• 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.
You might be happier in a less civilized country. The U.S., we're too modern for you.

True, but I'd be even happier bringing the US back a century and a half or so, to when it was much closer to my prefered way of doing things.
 
True, but I'd be even happier bringing the US back a century and a half or so, to when it was much closer to my prefered way of doing things.

So, when I call the far-righties 'backwards' I'm right on the money.
 
The point...the one you keep missing... it's unlawful to play policeman.

really? but you have a point-a cop would have to try arrest the mope first
 
You might be happier in a less civilized country. The U.S., we're too modern for you.

yeah its more civilized to coddle scummy felons.
 
True, but I'd be even happier bringing the US back a century and a half or so, to when it was much closer to my prefered way of doing things.

Setting America back 150 years ... vote Tigger.
 
No. Traditional is the appropriate word.

The ol' west.

Where psychotics and sociopaths fought it out in a horse coral. Lawlessness. Corruption. Disease.

Tradition!!
 
Setting America back 150 years ... vote Tigger.

Nah. I don't believe in elections as the proper means for changing society, so it would be very hypocricitcal of me to run for public office. My work towards preparing to change society is done at the gun range.

The ol' west.

Where psychotics and sociopaths fought it out in a horse coral. Lawlessness. Corruption. Disease.

Tradition!!

Yep. Go even a little further back, to the days of the Antebellum South (sans slavery) as well. Also throw in a little bit of 12-13th Century Norman England and you're probably pretty close to what I'm looking for.
 
And by "coddle" you mean not murder in cold blood.

hmmmm where did that happen at? Man its wrong to murder someone in cold blood how long of a criminal sentences did that get for that?
 
Yes, it is clearly wrong, but there is no sentence if you get away with it.

This is a great line of reasoning you guys have going here. Like, if you mug and rape an old lady, and you don't get caught, there's nothing wrong with it. Right?
 
Last edited:
if these guys were the murderous vigilantes you want them to be, the criminal court would've put them in jail.

That they weren't should make you pretty happy, since you think they did the right thing - so which is it, are you angry because the jury found that they took the law into their own hands and decided to award money to the daughter, or the fact that they didn't throw them in jail?

Not everyone that violates the law goes to jail.

or do you only respect the the decisions of juries that agree with you?
;)

You are full of corn, there. I didn't like the jury's decision in the Casey Anthony case, but I respect their decision. So how about you? Are you still maligning that jury, too? So, maybe you think you should be on every jury in the country, because only you can make the correct decision, even if it means disregarding the law?:mrgreen:
 
Jesus does not equivocate with his bullwhip!

Oh, is that what "turn the other cheek" means? Sure glad you cleared it up. I always suspected that most Reps/cons had their own Rep/con Jesus that didn't act like the one in the Bible, so thanks for confirming it.
 
mertex, actually some of us prefer the diety from the FIRST half of the Bible to the one from the second half. The one in the second half seems to have been neutered.
 
"If a thief be found breaking up, and smitten so that he die, no blood shall be shed for him..." OT law.

"When a strong man fully armed guards his palace, his goods are at peace. For how shall the spoil the house except they first bind the armed man?" .... NT parable.


The Bible is not opposed to defending your home and possessions from thieves. "Thou shalt not kill" is not without exceptions, obviously.
 
Spewing insults?
Isn't that what you were doing? Maybe you can get someone to explain it to you?



Try reading a few posts up...or is this selective amnesia where all double-digit IQ liberals identify faults in enemies and perfection in friends?

Oh, you're doing it again! Please forgive me, I forgot that insults are the last resort of the ignorant, that can't explain why they think it is okay to disregard the law, but claim they love the Constitution.
 
shhhhhh...don't confuse him with facts. his opinion is all that matters. :lamo

It amazes me how many bleeding heart libs take that verse out of context.One would think that if someone is going to throw God or Jesus in someone's face they would at least bother to do a little homework first.
 
Yes, it is clearly wrong, but there is no sentence if you get away with it.

This is a great line of reasoning you guys have going here. Like, if you mug and rape an old lady, and you don't get caught, there's nothing wrong with it. Right?

More dishonesty from you why am I not suppressed. NOBODY said that, thats some bull**** you made up that nobody smart buys

so let me get this straight, since YOU say in YOUR OPINION they got away with it that makes it true???
BUT for some reason they never went to criminal court even with a confession and a weapon? hmmmmmmmmm


Got it
:lamo
 
"If a thief be found breaking up, and smitten so that he die, no blood shall be shed for him..." OT law.
Christians don't live by the OT. If we did we would be sacrificing cows, still.

"When a strong man fully armed guards his palace, his goods are at peace. For how shall the spoil the house except they first bind the armed man?" .... NT parable.
You need someone to translate to you what this scripture means. The strong man in this verse is actually referring to the devil, which wouldn't satisfy your explanation.


The Bible is not opposed to defending your home and possessions from thieves. "Thou shalt not kill" is not without exceptions, obviously.
The Bible doesn't say that every man take the law into their hands and do their own "policing". In certain situations some states allow for you to kill someone that enters your home unlawfully. The thief in the OP was indeed a criminal and had no business entering their property, but apparently it was proven that the owners knew that he was coming and instead of calling the police and letting them handle it, took the law into their own hands. It is unlawful to do that, so they were also committing a crime.

And FYI, the Bible NT is very clear about obeying "authorities" - so because the authorities say it is not okay to be a vigilante, it is not okay.

Romans 13:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
 
I am pretty sure that the people who decide whether or not to do a criminal trial are actual experts on the law.

Ah. So all this time, when you and I have been discussing grand juries, you don't actually know what the hell they are. That's funny. Let me explain. The purpose of a grand jury is to determine whether or not a criminal trial is going to take place. They're initiated by the prosecutors office. But the jury, which is to say a group of random citizens, makes the determination as to whether or not an indictment is to happen. So, as applied to the current issue, the prosecutor (i.e the expert in criminal law) wanted to prosecute. If he didn't want to prosecute, he wouldn't have convened a grand jury. He was not allowed to do so because a group of laypersons didn't let him. So when you say you are pretty sure that the people who decide whether or not a criminal trial is to occur are experts on the law, you are demonstrating that you are definitely not an expert, and in this context, have apparently relied on entirely inaccurate assumptions.

The fact that these experts on the law did not go through with criminal trial or even offer a plea deal means that these experts on the law know that these men did not commit murder.

I'm laughing a little right now. Thank you for being so blunt with your ignorance. It's gratifying.

You keep whining about facts but you keep ignoring the fact the shop owners did not go through a criminal trial.

If by "ignoring" you mean that I've directly commented on that fact at least half a dozen times - and at least once directly to you - then yes, I suppose I have been "ignoring" that.

If these men are murders do honestly think that who ever decides whether or not to go through a criminal trial is going to ignore such a case? Murder is a pretty big deal. There is evidence that one of the shop owners killed one of the burglars, there is also a confession, there is a witness and motive. This would be a slam dunk case for the prosecutor if was illegal for shop owners to use lethal force to defend their property including shops.

I've given you the statute on self defense. Explain to me, as if you were a juror in this grand jury, why, based on the information we have, and the statutes at issue, you would choose not to indict.
 
Last edited:
The point...the one you keep missing... it's unlawful to play policeman.

It's amazing how utterly inane some of those that are angry over the court's decision in this case are.

They are now comparing it to someone breaking into your home at night and you shooting them. Totally different scenario, but ah, they have limited minds.
 
More dishonesty from you why am I not suppressed. NOBODY said that, thats some bull**** you made up that nobody smart buys

so let me get this straight, since YOU say in YOUR OPINION they got away with it that makes it true???
BUT for some reason they never went to criminal court even with a confession and a weapon? hmmmmmmmmm


Got it
:lamo

I do not think he understands that part. Because in a real murder trial I am pretty sure a confession, evidence and witnesses would have made getting a guilty conviction easier than trying to stump Jessica Simpson or 3007 Miss South Carolina with a question.
 
True, but I'd be even happier bringing the US back a century and a half or so, to when it was much closer to my prefered way of doing things.

Would that be before we had indoor toilets?

Or maybe just before we had air-conditioning?

Or is it slavery that you miss? Aaah, the good old days.
 
Would that be before we had indoor toilets? Or maybe just before we had air-conditioning? Or is it slavery that you miss? Aaah, the good old days.

I can get along without indoor toilets and air conditioning. I have no interest in returning to racial-based slavery. I do have a significant interest in returning to a societal structure that actually had one compared to the complete and utter lack of limits, roles, and boundaries that exist in modern society.
 
In your hypothetical scenario, we only get rid of the 'trash' if the hypothetical you gets killed drunk driving home from T.G.I. Fridays.

By the way, lying to police with an Oscar Winning Performance... that would make you more guilty than the thief.


Dang, some of them don't mind letting everyone know just how clever they would be at disobeying the law, fooling the cops and getting away with a crime, but they are the "patriots" who love the Constitution! Barf!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom