• 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.
disneydude said:
Actually it is in many cases. You do not have the right to use lethal force to counter a non-lethal situation.
Click to expand...
'
So you want homeowners and proper owners to wait until they are stabbed or shot before using lethal force? You do not know for sure what threat a burglar poses.


There is more lee-way when it is a residence.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if it is a business or a residence. A man(or woman) has the right to defend themselves and their property against others and use lethal force to do so. This is how you keep burglaries down.

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.
Click to expand...

It looks to me like a couple of business owners trying to defend their livelihood against a bunch of scumbags and a dumbass judge and a retarded jury sided with a piece of ****'s family. I hope these property owners take their case to a competent court and win.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

loss of future earnings? what future earnings? shouldn't they have worded it honestly? "proceeds of future criminal actions"
 
Aderleth said:
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.
Click to expand...

my bad..I thought we were talking about the actual legal definition of "murderer" and not your own personal opinion on the matter :shrug:
 
OscarB63 said:
loss of future earnings? what future earnings? shouldn't they have worded it honestly? "proceeds of future criminal actions"
Click to expand...
I think the Green leaning folks should give these guys an award...look how much carbon they saved the planet.
 
OscarB63 said:
loss of future earnings? what future earnings? shouldn't they have worded it honestly? "proceeds of future criminal actions"
Click to expand...
No family member wants to be the one to actually pull the plug on the life support machine. Better let the doctor be the bad guy. These guys saved that family of lifetime of hardship.
 
There was no criminal case because theres no evidence to support charging them with murder. Thet are not murders. Theres something called without reasonable doubt and nobody could EVER prove that this guy was no threat, to think other wise is a joke.

He was crazy enough to do drugs scale a wall and steal while high and carrying weapons, no "trust" deserves given to him.

The civil case is a joke on many levels.

If I had the 300K Id pay it myself for these guys doing us all a service.

Don't want shot don't break into places trying to steal stuff. Basic common sense.
 
Aderleth said:
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.
Click to expand...

The standard for self-defese in this country is a joke. It's ridiculous. Someone comes onto my property without my permission, regardless of their intent, they're liable to end up with a severe case of LEAD POISONING. It's MY PROPERTY, not theirs.
 
Aderleth said:
You might want to re-read the article. No one was in anyone's house. This is from the article:
Click to expand...

The contention is not the article. You said (I can't believe I have to remind you of what you said) "Ah, the Charles Bronson mentality. I'd advise you not to do that. You probably won't be as lucky as these guys were, and you'll end up serving a lengthy prison sentence as the murderer you seem interested in becoming." That wasn't directed towards the article, that was directed towards Oscar. And Oscar had said that if it was someone in his yard, he would fire a warning shot and try to scare them off and get them not to come back; but if they were in his home it would be a different scenario. You tried to call him a wannabe murderer; but he expressed no interest in murder. Which is why if you're going to ask others not to engage in partisan hyperbole that you should perhaps do the same.
 
Aderleth said:
Why the grand jury didn't indict is beyond me,
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is much higher in criminal court than in civil court. It is quite possible that there was not enough evidence to gain a murder conviction; which could be why the grand jury didn't push for criminal trial.
 
Ikari said:
The burden of proof is much higher in criminal court than in civil court. It is quite possible that there was not enough evidence to gain a murder conviction; which could be why the grand jury didn't push for criminal trial.
Click to expand...

evidence???? who needs evidence? these guys were obviously murderers... Aderleth sez so ;)
 
OscarB63 said:
evidence???? who needs evidence? these guys were obviously murderers... Aderleth sez so ;)
Click to expand...

And some people believe Casey Anthony so guilty that we should engage in vigilante justice on her. But in that case as well there was not enough evidence to gain a conviction. We can believe these people to be "murders" all we want. But in the end, we'd have to PROVE it in a court of law BEYOND a reasonable doubt.
 
Ikari said:
And some people believe Casey Anthony so guilty that we should engage in vigilante justice on her. But in that case as well there was not enough evidence to gain a conviction. We can believe these people to be "murders" all we want. But in the end, we'd have to PROVE it in a court of law BEYOND a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Yep, and I'm sure that VM and Oscar would agree that OJ wasn't guilty of murder.

Bottom line is that these guys killed someone when they didn't have to and they are paying the price. They got off easy. Meanwhile there's a three-year-old girl who's going to grow up without a father.
 
AdamT said:
Yep, and I'm sure that VM and Oscar would agree that OJ wasn't guilty of murder.

Bottom line is that these guys killed someone when they didn't have to and they are paying the price. They got off easy. Meanwhile there's a three-year-old girl who's going to grow up without a father.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is thats your unsupported opinion according to criminal law. :)
see how that works
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Yep, and I'm sure that VM and Oscar would agree that OJ wasn't guilty of murder.
Click to expand...

He certainly wasn't convicted of murder.

AdamT said:
Bottom line is that these guys killed someone when they didn't have to and they are paying the price. They got off easy. Meanwhile there's a three-year-old girl who's going to grow up without a father.
Click to expand...

Nice appeal to emotion. But who is more at fault for the welfare of the girl? The men defending their property in a way you disagree with, or the father who made the choice to be a thief?
 
Centrist77 said:
Bottom line is thats your unsupported opinion according to criminal law. :)
see how that works
Click to expand...

Bottom line is that they lost the case in civil court. That is how it works.
 
AdamT said:
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.
Click to expand...

They can have mine when they pry them from my cold dead hands after climbing over the bodies of their dead companions.
 
Ikari said:
He certainly wasn't convicted of murder.



Nice appeal to emotion. But who is more at fault for the welfare of the girl? The men defending their property in a way you disagree with, or the father who made the choice to be a thief?
Click to expand...

the father by leaps and bounds, head and shoulders and mile
 
Ikari said:
He certainly wasn't convicted of murder.



Nice appeal to emotion. But who is more at fault for the welfare of the girl? The men defending their property in a way you disagree with, or the father who made the choice to be a thief?
Click to expand...

The men who shot and killed her father are more at fault, obviously. Though I'm not sure what "at fault for welfare" means....
 
AdamT said:
Bottom line is that they lost the case in civil court. That is how it works.
Click to expand...

LOL who said they didnt and how does that impact anything I said?
Oh thats right it doesnt LMAO

nice try though
 
AdamT said:
Bottom line is that they lost the case in civil court. That is how it works.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's why the bullet is a much better arbitor than any judge in the world.
 
Tigger said:
They can have mine when they pry them from my cold dead hands after climbing over the bodies of their dead companions.
Click to expand...

That can be arranged. :mrgreen:
 
Centrist77 said:
LOL who said they didnt and how does that impact anything I said?
Oh thats right it doesnt LMAO

nice try though
Click to expand...

So you agree with the verdict and don't dispute that the family is entitled to the money. Fair enough.
 
AdamT said:
The men who shot and killed her father are more at fault, obviously. Though I'm not sure what "at fault for welfare" means....
Click to expand...

Absolutely NOT. Her father chose to commit a crime. He got his just reward for doing so. If anything his daughter should be paying restitution to the man her father tried to rob, not the other way around.
 
AdamT said:
Yep, and I'm sure that VM and Oscar would agree that OJ wasn't guilty of murder.
Click to expand...

actually OJ was "not guilty" of murder. do I think he killed those people? yes. but he was found not guilty by a court of law. FWIW... "not guilty" does not equal "innocent"

Bottom line is that these guys killed someone when they didn't have to and they are paying the price. They got off easy. Meanwhile there's a three-year-old girl who's going to grow up without a father.
Click to expand...

considering that her "father" was a drug addicted criminal POS...these "thugs" did that little girl a favor. saved her years of heartache and embarrassment of having to go visit "daddy" in prison.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom