• 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.
DiAnna said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good for them. Next time maybe people will think twice before jumping the fence to rob them. The police don't do ****. The courts don't do **** to criminals. THIS sort of thing needs to become a lot more COMMON if we're ever going to take our country back.

I believe it was the Attorney General of South Carolina who once said.... "Invade a House, Invite a Bullet."
 
Centrist77 said:
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:
Click to expand...

Juries don't always follow the law. That is a fact. There is no questin that the shooters broke the law in this case. The law only excuses lethal force if the person employing it reasonably believed that he was facing an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm and if he could not safely retreat. In this case the person using lethal force administered it by shooting through a door with a rifle at a person who was hiding from him. Through a straight application of the law this would be an open and shut case.
 
Tigger said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you think you should be able to rape someone on your property ... as long as they were invited?
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

What was the magnitude of threat to the guy holding the rifle with the burglar cowering in a shed?
 
AdamT said:
Juries don't always follow the law. That is a fact. There is no questin that the shooters broke the law in this case. The law only excuses lethal force if the person employing it reasonably believed that he was facing an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm and if he could not safely retreat. In this case the person using lethal force administered it by shooting through a door with a rifle at a person who was hiding from him. Through a straight application of the law this would be an open and shut case.
Click to expand...

without proof its nothing more than you opinion no matter how much you cry about it LMAO

what if that guy was just about to run out and charge with his knives
what if that guy was loading his own gun(yes i know it was found that he didnt have one)

and a million other possibilities.

sorry its nothing more than your opinion whether you accept it or not.

who gets to decide the threat???? YOU??

nope that is something subjective, IMO if he is CRAZY enough to break on to my property he might be crazy enough to do anything why should I be FORCED to risk it?

Like I said the majority of the people in this thread live in reality and you dont sorry.
 
AdamT said:
What was the magnitude of threat to the guy holding the rifle with the burglar cowering in a shed?
Click to expand...

The man had already made a decision to break into their property and steal stuff from it. How are they to know he wasn't armed? He was armed, BTW. He merely brought knives to a gun fight.
 
AdamT said:
No, it isn't. You have a problem with logic.
Click to expand...

thanks for further proving my point. Your dishonesty is staggering.
 
AdamT said:
Juries don't always follow the law. That is a fact. There is no questin that the shooters broke the law in this case. The law only excuses lethal force if the person employing it reasonably believed that he was facing an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm and if he could not safely retreat. In this case the person using lethal force administered it by shooting through a door with a rifle at a person who was hiding from him. Through a straight application of the law this would be an open and shut case.
Click to expand...

do us a favor: google "dictionary.com" and look up the definition for "opinion". apparently you have that confused with "fact"
 
AdamT said:
What was the magnitude of threat to the guy holding the rifle with the burglar cowering in a shed?
Click to expand...

cowering?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

how do you know? were you there? did you see him?

maybe he was getting a weapon? maybe he was loading a gun? maybe he was getting ready to grab an axe out of the shed and come out charging and swinging?

ALL OPINION
ZERO FACTS
 
OscarB63 said:
do us a favor: google "dictionary.com" and look up the definition for "opinion". apparently you have that confused with "fact"
Click to expand...

thats very very clear Im guessing this person is also a teenager
 
Centrist77 said:
without proof its nothing more than you opinion no matter how much you cry about it LMAO

what if that guy was just about to run out and charge with his knives
what if that guy was loading his own gun(yes i know it was found that he didnt have one)

and a million other possibilities.

sorry its nothing more than your opinion whether you accept it or not.

who gets to decide the threat???? YOU??

nope that is something subjective, IMO if he is CRAZY enough to break on to my property he might be crazy enough to do anything why should I be FORCED to risk it?

Like I said the majority of the people in this thread live in reality and you dont sorry.
Click to expand...

The law is based upon a reasonable person standard. In other words, would a reasonable person who chased someone who was not wielding a weapon into a shed, and was standing outside the closed shed covering the door with a rifle, feel that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm? Would a reasonable person, covering the door of the shed with a .45 caliber rifle, not feel that he could withdraw from the situation? The answer in both cases is clearly no.
 
AdamT said:
So you think you should be able to rape someone on your property ... as long as they were invited?
Click to expand...

I would suggest that once that individual tresspasses onto my property without my consent I should be able to do just about anything I want to them, without restriction, since they are on MY property by their own choice and without my consent. Rape would be a little extreme, and I'd be much more inclined to just shoot them personally. I am also of the belief that owners of private businesses should be allowed to choose what clientelle they do and do not allow through their door. In my mind, that property is my own sovereign territory. You invade it at your own risk. If you wish to enter it you do so at my consent and within the rules and regulations that I have laid down for it.
 
AdamT said:
Juries don't always follow the law.
Click to expand...

Nor are they generally intersted in JUSTICE, since the court system has no use for that concept anymore.
 
AdamT said:
The law is based upon a reasonable person standard. In other words, would a reasonable person who chased someone who was not wielding a weapon into a shed, and was standing outside the closed shed covering the door with a rifle, feel that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm? Would a reasonable person, covering the door of the shed with a .45 caliber rifle, not feel that he could withdraw from the situation? The answer in both cases is clearly no.
Click to expand...

no that is YOUR answer and YOUR opinion! LMAO why cant you understand that fact?
Without being those guys and being in the situation I cant answer for THEM and neither can you LMAO

how do they know he wasnt armed? should they wait until bullets hit them of fly by them?

Maybe as soon as I withdraw I get shot in the back or maybe Its me that gets shot through the door if I dont shoot first???

The answers to both cases is clearly who knows? YOU dont get to make those decisions LMAO

Like I said, reality vs fantasy and you are living in the later.
 
AdamT said:
The law is based upon a reasonable person standard. In other words, would a reasonable person who chased someone who was not wielding a weapon into a shed, and was standing outside the closed shed covering the door with a rifle, feel that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm? Would a reasonable person, covering the door of the shed with a .45 caliber rifle, not feel that he could withdraw from the situation? The answer in both cases is clearly no.
Click to expand...

apparently the grand jury thought otherwise. once again, see the difference between fact and opinion
 
OscarB63 said:
apparently the grand jury thought otherwise. once again, see the difference between fact and opinion
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what the grand jury's opinion was. It's not unusual for a grand jury to ignore the facts and law in cases like this.
 
If someone breaks into my house, they are very likely to get shot. I wont bother to check and see if they are armed, either. The outrage over this dead meth addict is amusing to me. A loss of companionship? Now that is ridiculous. What type of father was he to his daughter when he was committing armed burglary to support his drug habit? We're not talking about the father of the year. We're talking about a low life drug addict who steals from hard working people to support his drug habit. His daughter is very likely better off without him. As she grows up, he would have likely stolen from her, as well. Drug addicts steal from everyone: businesses, homeowners, their families, even their own children.

As for me, I will defend my family, myself, and my property with deadly force if need be. And I'll put any remains in the hog pin after I am done. Better to turn them into bacon than to pay an outrageous law suit or face prison time. The bleeding hearts in this country are what keeps the rate of criminal activity as high as it is. I feel no sympathy for people who get shot while being low life thieves.

Warning: Video contains graphic violence!



Too bad the dogs had to die.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Yes, I know what the grand jury's opinion was. It's not unusual for a grand jury to ignore the facts and law in cases like this.
Click to expand...


Wow, simply wow
Id like to log post 142 as more proof of living in fantasy.

So all the people in this thread and the grand jury are all wrong because you simply just KNOW the facts and all QUESTIONS and CONCERNS should be answered by YOU ans only YOU?

:lamo
 
AdamT said:
Yes, I know what the grand jury's opinion was. It's not unusual for a grand jury to ignore the facts and law in cases like this.
Click to expand...

You're ASSUMING they ignored facts and law. The FACT of the matter is that the State must PROVE that there is enough evidence to go forward with a case, and in this instance apparently were unable to bring about a satisfactory amount of evidence for it.
 
Centrist77 said:
no that is YOUR answer and YOUR opinion! LMAO why cant you understand that fact?
Without being those guys and being in the situation I cant answer for THEM and neither can you LMAO

how do they know he wasnt armed? should they wait until bullets hit them of fly by them?

Maybe as soon as I withdraw I get shot in the back or maybe Its me that gets shot through the door if I dont shoot first???

The answers to both cases is clearly who knows? YOU dont get to make those decisions LMAO

Like I said, reality vs fantasy and you are living in the later.
Click to expand...

One way we know is from the police report:

Police said in a 145-page investigative report that the intruder had knives in his pockets and one strapped to his ankle, but never posed a threat to Milanovic or the other men

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

Obviously the defendants in this case could have held their fire unless or until the person inside tried to exit -- at minimum. It simply was not reasonable to shoot him through the closed door. If you don't get that then you just don't understand the legal standard.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, I know what the grand jury's opinion was. It's not unusual for a grand jury to ignore the facts and law in cases like this.
Click to expand...

so you, sitting in your mother's basement, know more about it than the jury members who were actually there and actually saw the evidence? that's just great!!!! can you also tell me who really killed JFK? what a freakin joke :lamo
 
Ikari said:
You're ASSUMING they ignored facts and law. The FACT of the matter is that the State must PROVE that there is enough evidence to go forward with a case, and in this instance apparently were unable to bring about a satisfactory amount of evidence for it.
Click to expand...

And that is YOUR assumption. I'm guessing that you've never served on a jury, let alone tried a case to one?
 
AdamT said:
One way we know is from the police report:

Police said in a 145-page investigative report that the intruder had knives in his pockets and one strapped to his ankle, but never posed a threat to Milanovic or the other men

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

Obviously the defendants in this case could have held their fire unless or until the person inside tried to exit -- at minimum. It simply was not reasonable to shoot him through the closed door. If you don't get that then you just don't understand the legal standard.
Click to expand...

Hindsight is wonderful. But try being in the situation. AFTER THE FACT, they were able to determine that he was no threat since he was ARMED with only knives. However, if you're the owners of the property, how do you know? When he took cover in the shed, it was just as probable that he had more than just knives on him, that he was preparing to retaliate. YOU obviously do not understand the legal standard since the standard was used and the State was unable to provide sufficient evidence to go ahead with a prosecution.
 
AdamT said:
One way we know is from the police report:

Police said in a 145-page investigative report that the intruder had knives in his pockets and one strapped to his ankle, but never posed a threat to Milanovic or the other men

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

Obviously the defendants in this case could have held their fire unless or until the person inside tried to exit -- at minimum. It simply was not reasonable to shoot him through the closed door. If you don't get that then you just don't understand the legal standard.
Click to expand...

again, the only thing that is obvious is that you don't know the difference between fact and opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom