• 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.
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.

and just as true... the property owners are not murderers because they haven't been convicted yet. :lamo
 
OJ was acquitted too, then lost a wrongful death civil suit.

The standards of proof for civil and criminal trials are different. Personally I think if a not guilty verdict has been reached in a criminal then any civil lawsuits should be banned, this basically double jeopardy.

The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case - FindLaw
The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe.
 
and just as true... the property owners are not murderers because they haven't been convicted yet. :lamo

Sorry, no. :)

Not the same thing at all. The trespassers were trespassers rather than thieves because they hadn't performed an act necessary to the commission of any theft crime. By contrast, the murders are murders because they did commit all of the acts necessary to the crime of murder, and they didn't have a valid defense for doing so. If you'd like to talk about the relevance of the grand jury, feel free to do so, but first, please address my comments as to why doing so is ridiculous.
 
Sorry, no. :)

Not the same thing at all. The trespassers were trespassers rather than thieves because they hadn't performed an act necessary to the commission of any theft crime. By contrast, the murders are murders because they did commit all of the acts necessary to the crime of murder, and they didn't have a valid defense for doing so. If you'd like to talk about the relevance of the grand jury, feel free to do so, but first, please address my comments as to why doing so is ridiculous.


they were guilty of B&E, damage to property, etc. they had already committed several crimes. to call them "trespassers" is completely dishonest and shows what a weak arguement you have.

rant all you want, matlock, you wanting these property owners to be murderers doesn't make it so.
 
Last edited:
The standards of proof for civil and criminal trials are different. Personally I think if a not guilty verdict has been reached in a criminal then any civil lawsuits should be banned, this basically double jeopardy.

The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case - FindLaw
The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe.

That was my point, and I tend to agree with you on the double jeopardy thing.

The flip side, as it was explained to me, is that a conviction would guarantee a civil win if they were that related to each other. And sometimes people will agree that an event that doesn't rise to the criminal DOES rise to the civil. Maybe somebody doesn't deserve prison but should PAY something, in other words.

Don't know enough about the case to comment on this one.
 
they were guilty of B&E, damage to property, etc. they had already committed several crimes. to call them "trespassers" is completely dishonest and shows what a weak arguement you have.

They were trespassers on the night in question. Wanting them to be burglars does not make it so. If you think I have a weak argument, why don't you address the alleged weaknesses of that argument? I keep asking you to do so, and you keep ignoring me. It's a little bit sad, really.

rant all you want, matlock, you wanting these property owners to be murderers doesn't make it so.

You're right, layperson. Desire has nothing to do with making these people murderers. Their acts, and the law make them murderers.
 
They were trespassers on the night in question. Wanting them to be burglars does not make it so.

who said they were burglars? I said they were guilty of B&E. or did they simply waltz onto the property through a wide open gate?

You're right, layperson.

oooooh, Mr. Lawyer gonna try to trump me wiff his sheepskin now. I'mma shakin in my boots. :lamo another sign of desperation. appeal to authority, especially your own. :lamo

Desire has nothing to do with making these people murderers. Their acts, and the law make them murderers.

glad you are finally agreeing with the grand jury who let them walk.
 
oooooh, Mr. Lawyer gonna try to trump me wiff his sheepskin now. I'mma shakin in my boots. :lamo another sign of desperation. appeal to authority, especially your own. :lamo

Actually, I was mocking you for continuing to refer to me as Matlock, which is childish. As is the above quoted section.


glad you are finally agreeing with the grand jury who let them walk.

Cute. Your ability to misread printed text while continuing to fail entirely to actually make an argument in support of your position is quite remarkable. Can you please actually address the facts and the law without continuing to appeal to authority (i.e. the grand jury)? This is getting very tiresome.
 
The burglar...

...is the victim?

Sadly, in this society, yes. The bleeding hearts rally to the defense low lives. Those poor, unfortunate drug addicts; those poor alcoholics. Those poor thieves! Meanwhile, the rest of us are supposed to just stand there are get robbed at knife point. :roll: It's silly bull ****. And I'm frankly tired of such a weakling mentality.

He wasn't being attacked when he fired the gun.

Is it just me, or is this debate going in circles? It has already been established that the business owners couldn't have known what the intentions of the thief was. How was he to know his life wasn't endangered? Was he supposed to just sit there and wait to be stabbed or shot? I wouldn't be taking chances if it were me.

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.

Yes, there was. When they examined the body, it turns out he was correct. The guy was armed!

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 guess you think that three knives do not pose a lethal threat? As I have already said, how was he supposed to know one way or the other?
 
Is it just me, or is this debate going in circles? It has already been established that the business owners couldn't have known what the intentions of the thief was. How was he to know his life wasn't endangered? Was he supposed to just sit there and wait to be stabbed or shot? I wouldn't be taking chances if it were me.

Yes, this debate is going around in circles. To answer your other questions, it is precisely because the shooters couldn't have - and didn't - know what the intentions of the would-be thief were, or whether or not their lives were in danger that they (the shooters) do not have a valid defense of self defense. Look at the statute. It requires that someone be under the reasonable belief of impending death or great bodily harm. This requires a showing of more than just "they might have wanted to attack, maybe." It requires a showing of an actual physical assault likely to lead to death or great bodily harm. No one has said that such a thing happened. If you don't believe me that this is the standard, look up the case law yourself. You'll find that I'm right.

Moreover, in the eyes of the law it is irrelevant that the murder victim was armed. What matters is a) the shooters did not and could not have known that at the time, and b) even if they had known, the guy wasn't actually attacking them with the weapons at the time he was shot. If shooting someone who happens to be armed (even though they're not attacking you) was valid in the eyes of the law, I imagine quite a lot of you would re-think your position on carrying concealed weapons.

You may wish the law operated differently. I'm sure many people would agree with you (although not me). Nevertheless, under the law as it stands, and based on the information we actually have, these guys committed murder.
 
Yes, this debate is going around in circles. To answer your other questions, it is precisely because the shooters couldn't have - and didn't - know what the intentions of the would-be thief were, or whether or not their lives were in danger that they (the shooters) do not have a valid defense of self defense. Look at the statute. It requires that someone be under the reasonable belief of impending death or great bodily harm. This requires a showing of more than just "they might have wanted to attack, maybe." It requires a showing of an actual physical assault likely to lead to death or great bodily harm. No one has said that such a thing happened. If you don't believe me that this is the standard, look up the case law yourself. You'll find that I'm right.

Moreover, in the eyes of the law it is irrelevant that the murder victim was armed. What matters is a) the shooters did not and could not have known that at the time, and b) even if they had known, the guy wasn't actually attacking them with the weapons at the time he was shot. If shooting someone who happens to be armed (even though they're not attacking you) was valid in the eyes of the law, I imagine quite a lot of you would re-think your position on carrying concealed weapons.

You may wish the law operated differently. I'm sure many people would agree with you (although not me). Nevertheless, under the law as it stands, and based on the information we actually have, these guys committed murder.

Alright. Sweet.

When you've got three thugs barreling at you and they look mean, and you have a gun to defend yourself, let us know what they meant once they're done with you.
 
Alright. Sweet.

When you've got three thugs barreling at you and they look mean, and you have a gun to defend yourself, let us know what they meant once they're done with you.

That would be silly. I'd much rather defend myself with appropriate levels of force. Makes a lot more sense.
 
That would be silly. I'd much rather defend myself with appropriate levels of force. Makes a lot more sense.

What's appropriate when three thugs are running towards you? A gun isn't appropriate?

And if you have a gun and the three thugs charging at you don't show their guns, how are you to know whether or not to defend yourself?

Know Fung Fu?
 
Yes, this debate is going around in circles. To answer your other questions, it is precisely because the shooters couldn't have - and didn't - know what the intentions of the would-be thief were, or whether or not their lives were in danger that they (the shooters) do not have a valid defense of self defense. Look at the statute. It requires that someone be under the reasonable belief of impending death or great bodily harm. This requires a showing of more than just "they might have wanted to attack, maybe." It requires a showing of an actual physical assault likely to lead to death or great bodily harm. No one has said that such a thing happened. If you don't believe me that this is the standard, look up the case law yourself. You'll find that I'm right.

Moreover, in the eyes of the law it is irrelevant that the murder victim was armed. What matters is a) the shooters did not and could not have known that at the time, and b) even if they had known, the guy wasn't actually attacking them with the weapons at the time he was shot. If shooting someone who happens to be armed (even though they're not attacking you) was valid in the eyes of the law, I imagine quite a lot of you would re-think your position on carrying concealed weapons.

You may wish the law operated differently. I'm sure many people would agree with you (although not me). Nevertheless, under the law as it stands, and based on the information we actually have, these guys committed murder.

So I guess you answered my question: yes, the rest of us have to just sit there and let ourselves be robbed at knife point. Or gun point. Who knows..?

You've just put the criminals in the drivers seat. God help us all.
 
What's appropriate when three thugs are running towards you? A gun isn't appropriate?

And if you have a gun and the three thugs charging at you don't show their guns, how are you to know whether or not to defend yourself?

Know Fung Fu?

Brandishing the gun is completely appropriate. Actually using the gun when you're not being threatened is murder. If three threatening looking guys are charging at you full bore, you point your gun at them and tell them to stop, they refuse to do so (and depending on which state you live in, you can't run away, and/or they've broken into your home), you're probably within your rights to shoot them. I say "probably" because you haven't said whether or not they're visibly armed.

You are aware that the hypothetical you're giving me bears very little relationship to the facts of this case, right?

(As a side note, while I don't know Kung Fu, I did study Judo for about a decade and used to fight competitively in tournaments. I don't think I could take three guys, though.)
 
So I guess you answered my question: yes, the rest of us have to just sit there and let ourselves be robbed at knife point. Or gun point. Who knows..?

Not really, no. All I've said is that you cannot use deadly force absent sufficient justification for doing so. If someone attempts to rob you at knife point or gun point you probably can go ahead and shoot them. That's not what happened here.
 
Why do you value a criminal's life more than a business owner or home owner's life?

Three things:

1) Everyone involved in this case is a criminal.

2) I don't value either life more than the other.

3) The only people in this case who actually demonstrated a desire to take a human life were the business owners. The trespassers may or may not have been interested in threatening someone at knifepoint. We have no way of knowing. The point is, they didn't actually attempt to do so. If they had attempted to do so, the storeowners might have been in a much more justifiable position to use deadly force.
 
All I know is that if you break in to my property late at night and I don't know you, be prepared for any and all situations and ramifications.

By the way, I don't ask if you are armed and I don't do warning shots. If I aim a gun, it's intended to neutralize the subject. Anyone who teaches otherwise should have privileges revoked. You never shoot to disarm, nor to wound. You shoot to kill. Period.
 
sad when you have alleged lawyers defending drug addict criminals. no wonder the country is in the ****ter
 
If you don't want someone to misread your intent and blow your scumbag ass away, don't break into their property in the middle of the night
 
If you don't want someone to misread your intent and blow your scumbag ass away, don't break into their property in the middle of the night

If you don't want to risk a lengthy prison sentence and potentially be liable for several hundred thousand dollars worth of civil damages, think before you shoot.
 
sad when you have alleged lawyers defending drug addict criminals. no wonder the country is in the ****ter

Everyone has a right to a defense. It's in the constitution. If you think lawyers shouldn't defend drug addicted criminals, you have a very poor understanding of the judicial system.
 
Everyone has a right to a defense. It's in the constitution. If you think lawyers shouldn't defend drug addicted criminals, you have a very poor understanding of the judicial system.

except that this forum isn't a court room, matlock. there is a difference between providing legal council and personally defending their actions. one would think a lawyer would know that.


it is not surprising, though, to see that you align yourself morally with a drug addict criminal than you do a property owner defending his property. speaks volumes about your character
 
Last edited:
except that this forum isn't a court room, matlock.

Of course it's not, layperson. By the way, I still don't understand why you think I'm defending their actions. All I'm doing is pointing out that the people who shot them are murderers. One doesn't need to defend, like or respect the person being murdered to do that. I also can't help noticing that you still refuse to actually look at the law and apply it to the facts as we know them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom