• 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.
Hate to break it to y'all, but this is the kind of incident that lends support to gun control advocates -- not the other way around.
 
Lets make sure you play the analogy correctly. If Madoff was breaking into their house to steal their money then sure...fire when ready. If they caught him in the act...especially if they had previously requested help from say the S&E C, then yes...I could see them having a viable defense.
 
who is talking about committing murder? you just keep on bending over and taking it up the butt from criminals ;)

How mature.

I'm talking about committing murder because that's what these three guys did. Why the grand jury didn't indict is beyond me, but try this:

Look at the standards for self defense laid out in the article, then compare them to the actions we know were taken by the three guys. Ask yourself, seriously, if they met the legal standards for self defense. If the answer is no, they are murderers. Probably first degree murderers since they planned ahead of time to shoot at someone. So I guess I've got to ask, why are you bending over for criminals?
 
Hate to break it to y'all, but this is the kind of incident that lends support to gun control advocates -- not the other way around.
Only to bleeding heart types who are already in favor of gun control.
 
Invade my property, invite a bullet. It's that simple, ladies and gentlemen. In the case of this gentleman, I'd flat out refuse to pay the award. It's that simple. They were trespassing. That's a capital crime in my mind. Especially since they had to come over a fence to get onto the property. The fact that they were trying to steal anything is essentially irrelevant to the case so far as I'm concerned.
 
. Why the grand jury didn't indict is beyond me

maybe because they weren't liberal, crybaby, handwringing, bedwetters and the actual evidence and facts showed that it wasn't murder.

but, of course, people like you always know more about these things than the people who were actually involved.
 
They set out to protect their business. Why? Because they were being robbed by (armed) meth addicts and scumbags and the police didnt help. I personally wouldnt have shot them. Then again...I personally am not in their position.

They never called the police (that night). They could have. They chose to shoot and kill someone instead. So saying that the police didn't help is a tad disingenuous. Especially given this (from the article):

"Milanovic and his father told police a week before the shooting they would shoot any intruders who returned. Police say the men concealed the rifle in the trunk of a car so well that a police detective initially missed it during a search."

They weren't interested in help from the police, they were interested in revenge. This is not just behavior, it's not legal, and it's not remotely civilized. Now, to be clear, I don't rate a junkie as a huge loss to the world, but I think murders should go to prison. Don't you?
 
Last edited:
maybe because they weren't liberal, crybaby, handwringing, bedwetters and the actual evidence and facts showed that it wasn't murder.

but, of course, people like you always know more about these things than the people who were actually involved.

My opinion stems entirely from the information in the article. Read the article and look at the standards for self defense. You are, presumably, aware that if you intentionally kill someone without a valid defense (such as self-defense) you have committed murder. So look at the article, look at the standards for self defense, then compare those standards to the actions that we know these guys committed. Try it. Seriously.
 
Last edited:
They never called the police (that night). They could have. They chose to shoot and kill someone instead. So saying that the police didn't help is a tad disingenuous. Especially given this (from the article):

"Milanovic and his father told police a week before the shooting they would shoot any intruders who returned. Police say the men concealed the rifle in the trunk of a car so well that a police detective initially missed it during a search."

They weren't interested in help from the police, they were interested in revenge. This is not just behavior, it's not legal, and it's not remotely civilized. Now, to be clear, I don't rate a junkie as a huge loss to the world, but I think murders should go to jail. Don't you?
They didnt call the police "that night". Why not? Could it be that their past experiences with police response was less than stellar? They didnt go on the prowl cruising the streets looking for a poor innocent widdle victim. They protected their property with extreme prejudice. Ive already said that I wouldnt have gone to that extreme. I can however understand them doing so.
 
They didnt call the police "that night". Why not? Could it be that their past experiences with police response was less than stellar? They didnt go on the prowl cruising the streets looking for a poor innocent widdle victim. They protected their property with extreme prejudice. Ive already said that I wouldnt have gone to that extreme. I can however understand them doing so.

I can understand it as well, but it's still murder, and I have no sympathy for them. And to be clear, they weren't protecting their property. If they wanted to do that, their are a million things they could have done that don't involve killing someone. For example, get a couple of guard dogs. Put up barbed wire on the fence around your lot. Install an alarm system. The section I quoted makes it pretty clear that they were substantially less interested in protecting their property than they were in seeking revenge against whoever had taken their property, or, apparently, against whoever came along next. This is not remotely defensible in the modern era, and it's certainly not something the law either does or should support.
 
As I've explained twice now, I find the behavior of the grand jury baffling based on the facts we have available. You probably would too if you actually looked at what the law says and what actually happened.

And I explained that he did not commit murder.If he committed murder then he would be in prison right now not dealing with some fraudulent lawsuit from the scumbag's family. The fact he was not convicted of it murder proves he did not commit murder despite the evidence you claimed he did.
 
My opinion stems entirely from the information in the article. Read the article and look at the standards for self defense. You are, presumably, aware that if you intentionally kill someone without a valid defense (such as self-defense) you have committed murder. So look at the article, look at the standards for self defense, then compare those standards to the actions that we know these guys committed. Try it. Seriously.
and I'm sure all the facts were presented in an "article". gullible much? keep on believing whatever you want to believe. let your heart guide you to the path of enlightenment.
 
It is not murder to use lethal force to defend yourself and property against burglars especially armed burglars.If what the property owner did was murder then he would be in prison right now.

Actually it is in many cases. You do not have the right to use lethal force to counter a non-lethal situation. There is more lee-way when it is a residence. This was a business. This is really a case of a couple of thugs seeking to extract revenge on the next person that burglarized their business. The dead man and his friend were certainly not fine upstanding citizens, however, that doesn't change the actions of the two thugs in question here.
 
And I explained that he did not commit murder.If he committed murder then he would be in prison right now not dealing with some fraudulent lawsuit from the scumbag's family. The fact he was not convicted of it murder proves he did not commit murder despite the evidence you claimed he did.

He wasn't even tried for murder, which is the troubling part. I've said this to a couple of different people now (possibly including you), but let's try it again:

Look at the standards for self-defense as laid out in the article. Then compare those standards to the actions of the shooter and his accomplices. Ask yourself, in all honesty, did their actions meet with the standards for self-defense? If the answer is no, then yes, they are murderers, whether a grand jury chose to indict them or not.
 
I can understand it as well, but it's still murder, and I have no sympathy for them. And to be clear, they weren't protecting their property. If they wanted to do that, their are a million things they could have done that don't involve killing someone. For example, get a couple of guard dogs. Put up barbed wire on the fence around your lot. Install an alarm system. The section I quoted makes it pretty clear that they were substantially less interested in protecting their property than they were in seeking revenge against whoever had taken their property, or, apparently, against whoever came along next. This is not remotely defensible in the modern era, and it's certainly not something the law either does or should support.
They were indeed protecting their property...they just didnt do it the way YOU approve of. They didnt do it in a way 'I' would have done it either. They tried the police. That didnt work.
 
Actually it is in many cases. You do not have the right to use lethal force to counter a non-lethal situation. There is more lee-way when it is a residence. This was a business. This is really a case of a couple of thugs seeking to extract revenge on the next person that burglarized their business. The dead man and his friend were certainly not fine upstanding citizens, however, that doesn't change the actions of the two thugs in question here.

yeah, how dare these thugs protect their property from fine upstanding individuals like this innocent victim
 
He wasn't even tried for murder, which is the troubling part. I've said this to a couple of different people now (possibly including you), but let's try it again:

Look at the standards for self-defense as laid out in the article. Then compare those standards to the actions of the shooter and his accomplices. Ask yourself, in all honesty, did their actions meet with the standards for self-defense? If the answer is no, then yes, they are murderers, whether a grand jury chose to indict them or not.

wrong bucko, contrary to what you WANT to believe, unless you are convicted you are not a murderer. are you a killer? yes. sorry that you hate the fact that some POS criminal thief got his ass blown away. build a memorial for him.
 
Invade my property, invite a bullet. It's that simple, ladies and gentlemen. In the case of this gentleman, I'd flat out refuse to pay the award. It's that simple. They were trespassing. That's a capital crime in my mind. Especially since they had to come over a fence to get onto the property. The fact that they were trying to steal anything is essentially irrelevant to the case so far as I'm concerned.

Okay, and to follow your logic, the plaintiffs would then obtain an order to seize your property to satisfy the judgment against you, and if you resisted (i.e., stole property that belonged to them) the marshals or deputies would be justified in gunning you down. Makes sense to me.
 
and I'm sure all the facts were presented in an "article". gullible much?

How is it gullible to use the information we have available rather than, e.g., conjecture? Is it possible there's something we don't know about? Obviously yes. I'm simply pointing out that based on the information in the article (i.e. the only information we have), these guys are murderers. It's not that complicated.

keep on believing whatever you want to believe. let your heart guide you to the path of enlightenment.

Sorry, no. That sounds like new age nonsense. I'd prefer to continue to rely on reason, thanks.
 
Only to bleeding heart types who are already in favor of gun control.

Only to rational people who believe that vigilante justice has no place in a civilized society.
 
yeah, how dare these thugs protect their property from fine upstanding individuals like this innocent victim

Way to mischaracterize....although why am I surprized? If you read what I wrote...I didn't say anything about them being "fine upstanding innocent victims", quite the contrary. But in your dishonest reply I guess you couldn't respond without spinning the facts.

The bottom line is that you have no right under our system of laws to protect "property" with lethal force. Sorry...but that's the American way. Love it or leave it.
 
I'm simply pointing out that based on the information in the article (i.e. the only information we have), it is my biased opinion that these guys are murderers. It's not that complicated.

edited for accuracy and honesty. :shrug:
 
Only to rational people who believe that vigilante justice has no place in a civilized society.
Im betting you arent going to find very many people that would change their mind on anything with the facts in this case. Plenty of folk that already have their mind made up. I doubt people will hear meth addict, armed with three knives, repeat offenses, multiple robberies with intent to score more drugs, business owners, no results from police, protecting their family business that they managed build despite all the excuse and hardships citizens want to cry about, and decide..."say...THIS is why there should be more gun control."
 
Since this is a civil suit, the award should be tossed out. The suit claims the $269,500 was for factors such as loss of companionship and loss of future earnings. Seriously? Companionship...while dood was in prison? Loss of earnings? Based on these factors alone the owners of those business did that family a favor.
 
unless you are convicted you are not a murderer.

Now that's an interesting philosophical position. It's kind of like, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one's around to see it, is the guy who cut it down still liable for the property damage? ****, that's a toughie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom