• 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 wish people would quit saying:

"burglary is not punishable by death" like that matters at all. It doesn't, its a invalid talking point that holds no merit. ITS MEANINGLESS.

Nobody here is advocating if this guy got caught down the street or if the police showed up that he should be sentenced to death.

Not to mention that's not what happened this guy got caught in the act, that is a different ball game because NOBODY can prove without reasonable doubt that this guy wasn't a threat which is what would be needed in a criminal case to charge the owner with murder.

Kidnapping, arm-robbery, rape (in most cases), assault, breaking and entering, car-jacking etc etc

None of these are punishable by death either but anybody with common sense knows they can get you killed.

The guy was not punished with death because of trespassing/theft he got himself shot because he put himself in a situation where he was breaking the law and couldn't be trusted, it wasn't worth the risk to find out how big a threat he was, he was a threat as soon as his feet landed on the other side of the fence. The law abiding person shouldn't be forced to take all the risk, not worth it.

Did he probably over react? yes probably but we only say that NOW, in hindsight. But the reality is that this news story could have EASILY been about a trespassing armed junkie trying to steal who KILLED the owner of the property. THAT'S why they weren't charged with murder, no evidence to do so and of course they are not mind readers.

If the junkie keeps his ass on his side of the fence then there's no confusion on whether he is a threat or not and the dummy never gets himself shot.
 
Last edited:
You could start by not taking two-bit potshot at faith.



Not even slightly. It's on you to grow p and be tolerant and respectful of the religious beliefs of others. Haven't you ever heard of the golden rule? It's in all the mythologies.

Nonsense. You're upset because I called you out on being off topic. You still haven't demonstrated how "faith" has anything at all to do with this topic; so I will just assume that it doesn't. Also, the golden rule is not unique to Christianity. Perhaps you should learn more about mythology. Furthermore, I have taken no shots at anyone's beliefs in this thread. I only said that it has nothing to do with this topic.

Also, I am surprised that you call yourself a Believer considering how you treat people here.

make them sleep with the fishes?

Something along those lines.

Yes, to the first question, and a qualified no to the second. First of all, we do not have "rampant" child abuse and rape. Both of those crimes do exist in the US, just like they do in every country in the world, but to suggest that either crime is "rampant" is somewhat hyperbolic. Second, "civilized" is not the same as "perfect." The fact that injustices do exist does not in any way demonstrate either that we do not live in a civilized society or that further injustices (e.g. killing someone without a valid legal reason for doing so) are reasonable.

Yes, there is rampant child abuse and rape in this country, and all over the world. It doesn't always get reported, but it is everywhere. And those actions say something about us, as a species. What society is willing to tolerate, and especially what is ignored and swept under the rug, speaks volumes.



This is also hyperbole. Sometimes, yes, people need to defend themselves in situations that the police have failed to handle. Sometimes the police do handle situations. Also, "defense" is not what these three guys were doing.

Not hyperbole at all-but rather a good description of reality.

It seems that many people here are living on a different plane of reality where bad stuff doesn't happen. Unfortunately, people need to defend themselves against criminals, and it is hard to make a judgment in a split second reaction where one is threatened. Those men involved had been victimized before, and they were apprehensive. IMO, their reactions were understandable as well as justified.
 
A minor. Maybe even someone under 15 years of age.

That's great, that's your definition, don't try and pin it on everyone else. Some may think it is strictly a goat.
I think O_Guru and evanescence hit the nail on the head on the possibilities. Possibly the burglar could have been loading a weapon, looking for a weapon,trying to ambush and all sorts of other reasons.
Since you all weren't there, and the cop didn't have x-ray vision, it is all conjecture, and you don't assume anything when taking someone's life.

He was a burglar that was shot. In many places it is legal to shoot a burglar.
No one is arguing that he was an angel. The point is that the death penalty is never assigned to anyone for stealing. The fact is that being a "vigilante" is against the law, too. Breaking the law to kill someone that is breaking the law doesn't extricate you from breaking the law. While there are laws that allow homeowners to defend themselves against intruders, there is no law that says that you can lay in wait for someone that you know is going to break into your house. I don't understand why you all are having such a hard time understanding that. Being able to own guns doesn't give you the right to break the law.

That's why none of the shop owners are in prison for murder (or even a lesser charge) of one burglar and attempted murder of the other burglar.
The trial was about a wrongful death and awarding compensation for the loss to the daughter. The trial was not about charging the business owners with murder. They are lucky that the judge was lenient and did not pursue it any further, because they were wrong. The thief got undue punishment for his crime and there is no reversing that, he gambled and lost. I think the business owners were probably happy with the outcome of the trial, I haven't read anywhere where they have filed a "wrongful award" charge.


Even though there was evidence one of the shop owners shot the burglar, evidence the gun belongs to one of the shop owners, evidence that one of the shop owners was the last person to fire the gun,evidence that the bullet came out of the gun that the owner fired, a wittiness that says one of the shop owners shot at the burglars and a confession that one of the shop owners shot the burglars. The US is not some Eurotrash country that values the lives of burglars over that of property owners.
Yeah, well apparently this country is not one that values vigilantes or there wouldn't be a law against it.
 
I wish people would quit saying:

"burglary is not punishable by death" like that matters at all. It doesn't, its a invalid talking point that holds no merit. ITS MEANINGLESS.
How is it meaningless. Have you ever heard of anyone getting the death penalty because they stole a car? A child? The vigilantes took it upon themselves to become judge and jury and convicted the thief to death. Since when do we do that in the United States?

Nobody here is advocating if this guy got caught down the street or if the police showed up that he should be sentenced to death.
And he wouldn't have been if he had gone through our judicial system and tried for his crime.
Not to mention that's not what happened this guy got caught in the act, that is a different ball game because NOBODY can prove without reasonable doubt that this guy wasn't a threat which is what would be needed in a criminal case to charge the owner with murder.
Did you even read the OP? It sounds as if there is a mental block preventing you from understanding what actually happened. The business owners knew that the thief/thieves were coming back, and instead of calling the police like we are supposed to, they decided to take matters into their own hands. That is also a crime, punishable, too.

Kidnapping, arm-robbery, rape (in most cases), assault, breaking and entering, car-jacking etc etc

None of these are punishable by death either but anybody with common sense knows they can get you killed.
Yes, that is true, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to take the law into your own hands. If a thief breaks into your home, and you shoot him, in many states it is allowed. What is not allowed is knowing that someone is going to break into your home, and you set up an ambush. Look it up, it is not allowed.

The guy was not punished with death because of trespassing/theft he got himself shot because he put himself in a situation where he was breaking the law and couldn't be trusted, it wasn't worth the risk to find out how big a threat he was, he was a threat as soon as his feet landed on the other side of the fence. The law abiding person shouldn't be forced to take all the risk, not worth it.
There you go again, with that mental block. The business owners were not law abiding people. They were breaking the law. What part of that do you not understand?

Did he probably over react? yes probably but we only say that NOW, in hindsight. But the reality is that this news story could have EASILY been about a trespassing armed junkie trying to steal who KILLED the owner of the property. THAT'S why they weren't charged with murder, no evidence to do so and of course they are not mind readers.
So, what's your beef. The business owners got away with their crime, the young thief didn't. What do you care that the thief's daughter was awarded some money? Is it coming out of your pocket?

If the junkie keeps his ass on his side of the fence then there's no confusion on whether he is a threat or not and the dummy never gets himself shot.
He was dumb to break into that business, but he didn't deserve to die. The business owners had no business taking the law into their hands. Let that be a lesson to other thieves and to other vigilantes. The END.
 
How is it meaningless. Have you ever heard of anyone getting the death penalty because they stole a car? A child? The vigilantes took it upon themselves to become judge and jury and convicted the thief to death. Since when do we do that in the United States?


And he wouldn't have been if he had gone through our judicial system and tried for his crime.

Did you even read the OP? It sounds as if there is a mental block preventing you from understanding what actually happened. The business owners knew that the thief/thieves were coming back, and instead of calling the police like we are supposed to, they decided to take matters into their own hands. That is also a crime, punishable, too.


Yes, that is true, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to take the law into your own hands. If a thief breaks into your home, and you shoot him, in many states it is allowed. What is not allowed is knowing that someone is going to break into your home, and you set up an ambush. Look it up, it is not allowed.


There you go again, with that mental block. The business owners were not law abiding people. They were breaking the law. What part of that do you not understand?


So, what's your beef. The business owners got away with their crime, the young thief didn't. What do you care that the thief's daughter was awarded some money? Is it coming out of your pocket?


He was dumb to break into that business, but he didn't deserve to die. The business owners had no business taking the law into their hands. Let that be a lesson to other thieves and to other vigilantes. The END.

No, it's not "THE END."

If it were a punishment, it would have happened after the fact. Instead the drug addict thief was killed while committing a crime. If the police did their jobs effectively, the business owners wouldn't have needed to defend themselves.
 
That's great, that's your definition, don't try and pin it on everyone else. Some may think it is strictly a goat.

Legally he is a grown man.




Since you all weren't there, and the cop didn't have x-ray vision, it is all conjecture

What cop?

, and you don't assume anything when taking someone's life.

The only think you don't assume is the burglars intent. Its because of the fact you do not know if or what that burglar is going to do to you and that is why you shoot the burglar. Your life,family(and any other people you care about) and personal safety trump those of someone breaking into your property



The point is that the death penalty is never assigned to anyone for stealing.

The burglar did not get the death penalty. He was shot while trying to commit a burglary.


The fact is that being a "vigilante" is against the law, too.
Using lethal force to defend yourself,others and your property is not illegal nor is it act of vigilantism


Breaking the law to kill someone that is breaking the law doesn't extricate you from breaking the law.

If it was illegal for the shop owners to shoot the burglars then then would be in prison for shooting the burglars.There was evidence they shot the burglar.

While there are laws that allow homeowners to defend themselves against intruders, there is no law that says that you can lay in wait for someone that you know is going to break into your house.

Does it legally matter if a property owner waits for a burglar to burglarize their property before shooting them?

I don't understand why you all are having such a hard time understanding that. Being able to own guns doesn't give you the right to break the law.

No laws were broken.

The trial was about a wrongful death and awarding compensation for the loss to the daughter.The trial was not about charging the business owners with murder. They are lucky that the judge was lenient and did not pursue it any further, because they were wrong. The thief got undue punishment for his crime and there is no reversing that, he gambled and lost. I think the business owners were probably happy with the outcome of the trial, I haven't read anywhere where they have filed a "wrongful award" charge.
Do you have any idea what a civil trial and a criminal trial are?



Yeah, well apparently this country is not one that values vigilantes or there wouldn't be a law against it.

Shooting someone who is breaking into your property is not vigilantism.
 
Last edited:
Legally he is a grown man.

That is so, but his status as an adult is not of any significance to this discussion. He was a young man, and to some older people he may be regarded as a 'kid'. I am only two years younger than him, and despite being legally an adult, I am regarded as and treated as a kid by many people.

The burglar did not get the death penalty. He was shot while trying to commit a burglary.

Not so, he was shot while trying to hide from men who were chasing him with guns.

Using lethal force to defend yourself,others and your property is not illegal nor is it act of vigilantism.

That depends upon the jurisdiction, but in most jurisdictions, you may only use lethal force in cases of genuine self defence (where your or someone else's life is in danger), not in the potential defence of property. The burglar was not shot in the commission of a crime, he was shot while attempting to evade his pursuers.

Does it legally matter if a property owner waits for a burglar to burglarize their property before shooting them?

It does in most jurisdictions.

Shooting someone who is breaking into your property is not vigilantism.

It may not be vigilantism, but it is certainly an illegal act if no explicit or implicit threat is present. Ask Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer, who was initially sentenced to life imprisonment for shooting a burglar who was attempting to flee his property.
 
[
No, it's not "THE END."

It is "The End" - it is over and done with, neither you nor I can change the outcome. The young man is dead, the jury has awarded the money, the business owners got away with being vigilantes. What else is there?

If it were a punishment, it would have happened after the fact.
It wasn't punishment from the judicial system, but you would hardly call being killed a reward. Oh, maybe you would.

Instead the drug addict thief was killed while committing a crime.
That is where you and other obtuse people seem to go off in another direction. He wasn't killed while committing a crime. He was killed while hiding. If he had been killed while committing a crime he would have been killed driving off in a stolen car.

If the police did their jobs effectively, the business owners wouldn't have needed to defend themselves.
Ha,ha, why am I getting the feeling that you are a conservative? The police do a good job. Once in a while we have one that doesn't, don't throw them all under the bus. Oh, by the way, were you one of the ones that was defending the cops durting the Obama/Gates fiasco? Just wondering.

 
It is "The End" - it is over and done with, neither you nor I can change the outcome. The young man is dead, the jury has awarded the money, IT IS MY BIASED OPINION THAT the business owners got away with being vigilantes. What else is there?

editted for truth and accuracy




He wasn't killed while committing a crime.

once he entered the property illegally and with intent to commit theft, he was committing a crime.

He was killed while hiding.

he was still guilty of trespassing, which is a crime. so technically, even if he was just hiding, he was still committing a crime.


suppose you are getting raped and your rapist pulls out and runs to your closet. is he no longer committing a crime?
 
Legally he is a grown man.
This is not a court of law, it is a forum, and members can describe people they are talking about in whatever way they want. You can use your definition but cannot force others to use your definition. Like I posted and you obviously missed, the dictionary named "young man" as a kid. I suppose you think you are smarter than the people who wrote the dictionary?

What cop?
Oops, I meant to say the vigilante.



The only think you don't assume is the burglars intent. Its because of the fact you do not know if or what that burglar is going to do to you and that is why you shoot the burglar. Your life,family(and any other people you care about) and personal safety trump those of someone breaking into your property
It was a business, not a home. There was no family, it was at night. Quit exaggerating.

The burglar did not get the death penalty. He was shot while trying to commit a burglary.
And he wouldn't have if he had been tried in a court of law. We don't kill people because they steal. But the vigilantes decided to take the law into their own hands and became cop, judge and jury. That is not the American way. While there are some, as yourself, who don't have any use for our laws, there is a majority that prefer to have peace and order and obedience to the laws. You don't happen to be one of those who claims he loves the Constitution, by the way?

Using lethal force to defend yourself,others and your property is not illegal nor is it act of vigilantism
Like I said before, which probably went over your head, there are circumstances where a person can shoot someone breaking into their home, if they feel threatened. These two business owners were not feeling threatened, they had guns and were waiting in ambush for the thieves. Big difference. I don't expect you to understand.


If it was illegal for the shop owners to shoot the burglars then then would be in prison for shooting the burglars.There was evidence they shot the burglar.
Good question. Probably because it happened in Texas, didn't it? Texas prides itself with executing people, even innocent ones, so, that may be one reason. Another reason could be that the thief came from a poor family, while the business owners have money, probably donate to the campaigns of the DAs, etc. I don't know why, it was the state's responsibility, if the civil court finds it a wrongful death, the state should have charged them with a crime. Many crimes go unpunished, it happens every day. That doesn't mean they are not crimes, just that the people we elect to take care of those situations are not always doing the job they were hired to do.
Does it legally matter if a property owner waits for a burglar to burglarize their property before shooting them?
It is against the law, so it does matter legally. However, you have to enforce the law for it to be effective.


No laws were broken.
I don't know of any state where vigilantism is not illegal. Of course, it has to be proven. In this case, it was obvious. The "kid" didn't have a gun, the business owners did, and they must have admitted that they knew he was coming back, otherwise how was that in the story?


Do you have any idea what a civil trial and a criminal trial are?
Do you?

Shooting someone who is breaking into your property is not vigilantism.
In many cases it isn't. In this case it is apparent to anyone with a brain that it was.


The foundation of the American legal system rests on the RULE OF LAW, a concept embodied in the notion that the United States is a nation of laws and not of men. Under the rule of law, laws are thought to exist independent of, and separate from, human will. Even when the human element factors into legal decision making, the decision maker is expected to be constrained by the law in making his or her decision. In other words, police officers, judges, and juries should act according to the law and not according to their personal preferences or private agendas.

State and federal governments are given what amounts to a MONOPOLY over the use of force and violence to implement the law. Private citizens may use force and violence to defend their lives and their property, and in some instances the lives and property of others, but they must do so under the specific circumstances allowed by the law if they wish to avoid being prosecuted for a crime themselves. Private individuals may also make "citizen arrests," but the circumstances in which the law authorizes them to do so are very narrow. Citizens are often limited to making arrests for felonies committed in their presence. By taking law into their own hands, vigilantes flout the rule of law, effectively becoming lawmaker, police officer, judge, jury, and appellate court for the cause they are pursuing.



Read more: Vigilantism - Law, Private, Vigilantes, Justice, United, and Vigilante Vigilantism - Law, Private, Vigilantes, Justice, United, and Vigilante
 
editted for truth and accuracy

Isn't it against the rules to be editing other member's posts. If you want to say something, say it under your own name, quit bastardizing my posts.





once he entered the property illegally and with intent to commit theft, he was committing a crime.
Wrong. It has to be proven that you are there to commit a crime. If I go into your yard and knock at your door, I have entered your property without your invitation, you don't have the right to shoot me dead.
Geez, where do you people come up with such crap?


he was still guilty of trespassing, which is a crime. so technically, even if he was just hiding, he was still committing a crime.
If the business owners had a sign saying "No Trespassing" - you might be right, but they didn't. The business owners only knew that they were there to steal because they had problems with them before (as I understood the story). They should have called the police, instead they decided to take the law into their hands. That, too, is a crime.

suppose you are getting raped and your rapist pulls out and runs to your closet. is he no longer committing a crime?
Geez, now we are comparing him to a rapist! He wasn't a rapist, he was a thief. What part of that story do you not understand? A rapist inside your home, already having committed the crime "you said he pulled out" - is totally different than this case. What would you say if someone shot your teenager because he trespassed into someone's backyard and hid in a shed when he was only playing hide-n-seek with other kids in the neighborhood.
I bet you wouldn't think it was okay. How would the neighbor know that your kid was just playing hide-n-seek and not carrying a gun and threatening him and his family? I'm not saying that this might have been the case here, we know that he was there to rob, because the business owners said that they had done it before, and they were waiting for them. But, if the law were applied the way you who think they were not vigilantes, we could have innocent people being killed left and right. And this argument is from those who claim to love the Constitution (the law of the land) - apparently many of you don't know what you support.
 
It is "The End" - it is over and done with, neither you nor I can change the outcome.
No kidding. But that's not what you meant. You were claiming that you were right, others who disagree are wrong-the end. Which is absurd.

The young man is dead, the jury has awarded the money, the business owners got away with being vigilantes. What else is there?

Nonsense. You keep claiming that they were vigilantes which is a load of BS. They "punished" no one.



It wasn't punishment from the judicial system,

It wasn't punishment at all.

but you would hardly call being killed a reward. Oh, maybe you would.

A reward? Now that is a ridiculous statement. I bet you would reward the guy.


That is where you and other obtuse people seem to go off in another direction.

Insults? Hon, don't go calling other people obtuse when your arguments are so utterly lacking in logic.

He wasn't killed while committing a crime. He was killed while hiding. If he had been killed while committing a crime he would have been killed driving off in a stolen car.

That is tripe. He was in the process of trespassing and thieving while armed. And you don't think that's a crime? Also, people need to quit repeating the same pointless assumptions. To claim he was "hiding" is supposition and conjecture.


Ha,ha, why am I getting the feeling that you are a conservative?

Labeling now? In the last thread I posted in, I was accused of being a "Liberal." Silly nonsense. I am neither. Besides, we already have enough red herrings in this thread. Stay on topic.

The police do a good job. Once in a while we have one that doesn't, don't throw them all under the bus. Oh, by the way, were you one of the ones that was defending the cops durting the Obama/Gates fiasco? Just wondering.

No they don't. Their solve rates are pathetic across the board. They don't solve crimes very well, and neither do they prevent them.
 
Isn't it against the rules to be editing other member's posts. If you want to say something, say it under your own name, quit bastardizing my posts.

it would help if you read the rules. :2bigcry: it is not against the rules if you make it obvious that you have edited the post. hence the all caps and red font and my statement "edited...."






Wrong. It has to be proven that you are there to commit a crime. If I go into your yard and knock at your door, I have entered your property without your invitation, you don't have the right to shoot me dead.
Geez, where do you people come up with such crap?

seriously? are you really going to try to argue that this meth-head was just there to borrow a cup of sugar? try a more accurate analogy. you sneak into my yard in the middle of the night and kick down my door, I would be justified in assuming you meant to do me harm and would shoot you.

If the business owners had a sign saying "No Trespassing" - you might be right, but they didn't. The business owners only knew that they were there to steal because they had problems with them before (as I understood the story).

there doesn't have to be a sign posted for you to be guilty of trespass. I don't see many women walking around with "no raping" signs around their necks, but apparently it is still illegal to rape them.

They should have called the police, instead they decided to take the law into their hands. That, too, is a crime.

too bad for you the grand jury didn't think so :lamo


Geez, now we are comparing him to a rapist! He wasn't a rapist, he was a thief. What part of that story do you not understand? A rapist inside your home, already having committed the crime "you said he pulled out" - is totally different than this case.

wrong, yet again. a trespasser, already having broken onto my property has already committed the crime. the fact that I stopped him before he could steal anything is irrelevent.

What would you say if someone shot your teenager because he trespassed into someone's backyard and hid in a shed when he was only playing hide-n-seek with other kids in the neighborhood.

apples and oranges. this meth-head was no innocent teenager playing hide and seek. but FWIW, unlike some people, I taught my kids to respect other people's property and persons, so they never would have broken into the neighbor's back yard. what part of breaking and entering is so hard for you to understand?
 
it would help if you read the rules. :2bigcry: it is not against the rules if you make it obvious that you have edited the post. hence the all caps and red font and my statement "edited...."

It may not be against the rules but it is an extremely ill-mannered thing to do. :vomit:
 
I think judge and jury should be piss tested to see if maybe they were high when they came to the conclusion that a burglar's family should be able to sue someone defending their property.


Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
An El Paso County jury on Friday awarded nearly $300,000 to the daughter of a burglar who was fatally shot in 2009 while breaking into an auto lot.
Parents of the victim, Robert Johnson Fox, embraced their attorneys after a judge announced the jury’s verdict, capping a two-week-long civil trial in which business owner Jovan Milanovic and two relatives were painted as vigilantes who plotted a deadly ambush rather than let authorities deal with a string of recent burglaries.
Phillip and Sue Fox, who filed suit for wrongful death in 2010 on behalf of Fox’s 3-year-old daughter, called the jury’s award a victory in their fight to seek accountability for the death of their son, who they say never posed a threat to the heavily armed men.
“Rob was in the wrong place doing the wrong thing, but the punishment didn’t fit the crime,” Sue Fox said afterward. “I can’t excuse his actions, but he didn’t deserve to be executed.”
The exact amount of the award was $269,500, for factors such as loss of companionship and loss of future earnings. The family will also be awarded some of the costs associated with the more than yearlong legal battle.
The jury of three men and three women deliberated for 2½ days over closely contested testimony about the predawn shooting on April 19, 2009.

What blows my mind is that this happened in Texas. I'll just chalk it up to those rumors about the drinking water in El Paso.
 
What blows my mind is that this happened in Texas. I'll just chalk it up to those rumors about the drinking water in El Paso.

I had the same reaction until I realized it as El Paso County, Colorado. :2wave:
 
No kidding. But that's not what you meant. You were claiming that you were right, others who disagree are wrong-the end. Which is absurd.
I'm not going to change your mind, you are not going to change mine. I know what the law is, apparently you don't. The jury considered it a wrongful death, the judge didn't disagree. So, who do you have on your side? A bunch of know-nothings that think the same way?

Nonsense. You keep claiming that they were vigilantes which is a load of BS. They "punished" no one.
They waited in "ambush" - what do you think that means?

It wasn't punishment at all.
Okay, some inane people think it was a reward, apparently you do.


A reward? Now that is a ridiculous statement. I bet you would reward the guy.
He was a thief, I never excused him, killing him was a bit extreme. But for some here, I guess their property is their life. Sad.


Insults? Hon, don't go calling other people obtuse when your arguments are so utterly lacking in logic.
For those unfamiliar with the law (obtuse), it may appear that way. There's quite a few people like that in this country, we have to put up with it.


That is tripe. He was in the process of trespassing and thieving while armed. And you don't think that's a crime? Also, people need to quit repeating the same pointless assumptions. To claim he was "hiding" is supposition and conjecture.
Don't be inane, nowhere did I say he was there for a Tea Party. You need to go back and read my post and try to get someone to help you understand it. The business owners had no business waiting in ambush for him. The guy that shot him through the door was wrong in doing so, he had him trapped, he could have called the police. But, he, like other gung-ho gun carrying people in our country think they have the right to act as policemen, they don't.


Labeling now? In the last thread I posted in, I was accused of being a "Liberal." Silly nonsense. I am neither. Besides, we already have enough red herrings in this thread. Stay on topic.
It's just that your statements were so like the statements made from gun toting conservatives.
No they don't. Their solve rates are pathetic across the board. They don't solve crimes very well, and neither do they prevent them.
I guess for most of you, you would be happy if everyone defended themselves and we could turn this country into another Somalia. That's a depressing thought.
 
:cool:
it would help if you read the rules. I don't know how to read, but I have edited other posts before and got away with, so I'm guessing I will again. it is not against the rules if you make it obvious that you have edited the post. hence the all caps and red font and my statement "edited...."
I'm editing your post, you left out the most important statement, so I decided to add it in for you. It's unethical as all getout, but when dealing with the inane, you have to get down to their level.

seriously? are you really going to try to argue that this meth-head was just there to borrow a cup of sugar? try a more accurate analogy. you sneak into my yard in the middle of the night and kick down my door, I would be justified in assuming you meant to do me harm and would shoot you.
Well, I guess your edited statement about not being able to read is accurate. Where did I mention that he was there to borrow a cup of sugar? He didn't kick in any door, and when you have someone trapped in a shed, how can you say he was there to shoot you, you can't see through doors, can you, and come to find out he didn't even have a gun.
there doesn't have to be a sign posted for you to be guilty of trespass. I don't see many women walking around with "no raping" signs around their necks, but apparently it is still illegal to rape them.
It was a business, not a home. And why do you keep comparing it to a "rape" - you seem to have some obsession with "rape" - geez, I wonder why? Rape is bodily harm, and still doesn't require the death penalty. You have to be pretty screwed up to put more value on property than on life. They could have had him arrested, which is the proper way to handle criminals, not take the law into your own hands and act like third world cannibals.


too bad for you the grand jury didn't think so :lamo
How pathetic, if you think it is too bad for me, I'm not affected either way by this occurrence. Too bad for you that you begrudge the daughter getting money for her father's wrongful death, yet the jury and the judge didn't disagree that it was a wrongful death. There is no changing of that fact. No matter how many times you jump up and scream "unfair" - it's a done deal, deal with it.
smileys-sticking-out-tongue.gif



wrong, yet again. a trespasser, already having broken onto my property has already committed the crime. the fact that I stopped him before he could steal anything is irrelevent.
Well, try it, and let's hope the justice system in your area is as inane as those who think like you do, you may end up learning your mistake the hard way.


apples and oranges. this meth-head was no innocent teenager playing hide and seek. but FWIW, unlike some people, I taught my kids to respect other people's property and persons, so they never would have broken into the neighbor's back yard. what part of breaking and entering is so hard for you to understand?
Yeah, like kids have never done what parents tell them not to do! LOL! But, if that is what your neighbor would say about your teen. "I thought he was a meth-head, was armed and was going to harm me" - you'll have to agree with him.
 
It may not be against the rules but it is an extremely ill-mannered thing to do. :vomit:


Manners? They don't even know what that is.
smiley_ROFLMAO.gif
 
What blows my mind is that this happened in Texas. I'll just chalk it up to those rumors about the drinking water in El Paso.

If this happened in El Paso Texas I think the jury would have had the sense to tell the dead armed burglar junky's family to **** off.
 
That is so, but his status as an adult is not of any significance to this discussion.

I agree with that.However some of the scumbag sympathizers out there are arguing that he was a kid that shot by mean ol vigilantes.

He was a young man, and to some older people he may be regarded as a 'kid'. I am only two years younger than him, and despite being legally an adult, I am regarded as and treated as a kid by many people.

I am sure that to some elderly people out there I am a kid. However the only reason for calling a dead scumbag a kid in this thread is to fraudulently imply that he was somehow a child or a minor.


Not so, he was shot while trying to hide from men who were chasing him with guns.

You do not know why he was hiding.He could have been reaching for a weapon or trying to ambush them. You don't.

That depends upon the jurisdiction, but in most jurisdictions, you may only use lethal force in cases of genuine self defence (where your or someone else's life is in danger), not in the potential defence of property. The burglar was not shot in the commission of a crime, he was shot while attempting to evade his pursuers.

The burglar was trespassing and trying to burglarize the place. You do not know for sure if he was trying to flee.


It does in most jurisdictions.

Do you have any links that property owner may not arm themselves and be ready in the event their property is burglarized?


It may not be vigilantism, but it is certainly an illegal act if no explicit or implicit threat is present.
The US is not some Eurotrash country that sympathizes with criminals. So it is legal here in the US to shoot a burglar.

Ask Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer, who was initially sentenced to life imprisonment for shooting a burglar who was attempting to flee his property.

I am surprised it is not illegal in your country for rape victims to defend themselves.
 
Lots of bleeding hearts living in fairy land. I would be curious to see their reactions during a home invasion.

piss themselves, beg for their lives and, if they survived, sue the police for not getting their within 10 seconds.
 
If this happened in El Paso Texas I think the jury would have had the sense to tell the dead armed burglar junky's family to **** off.

Yes, I lived there for a few years and then in Alamagordo, NM. You are 100% correct on that, it would never have made it in front of a jury.

edited because I forgot to punctuate
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom