that the whole thing was a set up to lure this specific individual to their lot so they could kill him! Holy crap. Oh...wait, they were looking for the guy who kept breaking into their business and stealing their stuff....not some random drug addict on the street.

They were looking to shoot the next intruder on their property, whoever that happened to be. We have no way of knowing if these two particular intruders were the same people who had previously stolen from the property owners.

Guess the cops should have done something. Oh well...whenever you need a cop; they're 10 minutes away.

This statement has nothing to do with the reason I brought up the cops, which was to point out that the three guys stated in advance, to the police, their intent to use deadly force on an as yet unidentified individual or group of people.

Wrong. It is the fundamental basis for rights. It should be understood by those living in a democratic republic built upon the protection and proliferation of an individual's rights.

Once again, I'm talking about what the law actually says, and you're talking about nonsense. I've provided the statutory language on self defense (a few pages back). It's consistent with my assertions, and totally inconsistent with yours.


Well the Grand Jury didn't indict.

And as I've explained three or four times now (once specifically to you, I think) this doesn't mean as much as you might think it does given that a) the civil jury did convict using the same standard of evidence, and b) the facts as we know them support a murder conviction.
 
More like "too bad". I have always felt the rightful place for libertarians were in the courts as they have a better understanding the basic limitations of the courts and the proper power of the People to police and control the authority of the government. There are others sympathetic to the rightful power of the jury to nullify unjust law.

Well, it's an interesting perspective. No doubt you oppose judicial activism, which is a judge or judges substituting their preferences for those of the elected legislature, but you seem to support jury activism, or a group of nine untrained people elected by no one substituting their preferences for thsoe of the elected legislature.

Seems rather inconsistent to me.
 
Last edited:
guy decides to get high on meth
guy decides to arm himself with 3 knives
guy decides to break onto another person's property


and he is the victim


guy decides to shoot the high, armed criminal and he is a murderer


mind boggling
 
They were looking to shoot the next intruder on their property, whoever that happened to be. We have no way of knowing if these two particular intruders were the same people who had previously stolen from the property owners.

So they weren't looking for these specific individuals then? That's what I thought.

This statement has nothing to do with the reason I brought up the cops, which was to point out that the three guys stated in advance, to the police, their intent to use deadly force on an as yet unidentified individual or group of people.

It doesn't matter why you brought it up, you brought it up. If the cops thought they were going to do something illegal, particularly murder, they have the ability to STOP IT. They should have done something if they really thought that these guys were going to break the law.

Once again, I'm talking about what the law actually says, and you're talking about nonsense. I've provided the statutory language on self defense (a few pages back). It's consistent with my assertions, and totally inconsistent with yours.

And I gave you the FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY by which our Republic was constructed. The protection and proliferation of our rights. We even have the right to overthrow the government should it tread too grievously against our rights for too long. The thiefs initiated aggression when they violated the rights of the property owners. The property owners responded. There is still room for talking rightful defense or over the line murder; but it does not distract from the fact that the initiators of the conflict where the ones who initially infringed on rights.


And as I've explained three or four times now (once specifically to you, I think) this doesn't mean as much as you might think it does given that a) the civil jury did convict using the same standard of evidence, and b) the facts as we know them support a murder conviction.

And the facts as the Grand Jury knew them did not support indictment.
 
AdamT said:
Well, it's an interesting perspective. No doubt you oppose judicial activism, which is a judge or judges substituting their preferences for those of the elected legislature, but you seem to support jury activision, or a group of nine untrained people elected by no one substituting their preferences for thsoe of the elected legislature.

Seems rather inconsistent to me.

I support neither. I would just want a system that tends to, you know, punish criminals. Like knife-brandishing druggies who break onto private property at night to commit felonies.

In a perfect world, the existence and enforcement of private property rights would be tantamount to a sound legal structure, specifically in cases where available parties all consent and no third-party interference can and will be tolerated.
 
Well, it's an interesting perspective. No doubt you oppose judicial activism, which is a judge or judges substituting their preferences for those of the elected legislature, but you seem to support jury activism, or a group of nine untrained people elected by no one substituting their preferences for thsoe of the elected legislature.

Seems rather inconsistent to me.

Judges are part of the government and as such are subject to the limitations placed upon the government by the People. The jury is the People, the representation of our will and desire. They have all the INNATE power. All power wielded by the government is derived from the People. The People have the proper right and duty to restrict and control the government and its authority including the force it wields over us.
 
Ok, I'm no lawyer. I didn't go to law school, and all my law classes were business law. Having said that, I was told ad nauseum (yeah, I had to know some Latin) that you're not found guilty or not guilty in civil court, you're found liable or not liable. I was also informed that it's not so much that you're found liable, but how much you're found liable, and punitive reparations are made based on that (often based on percentage).

The guilt phase and the penalty phase are two different things. Punitive damages are only sometimes involved, and there are many civil remedies (e.g. affirmative and negative injunctions) that don't involve money at all.

If that's right, it also makes for a screwed-up civil litigation basis. After all you can always put a tiny bit on anyone. In theory, McDonalds could've been partially liable for that woman spilling hot coffee all over herself because they gave it to her when she paid for it.

If you look at the legal analysis in this case, it actually makes more sense than you'd think, but that's a much longer (and off-topic) conversation than I'm willing to have at the moment.

Therefore, all you have to do is find a liberal lawyer adept at spinning tales of woe about how this poor druggie's daughter will never grow up knowing exactly what a dead-beat daddy really was, and that the big, bad entrepreneurs were all to blame. Then you surgically remove the wallet.

Any addendums or alternations you want to make?

Yes. The biggest one is this: The prosecutor at the grand jury hearing could have just as easily tugged at the heart strings of his jury (they all do this - every trial lawyer does), and that jury didn't have the benefit of also hearing from a defense attorney.

Put simply, the circumstances in the grand jury were more favorable to the prosecution who had access to exactly the same bag of tricks available to a plaintiff's lawyer, and there was no indictment.

By contrast, the civil jury heard evidence from the plaintiff (who is no more or less capable of manipulating a jury than is a prosecutor) and also heard evidence from the defendant's side of the story. Therefore in circumstances most favorable to them (the defendants) they lost, but in the circumstances least favorable to the defendants, they won. This does not make any sense.
 
Judges are part of the government and as such are subject to the limitations placed upon the government by the People. The jury is the People, the representation of our will and desire. They have all the INNATE power. All power wielded by the government is derived from the People. The People have the proper right and duty to restrict and control the government and its authority including the force it wields over us.

A jury isn't THE people -- it is nine *particular* people. If every group of nine particular people thinks it's okay to make up the law as it goes along, we've got a real problem.
 
It's a strange world where some of the citizens of the "Land of the Free" think that death is a reasonable punishment for attempted petty theft of a car stereo.
 
So they weren't looking for these specific individuals then? That's what I thought.

They were looking to shoot someone. This speaks to intent, and undermines any possible self defense or defense of property argument.

It doesn't matter why you brought it up, you brought it up. If the cops thought they were going to do something illegal, particularly murder, they have the ability to STOP IT. They should have done something if they really thought that these guys were going to break the law.

It does matter why I brought it up, because I brought it up to indicate intent. See above for why that's important.

And I gave you the FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY by which our Republic was constructed. The protection and proliferation of our rights. We even have the right to overthrow the government should it tread too grievously against our rights for too long. The thiefs initiated aggression when they violated the rights of the property owners. The property owners responded. There is still room for talking rightful defense or over the line murder; but it does not distract from the fact that the initiators of the conflict where the ones who initially infringed on rights.

Not in the eyes of the law. Which is why the rest of your philosophical argument is entirely meaningless in this context.


And the facts as the Grand Jury knew them did not support indictment.

And yet strangely, in circumstances more favorable to the defendants (and using the same standard of proof), another jury did find that they unlawfully and intentionally shot and killed someone without a valid defense.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom