• 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.
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...

Well the person I was responding to said the current welfare (or lack thereof) of the girl is the fault of the ones who shot the dad (the girl is growing up without a dad). But those men were protecting the property. If you're talking about the welfare of the child, who has more direct control of that? Strangers or the parent? The father would not have been shot and killed if he were not engaging in crime. He made the choice to do so, and by doing so threw away concern for this daughter's welfare.
 
Last edited:
Tigger said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no death penalty for burglary. People don't get to decide for themselves which crimes deserve the death penalty -- and then serve as judge, jury, and executioner. Or hell, maybe they do. Maybe I should set up a sniper position near you house in case I catch you speeding....
 
Ikari said:
Well the person I was responding to said the current welfare (or lack thereof) of the girl is the fault of the ones who shot the dad. But those men were protecting the property. If you're talking about the welfare of the child, who has more direct control of that? Strangers or the parent? The father would not have been shot and killed if he were not engaging in crime. He made the choice to do so, and by doing so threw away concern for this daughter's welfare.
Click to expand...

bolded: and there, my friends, is the true bottom line. whatever you may think of the "thugs" who killed this dirtbag...had he not ben engaged in crime, he would not have been killed. who is to blame??? he is.
 
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...

wrong you have to start with domino ONE not pick one in the middle????

dont do drugs
dont become an addict
dont have a kid you cant care for
dont let things get so out of control you have nothing left
dont let things get so out of control that you have to arm yourself and steal
dont let things get so out of control you have to break into a place and increase your chances to get yourself shot


seems the a VERY long the list the father could of did FIRST before he was stupid enough to get shot LMAO

wow, some people live in reality and some dont.
 
AdamT said:
There is no death penalty for burglary. People don't get to decide for themselves which crimes deserve the death penalty -- and then serve as judge, jury, and executioner. Or hell, maybe they do. Maybe I should set up a sniper position near you house in case I catch you speeding....
Click to expand...

Speeding and property invasion/theft are two different scenarios.
 
Ikari said:
Well the person I was responding to said the current welfare (or lack thereof) of the girl is the fault of the ones who shot the dad (the girl is growing up without a dad). But those men were protecting the property. If you're talking about the welfare of the child, who has more direct control of that? Strangers or the parent? The father would not have been shot and killed if he were not engaging in crime. He made the choice to do so, and by doing so threw away concern for this daughter's welfare.
Click to expand...

Those men weren't protecting their property. They were out to kill for revenge.
 
Aderleth said:
Not as sad as the fact that 3 people who conspired to commit murder got off with only a $260k penalty instead of a lengthy prison sentence. Unless, of course, you think robbery should be punished with the death penalty. Without a trial or other Constitutional Due Process.
Click to expand...

Didn't President Obama just authorize the commission of murder against Al Queda's #2. The man had no part in planning or executing 9/11. The man wasn't tried before a court for any alleged crimes he may have committed since 9/11. The man was killed acting in self-defense. There was no Constitutional Due Process. Obama just ordered him to be executed by launching a missile at his car/house.
 
AdamT said:
So you agree with the verdict and don't dispute that the family is entitled to the money. Fair enough.
Click to expand...

you like making stuff up when you have no logical position to support dont you? LMAO
please either dispute what I said you dont reply most people arent dumb enough to be fooled by nonsense.
 
Ikari said:
Speeding and property invasion/theft are two different scenarios.
Click to expand...

Right, but apparently we all get to decide for ourselves what laws are punishable by death, and then administer the sentence. Speeding really ticks me off....
 
AdamT said:
Those men weren't protecting their property. They were out to kill for revenge.
Click to expand...

opinion

one that criminal law doesn't share with you
 
AdamT said:
In my opinion, Those men weren't protecting their property. I THINK They were out to kill for revenge.
Click to expand...


. the authorities who were actually there thought otherwise.
 
AdamT said:
There is no death penalty for burglary. People don't get to decide for themselves which crimes deserve the death penalty -- and then serve as judge, jury, and executioner. Or hell, maybe they do. Maybe I should set up a sniper position near you house in case I catch you speeding....
Click to expand...

Go right ahead. Of course that ridiculous analogy simply proves how illogical your position is.

This man was killed TRESSPASSING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. The ONLY person who has the Right and Responsibilitiy to set the rules of tresspass on that property and to defend that property from tresspass is the property owner. He had doubly done so by installing a fence around the property. Even a moron or a three year old can understand the meaning of a fence. This man breached the fenceline and then was caught attempting to steal while trespassing. I see absolutely nothing wrong with what this property owner did.

On the other hand you suggest setting up a sniper position to attack someone on a piece of PUBLIC property (a road) for which you are not the owner of, nor are you the proper authority for enforcing law and order on that property.
 
AdamT said:
Right, but apparently we all get to decide for ourselves what laws are punishable by death, and then administer the sentence. Speeding really ticks me off....
Click to expand...

talk about dishonesty LMAO

if we are going to use irrational examples Ill take your" logic" and use it against you


"If I decide to play in traffic and I get run over its the drivers fault MORE than mine!!

you know because he could have hit his brakes or steered around me or simply hit his horn to alarm me."

LMAO

thats great logic
 
AdamT said:
Those men weren't protecting their property. They were out to kill for revenge.
Click to expand...

So says you. But not the law. The law didn't prosecute. The Civil court found that they were liable for the man's death. The world isn't based off of what you think. If there are string of break ins and you find the guys breaking in, what's to say that they aren't armed (and this man was) and that they aren't prepared to bring violence as a solution to their entanglement? Are you going to stop and ask, "Excuse me, my good sir. Might I inquire as to your ready state of arms? I ask only because if you should be armed, I will have to respond with force of my own."? No, of course not. He broke into the property to steal and was confronted by the owners. The owners responded to the act of theft against them. The criminal courts found that there was no room to prosecute the men for their actions. The civil court, which is under relaxed burden of proof when compared to the criminal courts, found that the men are liable for the death of the criminal.
 
I'm pro-gun and for the right of individuals to protect their homes and families with lethal force. If someone, armed or not, breaks into my home while my family is there, they are going to get shot on the spot. I'm not going to wait to see what they have in mind.

This is different. They laid in wait, murdered the guy as he tried to hide from them. They had him trapped. All they had to do was call the cops. Instead, they executed him. I'm stunned that they aren't in prison. As for the civil suit, they got off easy.
 
AdamT said:
Right, but apparently we all get to decide for ourselves what laws are punishable by death, and then administer the sentence. Speeding really ticks me off....
Click to expand...

It can piss you off as much as you want, but it's not the same magnitude of threat and you know it. Hyperbole will do nothing for your argument.
 
AdamT said:
Not opinion: fact. "Milanovic and his father told police a week before the shooting they would shoot any intruders who returned."

Read more: Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
Click to expand...

seems you dont understand that word fact LMAO

how old are you?

if it was a fact they would have been convicted of murder, they werent so it makes it nothing more than you OPINION and you are guessing. :shrug:
 
Centrist77 said:
talk about dishonesty LMAO

if we are going to use irrational examples Ill take your" logic" and use it against you


"If I decide to play in traffic and I get run over its the drivers fault MORE than mine!!

you know because he could have hit his brakes or steered around me or simply hit his horn to alarm me."

LMAO

thats great logic
Click to expand...

That would not be an extension of my logic. Try again.
 
AdamT said:
Right, but apparently we all get to decide for ourselves what laws are punishable by death, and then administer the sentence. Speeding really ticks me off....
Click to expand...

On your own property, you damn well ought to be able to. On your own property you damn well ought to be able to enforce whatever rules YOU find acceptable, so long as they do not effect those who are not on your property.
 
AdamT said:
Is that why they convened a grand jury?
Click to expand...

is that why it never went to trial?


If I falsely accuse you of child rape you will be investigated. If I convince a little boy to lie to the cops, you will probably be taken before a grand jury. they will probably dismiss the case.

does the fact that you went before a grand jury make you a child rapist? using your logic...it does.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
That would not be an extension of my logic. Try again.
Click to expand...
actually it is, you are just to dishonest to see it. :shrug:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom