• 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.
People are allowed to fight back. What they're not supposed to do is fight preemptively.

so if someone is running at me with a knife I cannot shoot until he stabs me

or if a guy draws for a weapon I cannot shoot him until he shoots?

actually what is banned is me being robbed and 12 weeks later I see the guy walking down the street and I walk up behind him and garrote him with a piece of piano wire or wire up his auto with 4 pounds of C-4
 
I quoted you the statutory definition of murder in the relevant jurisdiction, and your response is that it's not the definition of murder. Would you also like to argue that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun? Or perhaps that I'm not currently writing in the English language?

I mean, seriously, how desperate are you to avoid the facts?

LMAO
play word games all you want but that fact remains that what you said in your original post and how you applied it to the man is NOT murder. He is not a murder nor did he commit murder. Those are the FACTS

Talk about avoiding facts, oh the irony.
Try again LMAO
 
Nope. Most western states have never had duty to retreat laws, and that's been the case since before many western states were actually states. Duty to retreat is mostly a Northeastern phenomenon, and even there, it's contingent upon the ability to retreat. If you can't retreat, you can still defend yourself.

Most western states are not most states. I never claimed that all states had this silly restriction. Your level of understanding it from reading about it and my level of understanding from going through it personally makes me a little more experienced. I am not trying to argue with you, you are just wrong. Take the knowledge and act on it if you disagree. I personally feel that even if I am standing in the middle of nowhere that I have the right to be there without being violated in any way shape or form by anyone else, and in the event that I am threatened that I have the right to defend my position with extreme prejudice.
 
We've talked about this. A grand jury uses the same standard of proof as a civil trial. So using the same standard of proof to reach conclusions on substantively identical factual issues (i.e. did the defendants willfully cause the death of the trespasser, and if so, did they have a valid reason to do so (i.e. self defense)), jury A reached conclusions that are totally inconsistent with the conclusions of jury B. Since they cannot both be right, both are suspect, and neither can be a basis for any conclusions. This is why I've repeatedly asked you to address the facts and the law rather than appealing to a dubious authority.

100% FALSE lmao
 
so if someone is running at me with a knife I cannot shoot until he stabs me

or if a guy draws for a weapon I cannot shoot him until he shoots?

That's a nonsense argument and we both know it. You've studied the standards for self defense and so have I. If someone is running at you with a knife you are under an objectively reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily harm and you're free to use deadly force to protect yourself. That hypothetical is pretty obviously not what happened in this situation.
 
100% FALSE lmao

Look it up. Google "grand jury standard of proof." You'll find, from about a million different sources, that the grand jury uses the preponderance of the evidence standard, which is the same standard as is used in civil trials. Once again, do research before speaking on a subject. You don't know what you're talking about.
 
Look it up. Google "grand jury standard of proof." You'll find, from about a million different sources, that the grand jury uses the preponderance of the evidence standard, which is the same standard as is used in civil trials. Once again, do research before speaking on a subject. You don't know what you're talking about.

this was already proved wrong earlier in the thread. Sorry this along with your other Opinion=facts is more nonsense.

The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case


The American legal system is comprised of two very different types of cases, civil and criminal. Crimes are generally offenses against the state, and are accordingly prosecuted by the state. Civil cases on the other hand, are typically disputes between individuals regarding the legal duties and responsibilities they owe one another.

Here are some of the key differences between a criminal case and a civil case:

Crimes are considered offenses against the state, or society as a whole. That means that even though one person might murder another person, murder itself is considered an offense to everyone in society. Accordingly, crimes against the state are prosecuted by the state, and the prosecutor (not the victim) files the case in court as a representative of the state. If it were a civil case, then the wronged party would file the case.

Criminal offenses and civil offenses are generally different in terms of their punishment. Criminal cases will have jail time as a potential punishment, whereas civil cases generally only result in monetary damages or orders to do or not do something. Note that a criminal case may involve both jail time and monetary punishments in the form of fines.
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.

Criminal cases almost always allow for a trial by jury. Civil cases do allow juries in some instances, but many civil cases will be decided by a judge.
A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an attorney, and if he or she can't afford one, the state must provide an attorney. A defendant in a civil case is not given an attorney and must pay for one, or else defend him or herself.
The protections afforded to defendants under criminal law are considerable (such as the protection against illegal searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment). Many of these well known protections are not available to a defendant in a civil case.

In general, because criminal cases have greater consequences - the possibility of jail and even death - criminal cases have many more protections in place and are harder to prove.
The Same Conduct Can Produce Civil and Criminal Liability

Although criminal and civil cases are treated very differently, many people often fail to recognize that the same conduct can result in both criminal and civil liability. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this is the OJ Simpson trial. The same conduct led to a murder trial (criminal) and a wrongful death trial (civil). In part because of the different standards of proof, there was not enough evidence for a jury to decide that OJ Simpson was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the criminal murder case. In the civil trial, however, the jury found enough evidence to conclude that OJ Simpson wrongfully caused his wife's death by a "preponderance of the evidence".



The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case - FindLaw


:D
 
Yes. Irony indeed. Ignore what you like. I'm done talking to a brick wall.

Yep facts are funny like that, they don't care whether you agree, the just are. Your opinion has no effect on them :D
 
I'm done talking to a brick wall.

yeah right, you've been saying that for the last 70+ pages. and yet you keep on argueing the same crap over and over.

it is said that repeating the same actions over and over and expecting different results is one of the classic signs of insanity. :shrug:
 
Most western states are not most states. I never claimed that all states had this silly restriction.

I never said you did. You said this:

This is incorrect. In many (most) states you have the duty to retreat, not fight back and defend yourself. It was not until recently that states began reconsidering and in some cases even passing/repealing laws making it acceptable to defend yourself without the duty to retreat.

So... "most" in this context means "most, but not a big chunk of the country?"

Your level of understanding it from reading about it and my level of understanding from going through it personally makes me a little more experienced.

Unless you're claiming to have been attacked in most states, whatever experience you've had is of little utility in this conversation.

I personally feel that even if I am standing in the middle of nowhere that I have the right to be there without being violated in any way shape or form by anyone else, and in the event that I am threatened that I have the right to defend my position with extreme prejudice.

I agree. That's not particularly relevant to what happened in this case.
 
this was already proved wrong earlier in the thread. Sorry this along with your other Opinion=facts is more nonsense.

The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case


The American legal system is comprised of two very different types of cases, civil and criminal. Crimes are generally offenses against the state, and are accordingly prosecuted by the state. Civil cases on the other hand, are typically disputes between individuals regarding the legal duties and responsibilities they owe one another.

Here are some of the key differences between a criminal case and a civil case:

Crimes are considered offenses against the state, or society as a whole. That means that even though one person might murder another person, murder itself is considered an offense to everyone in society. Accordingly, crimes against the state are prosecuted by the state, and the prosecutor (not the victim) files the case in court as a representative of the state. If it were a civil case, then the wronged party would file the case.

Criminal offenses and civil offenses are generally different in terms of their punishment. Criminal cases will have jail time as a potential punishment, whereas civil cases generally only result in monetary damages or orders to do or not do something. Note that a criminal case may involve both jail time and monetary punishments in the form of fines.
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.

Criminal cases almost always allow for a trial by jury. Civil cases do allow juries in some instances, but many civil cases will be decided by a judge.
A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an attorney, and if he or she can't afford one, the state must provide an attorney. A defendant in a civil case is not given an attorney and must pay for one, or else defend him or herself.
The protections afforded to defendants under criminal law are considerable (such as the protection against illegal searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment). Many of these well known protections are not available to a defendant in a civil case.

In general, because criminal cases have greater consequences - the possibility of jail and even death - criminal cases have many more protections in place and are harder to prove.
The Same Conduct Can Produce Civil and Criminal Liability

Although criminal and civil cases are treated very differently, many people often fail to recognize that the same conduct can result in both criminal and civil liability. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this is the OJ Simpson trial. The same conduct led to a murder trial (criminal) and a wrongful death trial (civil). In part because of the different standards of proof, there was not enough evidence for a jury to decide that OJ Simpson was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the criminal murder case. In the civil trial, however, the jury found enough evidence to conclude that OJ Simpson wrongfully caused his wife's death by a "preponderance of the evidence".



The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case - FindLaw


:D

Well that's nice. However a grand jury is not the same thing as a criminal trial. Google it. Find out for yourself.
 
grand jury indictments are based on probable cause

civil verdicts with a jury are based on a preponderance of the evidence

some cases require "clear and convincing Proof"

criminal cases always require for the main verdict, proof beyond a reasonable doubt though "relevant behavior" in the federal sentencing guideline provisions is much lower-Preponderance of the evidence
 
Well that's nice. However a grand jury is not the same thing as a criminal trial. Google it. Find out for yourself.

true, an indictment is similar to what is needed to issue a warrant
 
yeah right, you've been saying that for the last 70+ pages. and yet you keep on argueing the same crap over and over.

it is said that repeating the same actions over and over and expecting different results is one of the classic signs of insanity. :shrug:

I've said it to several different individual people. When new people come in, I'll argue with them until they demonstrate that they're immune to logic. You're getting pretty close to the line. O_Guru just crossed it by denying that the statutory definition of murder is the definition of murder.
 
Well that's nice. However a grand jury is not the same thing as a criminal trial. Google it. Find out for yourself.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

nice dodge laywer

tell what type of cases do grand juries handle????

fact remains that anything that happened in the civil case is meaningless in trying to support the FALSE claim the guy is a "murder" :D

I rest my case
 
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

nice dodge laywer

tell what type of cases do grand juries handle????

fact remains that anything that happened in the civil case is meaningless in trying to support the FALSE claim the guy is a "murder" :D

I rest my case

you are making a fool of yourself

grand juries determine whether a defendant will be indicted and face a petit jury (ie a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction be it at a state trial court (in Ohio, the court of common pleas, in NYS the Supreme court) or a federal district court. an indictment requires a much lower standard than a conviction
 
you are making a fool of yourself

grand juries determine whether a defendant will be indicted and face a petit jury (ie a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction be it at a state trial court (in Ohio, the court of common pleas, in NYS the Supreme court) or a federal district court. an indictment requires a much lower standard than a conviction

if you read the whole thread im not by any means, i understand what he has WHITTLED his words down too but earlier in this thread he made a very blanket statement and now it has changed and been reworded because he knew he was wrong. No fool here I find it VERY funny him rewording things and trying to sell his opinions of murder has fact :D
 
Moderator's Warning:
O-Guru took the sarcastic baiting a bit too far and has been thread banned. Let others who are riding the line take note - discuss the topic and keep the dissing to a minimum.
 
true, an indictment is similar to what is needed to issue a warrant

I know federal grand juries use the probable cause standard (most of the criminal work I've done has been federal). It's my understanding that several state grand juries use preponderance of the evidence, and the other lawyer on here (who got banned a while back) seemed to think Colorado was one of them. I've been trying to verify this for the last 20 minutes, but I'm coming up empty, and I'm not about to use my Westlaw account for this purpose. Of course with respect to the point that I've been making about the inconsistent results of the grand jury and the civil trial, it doesn't really matter which standard the grand jury used, because both of them are obviously equal to or lower than the standard of proof in a civil trial.
 
I know federal grand juries use the probable cause standard (most of the criminal work I've done has been federal). It's my understanding that several state grand juries use preponderance of the evidence, and the other lawyer on here (who got banned a while back) seemed to think Colorado was one of them. I've been trying to verify this for the last 20 minutes, but I'm coming up empty, and I'm not about to use my Westlaw account for this purpose. Of course with respect to the point that I've been making about the inconsistent results of the grand jury and the civil trial, it doesn't really matter which standard the grand jury used, because both of them are obviously equal to or lower than the standard of proof in a civil trial.

we use probable cause in the Southern District of Ohio and Hamilton County
 
I realize that by using the term scumbag little girls sometimes throw a fit. But grown men should have no problem with the term.

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.

I regret that I have misjudged you James. I was under the impression that you wished to discuss this matter politely and objectively. I shall trouble you no further.
 
Lots of bleeding hearts living in fairy land. I would be curious to see their reactions during a home invasion.

Sounds like a Teabagger talking. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to admit they are one.......

And, this was not a home invasion - reading abilities would have clarified that.
 
I regret that I have misjudged you James. I was under the impression that you wished to discuss this matter politely and objectively. I shall trouble you no further.

You are wise to take the high road, Leo. There's no fixing "stupid".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom