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

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.

I take your point James, and it is obvious that he was not a minor. I merely pointed out that many people, and not particularly elderly ones, still regard me as a kid, despite the fact that I turned 18 recently. He was only two years older, so perhaps to some people - he was a kid. Those people are not scumbags for having some sympathy with his death.

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

No one can get into someone else's mind, and divine their intentions, so we must be guided by the balance of probability. He was being chased by men with guns, and he ran into a shed. The balance of probability is that he was seeking shelter, and to hide from these men. Of course, he could have had military weapons cached there, perhaps an RPG. But given that this was on private property to which he had heretofore little access, that is not the balance of probability. So we are left with the most likely circumstance that he was afraid for his life and was hiding. With good reason, as it rurned out.

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

It is fact that initially, he was trespassing, and it would be a reasonable assumption that he intended to steal something. However, the facts as reported, indicate that he was being confronted by three armed men, his partner in crime fled over the fence, and he ran to a nearby shed. All the circumstances, and common sense, point to his attempting to remove himself from immediate danger as quickly as possible. This could reasonably be regarded as attempting to flee.

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

That depends upon the jurisdiction. In the UK, Norfolk farmer Tony Martin was initially sentenced to life imprisonment for doing exactly that - lying in wait for burglars, and then shooting one of them dead.

The Conservatives have made attempts to change the law to allow things like that, but have been unsuccessful so far. The self-defence law does not need unreasonable changes | Issy McCann | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The US is not some Eurotrash country that sympathizes with criminals. So it is legal here in the US to shoot a burglar.

I am surprised it is not illegal in your country for rape victims to defend themselves.

Your ad hominems towards all Europeans do you little credit, and do not enhance your case. I should avoid that tactic if I were you. Debate the facts, as reported, of this issue, and people may have more regard for what you have to say.
 
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?

The first two questions are largely irrelevant to this thread, and I can prove the third one:

Murder, as has been established on this thread, is the intentional killing of another human being without a valid defense for doing so. Therefore we have to ask two questions:

1 - Did anyone intentionally kill another human being?

2 - If so, did they have a legally valid defense for doing so?

Here're my answers:

1 - Obviously someone intentionally killed another human being. We know this because it says so in the article, and because not even the perpetrators seem to claim otherwise. So this issue is fairly straightforward.

2 - No, they did not have a legally valid defense. There are several valid defenses to murder. The only ones that matter in this context are defense of self/other and defense of property. Since the two thieves were not visibly armed, and were not making any attempts to attack the three guys who shot at them, defense of self/other is pretty much out the window as a valid defense in the eyes of the law. If you'd like to argue that the two thieves were inherently a threat justifying lethal force, feel free to do so, but understand that the law as it stands does not take that position. Check the various statutes I've posted in this thread for verification. The only potential defense left is defense of property, and that's not a legitimate defense under Colorado law. I've provided the relevant statute on this point, and it also says so in the article.

Q.E.D. Thank you for playing.
 
2 - No, they did not have a legally valid defense. There are several valid defenses to murder. The only ones that matter in this context are defense of self/other and defense of property. Since the two thieves were not visibly armed, and were not making any attempts to attack the three guys who shot at them, defense of self/other is pretty much out the window as a valid defense in the eyes of the law. If you'd like to argue that the two thieves were inherently a threat justifying lethal force, feel free to do so, but understand that the law as it stands does not take that position. Check the various statutes I've posted in this thread for verification. The only potential defense left is defense of property, and that's not a legitimate defense under Colorado law. I've provided the relevant statute on this point, and it also says so in the article.

Q.E.D. Thank you for playing.

fortunately for these valiant property owners, the grand jury in their case thought your OPINION is crap. thanks for playing
 
fortunately for these valiant property owners, the grand jury in their case thought your OPINION is crap. thanks for playing

Aderleth put forward relevant points of law and reason. Have you sufficiently legitimate counters to those points? If so, I believe putting them forward would be the appropriate sequence of events in a discussion of this sort. I do not believe the grand jury concerned made any pronouncements upon his opinion, nor do I believe a third party's opinion (however august) is the sole arbiter of this question. :)
 
fortunately for these valiant property owners, the grand jury in their case thought your OPINION is crap. thanks for playing

I've been over this many times with several different people on this thread. If you browse it, you'll find that I have explained - repeatedly - why focusing on the grand jury decision is a nonsense argument with respect to this case. I'm also amused that you bolded the word "opinion" as if that's a substitute for making an actual argument as to why the law as it stands and the facts as we know them do not support the conclusion that these guys committed murder. So I'm going to ask you to do the same thing that I've asked several people on this thread:

Please explain to me using the law and the facts why you think these guys did not commit murder. My guess is that you'll dodge the question. Everyone else has.
 
Aderleth put forward relevant points of law and reason. Have you sufficiently legitimate counters to those points? If so, I believe putting them forward would be the appropriate sequence of events in a discussion of this sort. I do not believe the grand jury concerned made any pronouncements upon his opinion, nor do I believe a third party's opinion (however august) is the sole arbiter of this question. :)

really? his opinion is that these property owners committed murder, the grand jury disagreed. ergo, his opinion is crap
 
I've been over this many times with several different people on this thread. If you browse it, you'll find that I have explained - repeatedly - why focusing on the grand jury decision is a nonsense argument with respect to this case. I'm also amused that you bolded the word "opinion" as if that's a substitute for making an actual argument as to why the law as it stands and the facts as we know them do not support the conclusion that these guys committed murder. So I'm going to ask you to do the same thing that I've asked several people on this thread:

Please explain to me using the law and the facts why you think these guys did not commit murder. My guess is that you'll dodge the question. Everyone else has.

face it, matlock, your opinion is that these guys committed murder. the grand jury disagreed. accept it.
 
face it, matlock, your opinion is that these guys committed murder. the grand jury disagreed. accept it.

Yup. Dodged the question. Thanks for bringing so much insight to the table.
 
what question? irrelevent crap.

I'm going to say this to you one last time, then I'm done with you unless you actually make a real argument. Further posturing and references to the Grand Jury will be met by silence (on this thread) and laughter (by me, sitting at my computer). Here's the question:

Can you explain to me, using the facts as we know them, and the relevant statutes in the jurisdiction (i.e. the relevant provisions of the Colorado penal code, which I've posted on this thread), why you think these guys did not commit murder?
 
The first two questions are largely irrelevant to this thread, and I can prove the third one:

Murder, as has been established on this thread, is the intentional killing of another human being without a valid defense for doing so. Therefore we have to ask two questions:

1 - Did anyone intentionally kill another human being?

2 - If so, did they have a legally valid defense for doing so?

Here're my answers:

1 - Obviously someone intentionally killed another human being. We know this because it says so in the article, and because not even the perpetrators seem to claim otherwise. So this issue is fairly straightforward.

2 - No, they did not have a legally valid defense. There are several valid defenses to murder. The only ones that matter in this context are defense of self/other and defense of property. Since the two thieves were not visibly armed, and were not making any attempts to attack the three guys who shot at them, defense of self/other is pretty much out the window as a valid defense in the eyes of the law. If you'd like to argue that the two thieves were inherently a threat justifying lethal force, feel free to do so, but understand that the law as it stands does not take that position. Check the various statutes I've posted in this thread for verification. The only potential defense left is defense of property, and that's not a legitimate defense under Colorado law. I've provided the relevant statute on this point, and it also says so in the article.

Q.E.D. Thank you for playing.

All I see here is self defense. He intentionally defended himself. Case closed.
 
The burglar...

...is the victim?
 
All I see here is self defense. He intentionally defended himself. Case closed.

He wasn't being attacked when he fired the gun. If you look at the statute for self defense it requires a reasonable belief that one is or is about to be attacked. We have no indication of such a thing here. Moreover, valid use of lethal force in defense of self/others requires both that one is being attacked with lethal force (or impending threat of great bodily harm) and a reasonable belief that lesser force would be insufficient to end the threat. None of these criteria were met under the facts of this case as we know them. Therefore there was no self defense. Case closed.
 
I'm going to say this to you one last time, then I'm done with you unless you actually make a real argument. Further posturing and references to the Grand Jury will be met by silence (on this thread) and laughter (by me, sitting at my computer).
yeah right, perry mason, you've been saying the same thing for the last 70 pages.

Here's the question:

Can you explain to me, using the facts as we know them, and the relevant statutes in the jurisdiction (i.e. the relevant provisions of the Colorado penal code, which I've posted on this thread), why you think these guys did not commit murder?


bolded is the key. we don't know all the facts. therefore you have made various assumptions. all of which have painted the property owners in the worst possible light.
 
The burglar...

...is the victim?

yes. he was victimized when he forced his way onto their property in the middle of the night, armed with 3 knives and intending to commit criminal actions. apparently, some people here don't think stupid people should have to face the consequences of their stupid actions.
 
He wasn't being attacked when he fired the gun. If you look at the statute for self defense it requires a reasonable belief that one is or is about to be attacked. We have no indication of such a thing here. Moreover, valid use of lethal force in defense of self/others requires both that one is being attacked with lethal force (or impending threat of great bodily harm) and a reasonable belief that lesser force would be insufficient to end the threat. None of these criteria were met under the facts of this case as we know them. Therefore there was no self defense. Case closed.

Despite the fact they have a confession,evidence and witness that one of the property owners shot at the burglars those property owners were not charged with murder. They are not sitting behind bars right now. Now obviously the grand jury or whoever decided that what the property did met the requirements for self defense or that they did not commit a crime despite having evidence one of them shot the burglar.
 
He wasn't being attacked when he fired the gun. If you look at the statute for self defense it requires a reasonable belief that one is or is about to be attacked. We have no indication of such a thing here. Moreover, valid use of lethal force in defense of self/others requires both that one is being attacked with lethal force (or impending threat of great bodily harm) and a reasonable belief that lesser force would be insufficient to end the threat. None of these criteria were met under the facts of this case as we know them. Therefore there was no self defense. Case closed.

Haven't read the thread. But I knew a guy once who repelled a carjacker, then backed up, got out, and beat him some more. He went to jail for GOING BACK. The initial beating was perfectly legal.
 
Despite the fact they have a confession,evidence and witness that one of the property owners shot at the burglars those property owners were not charged with murder. They are not sitting behind bars right now. Now obviously the grand jury or whoever decided that what the property did met the requirements for self defense or that they did not commit a crime despite having evidence one of them shot the burglar.

OJ was acquitted too, then lost a wrongful death civil suit.
 
Despite the fact they have a confession,evidence and witness that one of the property owners shot at the burglars those property owners were not charged with murder. They are not sitting behind bars right now. Now obviously the grand jury or whoever decided that what the property did met the requirements for self defense or that they did not commit a crime despite having evidence one of them shot the burglar.

but apparently, matlock here knows more about the case than those who were actually involved, therefore the property owners are guilty of murder. the fact that there was not enough evidence to bring them to trial (despite the confession) apparently is irrelevent in the face of our own forum perry mason's OPINION
 
yeah right, perry mason, you've been saying the same thing for the last 70 pages.

And yet you keep falling back on that crutch, even though I've explained why doing so is idiotic. What's up with that?

bolded is the key. we don't know all the facts. therefore you have made various assumptions. all of which have painted the property owners in the worst possible light.

Obviously we don't know all the facts - which is why I've repeatedly asked you to apply the facts as we know them - and I've made absolutely no assumptions. Here are the facts that I'm relying on, all of which come from the article:

1) The 3 men opened fire on two trespassers.

2) As a result of their intentional use of deadly force, one trespasser was killed. No one - certainly not the perpetrators - have suggested that this was in any way an accidental shooting.

3) At the time of the shooting, we have absolutely no indication that the trespassers attempted to threaten the lives of these three men. No one appears to have made that argument.

Do you disagree that these are the facts as we know them? By this I emphatically not mean "can you concoct any number of conjectural possibilities that might change the situation."
 
I take your point James, and it is obvious that he was not a minor. I merely pointed out that many people, and not particularly elderly ones, still regard me as a kid, despite the fact that I turned 18 recently. He was only two years older, so perhaps to some people - he was a kid.

There was still no other reason to use the term kid for this scumbag other than to fraudulently paint him as a child or minor.



Those people are not scumbags for having some sympathy with his death.

They are still scumbag sympathizers IE people who have misplaced their sympathies and sympathize with scumbags.

No one can get into someone else's mind, and divine their intentions, so we must be guided by the balance of probability. He was being chased by men with guns, and he ran into a shed. The balance of probability is that he was seeking shelter, and to hide from these men.

It is because you do not know what that burglar is going do why lethal force is justified.


Of course, he could have had military weapons cached there, perhaps an RPG.

What good that that do other than getting himself blown up?
RPG Minimum Arming Distance: 5 Meters | The Real Revo

It is fact that initially, he was trespassing, and it would be a reasonable assumption that he intended to steal something. However, the facts as reported, indicate that he was being confronted by three armed men, his partner in crime fled over the fence, and he ran to a nearby shed. All the circumstances, and common sense, point to his attempting to remove himself from immediate danger as quickly as possible. This could reasonably be regarded as attempting to flee.

If he attempted to flee then why not go the way his buddy went? people do not want to get caught and will sometimes do what ever it takes to keep themselves from getting caught including harming the occupants of that property.

That depends upon the jurisdiction. In the UK, Norfolk farmer Tony Martin was initially sentenced to life imprisonment for doing exactly that - lying in wait for burglars, and then shooting one of them dead.

The fact that man was even tried is atrocious. It makes the statement that criminals matter more than you and that you have no right to defend yourself or property.
The Conservatives have made attempts to change the law to allow things like that, but have been unsuccessful so far. The self-defence law does not need unreasonable changes | Issy McCann | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Hopefully they make more attempts.
Your ad hominems towards all Europeans do you little credit, and do not enhance your case. I should avoid that tactic if I were you. Debate the facts, as reported, of this issue, and people may have more regard for what you have to say.

The fact your country would prosecute a property owner for using lethal force to defend himself and property means that the only people your justice system gives a **** about are the criminals. So it is not not a ad hominem to state that I am surprised your country has not banned rape victims from defending themselves.
 
And yet you keep falling back on that crutch, even though I've explained why doing so is idiotic. What's up with that?



Obviously we don't know all the facts - which is why I've repeatedly asked you to apply the facts as we know them - and I've made absolutely no assumptions. Here are the facts that I'm relying on, all of which come from the article:

1) The 3 men opened fire on two trespassers.

2) As a result of their intentional use of deadly force, one trespasser was killed. No one - certainly not the perpetrators - have suggested that this was in any way an accidental shooting.

3) At the time of the shooting, we have absolutely no indication that the trespassers HAD NOT attempted to threaten the lives of these three men. No one appears to have made that argument.

Do you disagree that these are the facts as we know them? By this I emphatically not mean "can you concoct any number of conjectural possibilities that might change the situation."

editted for truth and accuracy. you assume that the trespassers (nice way to try to minimize their criminality. "oh they weren't thieves or robbers.....they were just trespassers" how very intellectually honest of you) were not posing a threat. you weren't there so you have no clue.
 
Despite the fact they have a confession,evidence and witness that one of the property owners shot at the burglars those property owners were not charged with murder. They are not sitting behind bars right now. Now obviously the grand jury or whoever decided that what the property did met the requirements for self defense or that they did not commit a crime despite having evidence one of them shot the burglar.

You and I have been over this ad nauseum. The two juries reached factual conclusions that are mutually exclusive using the same standard of proof. The only possible conclusion is that at least one of the juries did not do what it was supposed to do. Therefore it's impossible to rely on either set of jury-based conclusions. One of them must be wrong, and there's no way for us to know which one. So, by saying "the grand jury didn't indict, therefore they're not murders," you're making a specious argument. What would make far more sense would be to stop appealing to a thoroughly dubious authority, use your brain, and apply the facts to the law. Can you please, for the love of God, stop screwing around and actually do that?
 
editted for truth and accuracy. you assume that the trespassers (nice way to try to minimize their criminality. "oh they weren't thieves or robbers.....they were just trespassers" how very intellectually honest of you) were not posing a threat. you weren't there so you have no clue.

So you agree that they had not attempted to threaten the lives of the three property owners? Good. Then, if you look to the relevant Colorado statute, you'll find that the property owners did not have a valid basis for use of deadly force.

By the way, yes, they were just trespassers at that point. They hadn't yet stolen anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom