• 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.
Okay, there is an El Paso County in Colorado, and another one in Texas. I don't know which one this took place in... since it was in the Colorado Gazette, probably Colorado. :shrug:



Ok here is Colorado Statute that pertains to use of deadly force against an intruder
[TR]
[TD="width: 12%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 88%, colspan: 2"]
  1. 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intrude.
    [*]The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
    [*]Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
    [*]Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
    [*]Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
[/TD]
[/TR]

Yup, that's a pretty good home defense law. I wonder though if that applies to one's place of business?
 
Ok here is Colorado Statute that pertains to use of deadly force against an intruder
[TR]
[TD="width: 12%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 88%, colspan: 2"]
  1. 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intrude.
    [*]The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
    [*]Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
    [*]Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
    [*]Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
[/TD]
[/TR]

BTW this statute is 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
 
Okay, there is an El Paso County in Colorado, and another one in Texas. I don't know which one this took place in... since it was in the Colorado Gazette, probably Colorado. :shrug:





Yup, that's a pretty good home defense law. I wonder though if that applies to one's place of business?

Im looking for that now. I can't imagine the law would be any different. What if your business was located at your home.
 
Ok here is Colorado Statute that pertains to use of deadly force against an intruder
[TR]
[TD="width: 12%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 88%, colspan: 2"]
  1. 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intrude.
    [*]The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
    [*]Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
    [*]Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
    [*]Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
[/TD]
[/TR]

That's for home invasions. The relevant statute for this issue is:

18-1-705 - Use of physical force in defense of premises.
A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson.


The section referenced, re: use of deadly force is:

18-1-704 - Use of physical force in defense of a person.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(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; or
(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.
 
That's for home invasions. The relevant statute for this issue is:

18-1-705 - Use of physical force in defense of premises.
A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson.


The section referenced, re: use of deadly force is:

18-1-704 - Use of physical force in defense of a person.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(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; or b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

Looks to me like these gentlemen had the law on thier side when they wasted this pos.
 
Last edited:
Looks to me like these gentlemen had the law on thier side when they wasted this pos.

Why do you think that's the case? None of the criteria for deadly force had occurred here.
 
Why do you think that's the case? None of the criteria for deadly force had occurred here.

you posted it. did you read it. it said
or (c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402,

Was the deceased pos not there to commit robbery? ok technically he was there to commit burglary but he was carring a weapon which if he had the opputunity we can assume he would have used it. Why else would he bring it with him when commiting a burglary?
 
Last edited:
you posted it. did you read it. it said

Was the deceased pos not there to commit robbery?

Two things:


1) You skipped this part "only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate"

2) The two perps weren't committing robbery, they were committing larceny. Robbery requires the use of force against an individual. Larceny requires stealing something without force. That's what these guys were doing.
 
Yes, I see your point.

I tend to be more outcome-oriented, rather than process oriented. I will grant you that process (or correct proceedure, to put it another way) has its points, since doing things a certain precise way tends to lead to desireable outcomes.

However, "in the field" it is often necessary to modify the process "on the fly" in order to achieve the desired outcome. Field conditions are invariably less precise than "lab conditions", and often require improvisation or "quick and dirty patch solutions" to keep the whole project from going down the tubes to the worst outcomes.

I consider the strict letter of the law to be a process formulated as an ideal, but not always directly correlating to what you run into on the street.

I'm an ex-cop, if that explains my thinking any more clearly. One of the first things the old vet who was my mentor told me was something like this: "First thing you got to learn is what not to see. If you run around writing every jaywaking ticket you can, you'll miss the big picture." Things happen in the street where you have to make quick decisions and do what had to be done, then pretty it up in the report so the desk-jockeys upstairs don't get upset. I'm not talking about trampling all over people, but maybe glossing over some choice words that slipped out while the perp was trying to resist arrest. :lol:

I understand the ex-cop perspective. I certainly understand that you guys need to make quick decisions in order to protect yourselves, etc. I also understand that sometimes reports get a makeover. On the other hand, I also interned for a public defenders office after getting out of law school, and so I've seen the ways that cops sometimes screw suspects, often for entirely laudable reasons.

In this particular case, the outcome was okay by me. Yes, the biz owners probably did need a stern message that they had their process screwed up and had better be more careful next time... though I don't like seeing that family profit by a quarter-mil because their boy was an armed druggie thief who screwed up so bad he got himself killed by some amateurs from Eastern Europe.
:shrug:

I get that as well, and of course the civil verdict was a good thing from my perspective (although not good enough). However, it seems fairly obvious that these guys violated criminal laws as well. What I can't understand is how someone could take theft and drug use so seriously, while simultaneously not thinking that people who have murdered someone ought to be in prison. I mean, if theft is a big deal, isn't murder quite a lot worse?
 
I understand the ex-cop perspective. I certainly understand that you guys need to make quick decisions in order to protect yourselves, etc. I also understand that sometimes reports get a makeover. On the other hand, I also interned for a public defenders office after getting out of law school, and so I've seen the ways that cops sometimes screw suspects, often for entirely laudable reasons.



I get that as well, and of course the civil verdict was a good thing from my perspective (although not good enough). However, it seems fairly obvious that these guys violated criminal laws as well. What I can't understand is how someone could take theft and drug use so seriously, while simultaneously not thinking that people who have murdered someone ought to be in prison. I mean, if theft is a big deal, isn't murder quite a lot worse?

It's pretty simple. I didn't read all of this thread but I scanned through a lot of it and the fact is the vast majority don't think a murder happen. About 4 people think it did but yet can prove that it did. It's a simple matter of opinion and since criminal law needs proof to be without reasonable doubt the grand jury didn't go to trail. The majority here don't think its murder, because well, under those premises there's no reason to.

Why do you think it is murder and how do you get to the conclusion without reasonable doubt, logically to me with the info present in the article and in the thread its IMPOSSIBLE unless you use many bias assumptions.

You also proceed to say things like burglary isn't an offense punishable by death and there was no due process and they took the law in their own hands. All things that are your opinions using more bias assumptions.Theses are just appeals to emotion.

Assault, rape etc aren't punishable by death either but if you get killed doing them it can be legal.

I guess I'm just confused by your inability to acknowledge that its only your opinion you are stating and why all the double and dishonest talk.
 
I get that as well, and of course the civil verdict was a good thing from my perspective (although not good enough). However, it seems fairly obvious that these guys violated criminal laws as well. What I can't understand is how someone could take theft and drug use so seriously, while simultaneously not thinking that people who have murdered someone ought to be in prison. I mean, if theft is a big deal, isn't murder quite a lot worse?

I don't consider killing a thief in the act to be murder. At worst, "homicide in the public interest with an excess of zeal." I realize that isn't the legal definition... but to me it is a moral one. To be a murder victim, IMO, one must be reasonably innocent or at least not be committing a felony against the shooter at the time. The grand jury apparently agreed with me. The letter of the law isn't always justice.

These guys had suffered multiple thefts; it was night time and maybe hard to see clearly; it was the heat of the moment, with decisions made in a split second. I don't feel I have the right to second-guess them too much; I agree they were overzealous and should have been more careful, but I can't call it murder.

I'll admit I'm kind of case-hardened about this sort of thing. Sure, the man who died was a living soul, and every living soul has value... but he was wasting his life as an addict and an armed thief, preying on others, and odds are he would only have gotten worse as the years went by and maybe killed some innocent person some day. If I allowed myself to feel for him, I could say I was sorry that he put himself in that position, but to me that's exactly what he did: put himself in a position where somebody was liable to get killed. Better him that an honest man. Sure, it's sad that people do this to themselves and those who love them, but the world is like that.
 
The fact that he had three knives upon his person is irrelevant to his being shot dead. Nobody, including the men who shot him, knew of the knives until his body was examined. He neither wielded the knives nor threatened anybody with them, so in the course of the incident, he was effectively unarmed. There was no threat, direct or indirect - he was attempting to flee.

As Goshin pointed out, most thieves tend to be armed, so they made a reasonable assumption, and they were right.

I care, because we live in an allegedly civilized society, and in such a society we have rules and we have Constitutional Due Process. These three guys took the law into their own hands and decided that some person they've never met, about whom they know nothing, deserved to die. This is not rational, it's not just, and it's not legal.

Do we? If we did indeed live in a civilized society, would there be drugs addicts stealing to support their habits while their kids went without? Would we have rampant child abuse and rape? This is not a civilized society by any stretch of the imagination, and people are basically forced to defend themselves, their families, and their livelihoods because the police cannot.

Well said!!

That's should have been the end of thread right there...

There's really nothing else to say. Anyone who disagrees or doesn't understand the core concepts you so succinctly summed up is living in the wrong country.

:roll:
 
Nah, the liberal mentality is that people should follow the law. Crazy, I know.
That's not the liberal mentality. But some of them lie a lot to, so whatever.
 
As Goshin pointed out, most thieves tend to be armed, so they made a reasonable assumption, and they were right.

I expect we may not achieve any significant level of mutual agreement on this issue, largely because our societies and personal values appear to be so markedly different. In my society, very few thieves go armed, so it is an unreasonable assumption (in the absence of evidence) that someone making off with the silver will be carrying a gun or any other offensive weapon. The courts are aware of this and, should you use lethal violence upon him, will deal with you accordingly. From what you say, this is not so in your society. So, while I respect your, and Goshin's, views in the context of your particular society, I cannot share them in mine. :2wave:
 
I expect we may not achieve any significant level of mutual agreement on this issue, largely because our societies and personal values appear to be so markedly different. In my society, very few thieves go armed, so it is an unreasonable assumption (in the absence of evidence) that someone making off with the silver will be carrying a gun or any other offensive weapon. The courts are aware of this and, should you use lethal violence upon him, will deal with you accordingly. From what you say, this is not so in your society. So, while I respect your, and Goshin's, views in the context of your particular society, I cannot share them in mine. :2wave:

What kind of ****ed up people do you have in office that would make it illegal to use lethal force to stop burglars? Is your country ran by thieves only trying to protect themselves or relatives? I am surprised that it isn't illegal in your country to resist burglars and rapist.
 
Last edited:
What kind of ****ed up people do you have in office that would make it illegal to use lethal force to stop burglars? Is your country ran by thieves only trying to protect themselves or relatives? I am surprised that it isn't illegal in your country to resist burglars and rapist.

What kind of ****ed up legal system permits the lawful execution of a terrified kid hiding in a shed? Is your country run by mass murderers who love killing? I am surprised that it isn't illegal in your country to not rape whoever you please.

See what I did then?
 
What kind of ****ed up legal system permits the lawful execution of a terrified kid hiding in a shed? Is your country run by mass murderers who love killing? I am surprised that it isn't illegal in your country to not rape whoever you please.

See what I did then?

where in the article did it say he was a "kid"? The way people describe this meth head is hilarious. First he was a victim, now he's a kid.
 
where in the article did it say he was a "kid"? The way people describe this meth head is hilarious. First he was a victim, now he's a kid.

He was 20 years old - in parts of your society, that is not old enough to buy a beer. I do not consider him a kid becuase he was two years older than me, but to someone of my parent's age, he could well be considered a kid. It depends upon the age of the person describing him.
 
where in the article did it say he was a "kid"? The way people describe this meth head is hilarious. First he was a victim, now he's a kid.

In the middle.

He's is a victim. He was shot to death while hiding in a shed. He's the victim of a crime.
 
I challenge anybody to prove the following fallacies.

he was a kid
he was hiding
he was murdered

can anybody prove these 3 fallacies to be true?
 
In the middle.

He's is a victim. He was shot to death while hiding in a shed. He's the victim of a crime.

He was an armed drug addict thug-he was no victim. Also, I agree with O_Guru. Prove that he was hiding. No one has any clue what he was doing in that shed. That's sort of the point.
 
What kind of ****ed up legal system permits the lawful execution of a terrified kid hiding in a shed?
The article says nothing about a terrified kid hiding in a shed. The article only mentions that a 20 year old which is a man and that man was high on meth and armed and he was standing in a shed when he was shot.

Is "terrified kid" some new pc term for "high on meth 20 something year old junkie"?

? Is your country run by mass murderers who love killing? I am surprised that it isn't illegal in your country to not rape whoever you please.

See what I did then?

I do know that in my country a woman can use lethal force to stop an attempted rapist while in your country she would be expected to lie there and take it.
 
Last edited:
I challenge anybody to prove the following fallacies.

he was a kid
he was hiding
he was murdered

can anybody prove these 3 fallacies to be true?

What you seem to be asking us to do, is prove those items as fallacies - why would we wish to do that? If you are in fact asking the opposite, I will try to answer you.

Whether he was a kid or not is in the eye of the beholder, and not a relevant issue. To me, he was not a kid, to my mum and grandma, he was.

According to the article he ran into the shed, closing the door, in order to escape the wrath of the three men, of whom at least one was armed. He was seeking refuge out of sight, that would appear to satisfy most of the requirements of the term 'hiding'.

He was shot dead while behind the door of the shed. He was not engaging in aggressive behaviour of any kind, nor was he threatening anyone. He was not shot by accident - the man who pulled the trigger did so with the clear intent of shooting, and possibly killing, him. In most jurisdictions, that would be considered an unlawful killing, and thus either first or second degree murder. At the very least, that could be considered manslaughter. It is a matter of legal interpretation.
 
What you seem to be asking us to do, is prove those items as fallacies - why would we wish to do that? If you are in fact asking the opposite, I will try to answer you.

Whether he was a kid or not is in the eye of the beholder, and not a relevant issue. To me, he was not a kid, to my mum and grandma, he was.

According to the article he ran into the shed, closing the door, in order to escape the wrath of the three men, of whom at least one was armed. He was seeking refuge out of sight, that would appear to satisfy most of the requirements of the term 'hiding'.

He was shot dead while behind the door of the shed. He was not engaging in aggressive behaviour of any kind, nor was he threatening anyone. He was not shot by accident - the man who pulled the trigger did so with the clear intent of shooting, and possibly killing, him. In most jurisdictions, that would be considered an unlawful killing, and thus either first or second degree murder. At the very least, that could be considered manslaughter. It is a matter of legal interpretation.

That proves nothing. He could have went into the shed to reload a hidden gun for all anyone knew. As you've already said, no one knew for sure whether he was armed or not. It turns out he was, only it wasn't a gun. Why must people be expected to coddle meth addict thieves while they get pillaged? I can't understand the way you people think. It's almost like we're living on a different planet.
 
What you seem to be asking us to do, is prove those items as fallacies - why would we wish to do that? If you are in fact asking the opposite, I will try to answer you.

Whether he was a kid or not is in the eye of the beholder, and not a relevant issue. To me, he was not a kid, to my mum and grandma, he was.

According to the article he ran into the shed, closing the door, in order to escape the wrath of the three men, of whom at least one was armed. He was seeking refuge out of sight, that would appear to satisfy most of the requirements of the term 'hiding'.

He was shot dead while behind the door of the shed. He was not engaging in aggressive behaviour of any kind, nor was he threatening anyone. He was not shot by accident - the man who pulled the trigger did so with the clear intent of shooting, and possibly killing, him. In most jurisdictions, that would be considered an unlawful killing, and thus either first or second degree murder. At the very least, that could be considered manslaughter. It is a matter of legal interpretation.

What I want people to do is to back up their false statements instead of repeating lies and appeals to emotion all the time but thank you for answering at least you did it. A couple of people here seem to be making statements that are not based on reality.


So lets go through your answers:
1: Fact is, he was NOT a kid he was a LEGAL adult period. We could talk about semantics all we want but in "reality" he was an adult.

2.) According to the article he went into a shed PERIOD, anything else is pure 100% guessing and speculation by you.

He COULD have been hiding
He COULD have been hiding and planing on stealing later
He COULD have been look for a better weapon than his THREE knives, axe, big pipe, shovel etc
He COULD have been in there planing to ambush anybody that came in or near the shed
He COULD have been in there readying his weapons (we know them NOW to only have been knives but to the guy that shot him they could have been anything)

with the info in the article ALL of these are EQUALLY possible, we do not know and to act like you know is dishonesty.

also you are assuming he wasn't doing anything aggressive, in some opinions jumping the wall and attempting to steal IS aggressive and the guy that shot him did NOT know what he was doing in the shed.

Thanks for your opinion and assumptions, as I admit I have my own. But the fact remains the 3 false things Id love ANYBODY to prove that people keep stating are still false or pure guesses.

So again I challenge anybody to prove any of those three things true because so far there's no logical reason to yet. The challenge still remains.

Prove the following fallacies that have been repeated in this thread by about 5 people.

he was a kid
he was hiding
he was murdered

can anybody prove these 3 fallacies to be true?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom