• 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.
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

I missed this the first time around. I'm not aligning myself - morally or otherwise - with anyone. The fact that you think so demonstrates that you still can't wrap your head around the possibility that one could reasonably find the actions of all parties involved to be bad. The only conclusion you could reach that relates to my character is that I'm not willing to let a murderer slide just because I don't like the person he murdered. The fact that you can do that should make you wonder about your own character.
 
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.

It was essentially what happened. The only difference is, the business owners didn't know the drug addict's intentions; other than the fact that his intentions were negative being that he was in the process of committing a crime.

Three things:

1) Everyone involved in this case is a criminal.

Nope.

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

Apparently you do, or else you wouldn't want to force the real victim of a crime to stand there and wait for the criminal to make the first move, thus giving the criminal the advantage.

3) The only people in this case who actually demonstrated a desire to take a human life were the business owners.

Which is why the guy was armed with three knives. :roll:

The trespassers may or may not have been interested in threatening someone at knifepoint. We have no way of knowing.

That's right, and neither did the business owner.

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.

right, so the store owners have to wait to be shot or stabbed first before defending themselves. That's absolutely, mindbogglingly retarded.
 
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?

because its NOT what happened thats why its MEANINGLESS, can you get the death sentence for armed robbery? nope doesn't mean you cant get killed doing it LMAO

sorry nothing more than you meaningless opinion that has no impact on the subject at hand thats why.

Something being punishable by death or not is not the end all to whether deadly force can be uses

THATS WHY ITS MEANINGLESS lol


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

you are right, nobody argued different nor does it matter LOL thanks captain obvious.


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.

yep I read it and what you are saying above is YOUR pure 100% opinion. nothing more


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.

again what are you talking about LMAO I dont have to look it up because it has no meaning here. please stay on topic instead of making meaningless talking points.

It is nothing more than you opinion that these guys took the law in their own hands. There is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt to support such nonsense.


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?

says who? not and criminal case what part dont you get?
tell me what law they broke? LMAO


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?
My beef is justice wasnt served in the civil case but then again civil doesnt need real proof.


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.

more opinion from you, maybe he DID deserve to die?
the lesson was learned by the dead thieving junkie :D
 
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.

they are relevant because people keep saying

1. thats NOT the definition of MURDER
2. this is nothing more than your opinion with ZERO proof, ZERO lmao

you played and you failed BIG TIME lmao
 
Still waiting for this:
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?
 
Still waiting for this:
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?

I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you on waiting for someone to prove those things.
 
I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you on waiting for someone to prove those things.

Id never hold my breath waiting for someone to prove a lie, i could hurt myself, but its fun to watch them try.
 
1. thats NOT the definition of MURDER

Yes it is. Here's the quote from the Colorado penal code:

"A person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if the person knowingly causes the death of a person." Legal Resources


"Knowingly" in this context is synonymous with "intentionally." Check out, e.g., Black's law dictionary for a discussion of how the terms intentional and knowingly are used in criminal law.

Incidentally, given that these guys laid in wait prior to killing the trespasser, they might also be guilty of first degree murder. That's harder to prove, though.

I've already posted the Colorado penal code statute related to valid affirmative defenses. It's many pages back. If you'd like me to re-post it I'd be willing to do so. You'll find that it's consistent with the post you attempted to reply to. In the future I'd suggest doing some actual research before making bull**** claims that you can't back up with evidence.

2. this is nothing more than your opinion with ZERO proof, ZERO lmao

Nonsense. The Colorado penal code is consistent with exactly what I've been saying. You may not like the law, but please stop pretending to understand it.
 
I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you on waiting for someone to prove those things.

He doesn't need to. I already proved the third one and you damn well know it, which is why you have failed to reply to any of the half dozen or so posts in which I've challenged you to prove me wrong.
 
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.

I'm sorry James, but you are making an issue of a very minor and really quite irrelevant point. I have not called the young man who was killed a 'kid', and I do not consider myself a 'kid', so I do not know why you are flogging this particular horse.

I do not know how old you are, but I suspect that you are somewhere between 20 and 35, and there are older people who would refer to you as a kid as a matter of habit. I would consider that inappropriate from the perspective of my age group, but I would not take issue with it, nor would I presuppose they are expressing automatic support for your thoughts and actions by doing so. Neither would assume fraudulent intentions of the part of people who might refer to you as a kid.

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

I see what you mean, but I think using terms like 'scumbag' is not constructive in these decisions. It is a pejorative which makes objective discussion difficult.

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

Actually, in the absence of aggressive action by a potential burglar, the opposite is justified. Unless a threat is obvious, lethal force is not justified either by reason or existing law in most jurisdictions.

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

I was using hyperbole - the likelihood of an RPG lying about in a shed in an used car lot is not high. :mrgreen:

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.

I take your point, but perhaps the shed was closer than the fence, and offered more immediate shelter and means of escape.

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. Hopefully they make more attempts.

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.

Well, I don't want to hijack this thread with too much discussion about the Tony Martin case, so perhaps I will start a thread in which we can discuss that matter in greater depth. British Law does not prosecute anyone for using appropriate force, including lethal force, to defend themselves or the lives of others. The Tony martin case was not one of self-defence, so extrapolating the circumstances of that shooting to include self-defence in the case of rape, is not reasonable. Yours was not strictly an ad hominem, (that can really only properly apply to a natural person, not a society,) but it was an unreasonable and unjustified characterisation of the laws of the British nation.

James, you and I have 'crossed swords' for many years at another place, and while I do not agree with many of your stated values, I do respect you as an intelligent and sincere poster. So let us continue our discussions upon a mutally respectful basis. :)
 
The true problem is that the lawyer(s) on this thread are right - legally.

Many other people on this thread are right - ethically.

What we need to do is change the law to defend life and property against malicious intent.
 
He doesn't need to. I already proved the third one and you damn well know it, which is why you have failed to reply to any of the half dozen or so posts in which I've challenged you to prove me wrong.

If what those shop owners did was murder then why despite evidence that one of them shot the burglar were none of them tried and convicted of murder?
 
I see what you mean, but I think using terms like 'scumbag' is not constructive in these decisions. It is a pejorative which makes objective discussion difficult.

I realize that by using the term scumbag little girls sometimes throw a fit. But grown men should have no problem with the term.


Actually, in the absence of aggressive action by a potential burglar, the opposite is justified. Unless a threat is obvious, lethal force is not justified either by reason or existing law in most jurisdictions.

The fact that you have no idea what exactly that burglar is going to do means lethal force should always be the first option. You can't assume that someone is just there to steal your property and leave once they obtained what they wanted to steal.And even if that is the case you have every right to use what ever means necessary to prevent someone from stealing that property.

I take your point, but perhaps the shed was closer than the fence, and offered more immediate shelter and means of escape.


Of the shelter offered him a means of being able to ambush the property owners.

Well, I don't want to hijack this thread with too much discussion about the Tony Martin case, so perhaps I will start a thread in which we can discuss that matter in greater depth. British Law does not prosecute anyone for using appropriate force, including lethal force, to defend themselves or the lives of others. The Tony martin case was not one of self-defence, so extrapolating the circumstances of that shooting to include self-defence in the case of rape, is not reasonable. Yours was not strictly an ad hominem, (that can really only properly apply to a natural person, not a society,) but it was an unreasonable and unjustified characterisation of the laws of the British nation.

James, you and I have 'crossed swords' for many years at another place, and while I do not agree with many of your stated values, I do respect you as an intelligent and sincere poster. So let us continue our discussions upon a mutally respectful basis. :)

The fact your country would prosecute man for using lethal force against a burglar says that your justice system cares more about scumbags than the honest law abiding citizen.
 
If what those shop owners did was murder then why despite evidence that one of them shot the burglar were none of them tried and convicted of murder?

For the same reason O.J. was not convicted of murder.....an imperfect justice system.
 
For the same reason O.J. was not convicted of murder.....an imperfect justice system.

OJ went to trial for murder. These shop keepers did not go trial. With the shop keepers there was a confession,weapon that killed the burglar, evidence and witness that one of them shot the burglar, I do not think you can say that about the OJ Simpson case. This happened in El Paso County in Colorado a liberal state, not El Paso Texas.
 
Last edited:
If what those shop owners did was murder then why despite evidence that one of them shot the burglar were none of them tried and convicted of murder?

I've answered this question like five times. You're singing an old, tired, thoroughly debunked song. Why don't you, rather than repeating an argument I've already addressed, respond to one of my many other responses to this line of reasoning, or, alternatively, stop pretending it's not a bull**** argument and actually apply the law to the facts as we know them?
 
The true problem is that the lawyer(s) on this thread are right - legally.

Many other people on this thread are right - ethically.

What we need to do is change the law to defend life and property against malicious intent.

See... now, this is a valid perspective. I disagree that the law should be changed on this issue, but I understand where you're coming from.
 
Where can I find the report/meat and potatoes of this issue? I want to know all the facts to form a proper opinion.
 
I've answered this question like five times. You're singing an old, tired, thoroughly debunked song. Why don't you, rather than repeating an argument I've already addressed, respond to one of my many other responses to this line of reasoning, or, alternatively, stop pretending it's not a bull**** argument and actually apply the law to the facts as we know them?

You have not provided an adequate reason why the shop keepers were not charged and tried for murder or even a lesser crime.
 
You have not provided an adequate reason why the shop keepers were not charged and tried for murder or even a lesser crime.

How so? I've explained that the conclusions of the two juries were factually inconsistent, which means that one of them must have reached a bad decision (i.e. did not do their job). We don't know which one of them. Consequently neither conclusion is a reliable basis for any conclusions at all as to the legality of the actions of these men. What about this reasoning - specifically - do you find to be inadequate? Keep in mind that by it's very nature, the fact that a grand jury was convened suggests that the prosecutor did want to try these guys for murder.
 
Police said in a 145-page investigative report that the intruder had knives in his pockets and one strapped to his ankle, but never posed a threat to Milanovic or the other men, his father Ljuban Milanovic and brother-in-law Srdjan Novak.

Seems like a joke to me. How is that not being a threat?
 
Seems like a joke to me. How is that not being a threat?

Because he wasn't attempting to use the knives when he was shot. He was running away.
 
[QUOTEUnder Colorado’s self-defense laws, the use of deadly force is justified only under the “reasonable belief” that it’s necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. The jury found that none of the men had a legitimate claim of self-defense.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, this is a joke. Were the victims, the owners, to assume the intruders weren't armed? What now? Wait and find out whether the thugs on your property have a gun or a knife or just want to trade cards? Ridiculous. They broke into his property, smoked meth, looked to steal stuff, and one was armed with 2-3 knives. They were strung out on meth. They could have been armed.
 
Because he wasn't attempting to use the knives when he was shot. He was running away.

He could have used those knives. If I broke into your property looking to steal stuff, and I have a bat slung over my shoulder and I'm either walking towards you or trying to get away once you brandish a gun, am I to assume I'm not to be shot? Why do you defend the meth head/thief/intruder?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom