• 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.
jamesrage said:
I do not think he understands that part. Because in a real murder trial I am pretty sure a confession, evidence and witnesses would have made getting a guilty conviction easier than trying to stump Jessica Simpson or 3007 Miss South Carolina with a question.
Click to expand...

you mean typical they dont send things to trail when theres a confession, witnesses and the weapon?

man who would of thought that ;)
 
Aderleth said:
Ah. So all this time, when you and I have been discussing grand juries, you don't actually know what the hell they are. That's funny. Let me explain. The purpose of a grand jury is to determine whether or not a criminal trial is going to take place. They're initiated by the prosecutors office. But the jury, which is to say a group of random citizens, makes the determination as to whether or not an indictment is to happen. So, as applied to the current issue, the prosecutor (i.e the expert in criminal law) wanted to prosecute. If he didn't want to prosecute, he wouldn't have convened a grand jury. He was not allowed to do so because a group of laypersons didn't let him. So when you say you are pretty sure that the people who decide whether or not a criminal trial is to occur are experts on the law, you are demonstrating that you are definitely not an expert, and in this context, have apparently relied on entirely inaccurate assumptions.



I'm laughing a little right now. Thank you for being so blunt with your ignorance. It's gratifying.



If by "ignoring" you mean that I've directly commented on that fact at least half a dozen times - and at least once directly to you - then yes, I suppose I have been "ignoring" that.



I've given you the statute on self defense. Explain to me, as if you were a juror in this grand jury, why, based on the information we have, and the statutes at issue, you would choose not to indict.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the grand jury did not go through with the charges? As far as I know the shop owners did not call the police saying they found some burglar shot in their place of business.
 
jamesrage said:
Why do you think the grand jury did not go through with the charges? As far as I know the shop owners did not call the police saying they found some burglar shot in their place of business.
Click to expand...

I don't know why. I do know that one jury didn't go through with the charges (the grand jury), and the other, the jury that actually heard the defendants' side of things (the civil jury), did find them guilty. You might want to argue that these are different decisions, but that's basically bull**** in this context, because the civil jury would have had to make a factual conclusion about self defense in order to assign liability. So the factual conclusions they reached would have led to a murder conviction if they had been sitting on a criminal jury.

What this tells me is that at least one of these juries was full of crap. This is why (and I've said this in this thread many, many times) what the juries concluded is useless in terms of concluding whether or not a crime was committed. This is why I've repeatedly asked you to apply the facts as we know them to the law at issue. You will find, if you do that, that these guys are murderers.
 
Tigger said:
I can get along without indoor toilets and air conditioning. I have no interest in returning to racial-based slavery. I do have a significant interest in returning to a societal structure that actually had one compared to the complete and utter lack of limits, roles, and boundaries that exist in modern society.
Click to expand...

Regarding doing away with air-conditioning, geez, you should come and live in Texas. I bet you wouldn't be saying that - it was 110 degrees just a few days ago.

Well, it's all a pipe-dream of some. Some things may have seemed a lot more constrained, but along with that, they didn't have all the other things that we would miss today, like cell phones, iphones, microwaves, the internet. They also had a depression - I'm sure that would be a real treat.
 
Aderleth said:
I don't know why. I do know that one jury didn't go through with the charges (the grand jury), and the other, the jury that actually heard the defendants' side of things (the civil jury), did find them guilty. You might want to argue that these are different decisions, but that's basically bull**** in this context, because the civil jury would have had to make a factual conclusion about self defense in order to assign liability. So the factual conclusions they reached would have led to a murder conviction if they had been sitting on a criminal jury.

What this tells me is that at least one of these juries was full of crap. This is why (and I've said this in this thread many, many times) what the juries concluded is useless in terms of concluding whether or not a crime was committed. This is why I've repeatedly asked you to apply the facts as we know them to the law at issue. You will find, if you do that, that these guys are murderers.
Click to expand...

not unless you assume, guess, speculate, and have bias to that opinion.

Criminal court needs proof beyond doubt, with that in mind, theres no info here that would EVER logically get me to call this guy a murder/guilty.
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
not unless you assume, guess, speculate, and have bias to that opinion.

Criminal court needs proof beyond doubt, with that in mind, theres no info here that would EVER logically get me to call this call a murder/guilty.
Click to expand...

Adults are talking. Go back to the kiddie table.
 
Last edited:
Aderleth said:
Yes. You're probably right. I'm defeated. Please stop talking to me now.
Click to expand...

you were defeated after your first post :shrug:
LMAO

thats always what happens when a person pushes their opinion as fact
 
Last edited:
mertex said:
Regarding doing away with air-conditioning, geez, you should come and live in Texas. I bet you wouldn't be saying that - it was 110 degrees just a few days ago.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not people DID live in Texas prior to the invention of air conditioning. Personally, I prefer it hot over cold anyway.


mertex said:
Well, it's all a pipe-dream of some. Some things may have seemed a lot more constrained, but along with that, they didn't have all the other things that we would miss today, like cell phones, iphones, microwaves, the internet. They also had a depression - I'm sure that would be a real treat.
Click to expand...

I believe many of those things can still exist in a proper society. I think we just need to take a step back and realize what the appropriate bondaries on the use and implementation of those devices ought to be. Some of the things we've created might not be useful in a moral society, but many would be, even if their uses might be somewhat restrained. In my mind it is more important to live a proper life than a fun or pleasant one.
 
Centrist77 said:
you were defeated after your first post :shrug:
LMAO

thats always what happens when a person pushes their opinion as fact
Click to expand...

Wow. Sarcasm just goes right over your head, doesn't it?

Seriously though, I won't be responding to any more posts from you on this topic. It's like trying to stop an industrial strength flow of bull**** with a kleenex. I'm sure you'll feel the need to get the last word in, so I suspect you'll respond to this with some juvenile posturing involving the linguistic shortcuts endemic of internet/texting culture. Feel free to do so. They will be ignored.
 
Last edited:
Aderleth said:
Wow. Sarcasm just goes right over your head, doesn't it?

Seriously though, I won't be responding to any more posts from you on this topic. It's like trying to stop an industrial strength flow of bull**** with a kleenex.
Click to expand...

Oh the Irony that you think I missed your sarcasm LMAO

another failed insult instead of actually trying to prove your statements :shrug:
 
Aderleth said:
Wow. Sarcasm just goes right over your head, doesn't it?

Seriously though, I won't be responding to any more posts from you on this topic. It's like trying to stop an industrial strength flow of bull**** with a kleenex. I'm sure you'll feel the need to get the last word in, so I suspect you'll respond to this with some juvenile posturing involving the linguistic shortcuts endemic of internet/texting culture. Feel free to do so. They will be ignored.
Click to expand...

since you knew you insult was so lame you had to add to it Ill translate the bolded:

translation: I asked a question and stated my opinion as fact, when that was proved wrong and I was asked to back up may false opinion and prove it as fact I just attacked and tried to insult because I realized I can NOT back up my false claim.


When this changes PLEASE let me know Id LOVE to hear you back up your false opinion and prove these guys are murders using criminal law and facts.
 
Aderleth said:
I don't know why. I do know that one jury didn't go through with the charges (the grand jury), and the other, the jury that actually heard the defendants' side of things (the civil jury), did find them guilty. You might want to argue that these are different decisions, but that's basically bull**** in this context, because the civil jury would have had to make a factual conclusion about self defense in order to assign liability. So the factual conclusions they reached would have led to a murder conviction if they had been sitting on a criminal jury.
Click to expand...

You are aware that in a criminal trial they have to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They do not have have to do that in a civil trial. So the standards are much lower for a civil trial. If what these shop owners did was illegal there was certainly a confession,evidence and possible witnesses(the scumbag who did not get shot and the shop owner who did not kill the burglar). You are telling me that a grand jury and prosecutor is going to ignore a case that would have been a slam dunk?

What this tells me is that at least one of these juries was full of crap.
Click to expand...

Yes the jury in the civil trial is full of crap.

This is why (and I've said this in this thread many, many times) what the juries concluded is useless in terms of concluding whether or not a crime was committed.
Click to expand...

I think you like to ignore the fact that the grand jury chose not to go through with a criminal trial because it shoots your argument that these men are murderers down the drain.
 
Centrist77 said:
When this changes PLEASE let me know Id LOVE to hear you back up your false opinion and prove these guys are murders using criminal law and facts.
Click to expand...

dude must think he's Descartes. he thinks they are murderers, therefore they are. :lamo
 
OscarB63 said:
dude must think he's Descartes. he thinks they are murderers, therefore they are. :lamo
Click to expand...

Ambushing and killing a person who poses no direct threat is murder. It's a moral judgment not a legal one.

Sorry if that goes over your heard, I know you have trouble comprehending morals, Oscar.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Ambushing and killing a person who poses no direct threat is murder. It's a moral judgment not a legal one.

Sorry if that goes over your heard, I know you have trouble comprehending morals, Oscar.
Click to expand...

thats where the OPINION part comes in. you and the alleged lawyers here weren't there, you have no idea whether the armed drug addict posed a threat or not.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Ambushing and killing a person who poses no direct threat is murder. It's a moral judgment not a legal one.

Sorry if that goes over your heard, I know you have trouble comprehending morals, Oscar.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we can't have people protecting their property. The whole property rights thing is just feel good speak.
 
jamesrage said:
You are aware that in a criminal trial they have to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They do not have have to do that in a civil trial. So the standards are much lower for a civil trial. If what these shop owners did was illegal there was certainly a confession,evidence and possible witnesses(the scumbag who did not get shot and the shop owner who did not kill the burglar). You are telling me that a grand jury and prosecutor is going to ignore a case that would have been a slam dunk?
Click to expand...

How many times have we gone over this now? A dozen? See if you can grasp this concept: a grand jury is not a criminal trial. In a grand jury proceding, the standard of proof (to get an indictment -- not a conviction) is the preponderance of the evidence -- exactly the same standard that the civil jury used when it determined that the shooters were not acting in self defense.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, we can't have people protecting their property. The whole property rights thing is just feel good speak.
Click to expand...

You can protect you property in many ways. You can buy good locks. You can have an alarm system. You can have good lighting. You can have a dog. You can have strong fences. What you can't do -- under the law -- is gun someone down who doesn't pose a threat to your person or someone else's person.
 
AdamT said:
How many times have we gone over this now? A dozen? See if you can grasp this concept: a grand jury is not a criminal trial. In a grand jury proceding, the standard of proof (to get an indictment -- not a conviction) is the preponderance of the evidence -- exactly the same standard that the civil jury used when it determined that the shooters were not acting in self defense.
Click to expand...

boo ****ing hoo. i guess it all depends on which jury you want to believe. you defend the drug addict thief, we defend the property owner.
 
AdamT said:
You can protect you property in many ways. You can buy good locks. You can have an alarm system. You can have good lighting.
Click to expand...

Those things only stop honest people from stealing.


You can have a dog. You can have strong fences. What you can't do -- under the law -- is gun someone down who doesn't pose a threat to your person or someone else's person.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Let someone get mauled, or killed by your gaurd dog and see what happens. :rofl

I'm talking about real world stuff, not fantasy land, where criminals already know how to circumvent locks and alarms.
 
AdamT said:
You can protect you property in many ways. You can buy good locks. You can have an alarm system. You can have good lighting. You can have a dog. You can have strong fences. What you can't do -- under the law -- is gun someone down who doesn't pose a threat to your person or someone else's person.
Click to expand...

the grand jury didn't think these guys did :shrug: your OPINION counts for piss
 
apdst said:
Those things only stop honest people from stealing.
Click to expand...

Honest people, by definition, don't steal.

This is getting ridiculous.
 
AdamT said:
Honest people, by definition, don't steal.

This is getting ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is, had this cat not been breaking the law, they wouldn't have gotten shot. It's a damn shame that that a person should be punished for protecting his own property.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom