I think a lot of folks here are just trolling for lulz. There is no way executing the guy in cold blood was warranted, and some of these posts would be chilling if they weren't just contrived bullcrap designed for ****s and giggles.
whatever Matlock. the fact that a bleeding heart jury decided to give his family $$$ doesn't prove anything. :roll:
I have no sense of humor. Especially when it comes to firearms related issues and self-defense. As a gun owner and someone who does own firearms for self-defense and personal protection I have thought long and hard about whether or not I could use one on another person and under what circumstances. I've cone to the conclusion that I both could and would do so.
My property is worth more than the life of anyone stupid enough to try and take it from me. It's that simple.
Sure it proves something. It proves that after a full trial a jury decided that it was more likely than not that the defendants were not acting in self defense. It suggests that plaintiffs' attorney did a better job of presenting the case than the ADA did in the grand jury hearing.
The standard for a criminal TRIAL is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for a criminal INDICTMENT is preponderance of the evidence.
So, out of curiousity, if there was a burglar in your house and you chased him into a closet. What would you do? Call the cops and hold him there, or shoot him through the door?
This is ridiculous. The burglar didn't break into someone's home. He was on a used car lot, for crying out loud. He was trapped inside a shed. All these "what if he shot through the door, what if he came out with an axe" speculations don't mean ****. He didn't shoot through the door, he didn't run out with a weapon. He was trying to hide. The cops could have been called and the guy hauled off to prison. Instead he was executed, on a used car lot, for trying to break into one of the cars. Last I heard, that is not a capital crime.
I think a lot of folks here are just trolling for lulz. There is no way executing the guy in cold blood was warranted, and some of these posts would be chilling if they weren't just contrived bullcrap designed for ****s and giggles.
That, and it is relatively easy to introduce reasonable doubt.That, or that the prosecution had a well constructed jury which would have been more sympathetic to the deceased than the grand jury hearing the facts of the trial would have been. I think lawyers have gone a long way in destroying the purpose of a jury trial.
AdamT I will still also LOVE to hear you explain how the man that shot the guy is more at fault than the guy who got shot for there being a fatherless little girl now.
This is just one of the things you seemed to ignore, dodge or talk around buy im VERY curious on your answer I think its going to be very entertaining.
To flashback it was brought up that there is no a fatherless girl because this guy (the father who was a burglar, drug addict and intruder) got shot while trespassing but a property owner and you said the property owner is more to blame than the father.
Under Colorado’s self-defense laws, the use of deadly force is justified only under the “reasonable belief” that it’s necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. The jury found that none of the men had a legitimate claim of self-defense.
Property rights are not a lawful defense for using deadly force in Colorado, and the state’s so-called Make My Day law, which sets lower standard for using force, applies to households, not businesses.
Read more: Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
So, out of curiousity, if there was a burglar in your house and you chased him into a closet. What would you do? Call the cops and hold him there, or shoot him through the door?
then apparently, contrary to your OPINION, there wasn't a preponderance of evidence, since these guys weren't indicted. :lamo
Hopefully he'd have been shot before he got to the closet. If he did make it there he'd get shot through the door then dragged out to make sure the job was finished.
Hopefully he'd have been shot before he got to the closet. If he did make it there he'd get shot through the door then dragged out to make sure the job was finished.
And you would go to jail.
As a matter of FACT, one jury found a preponderance of the evidence and another did not. We can opine about which jury was correct, but I would side with the one that listened to a full trial with motivated attorneys on both sides.
This is ridiculous. The burglar didn't break into someone's home. He was on a used car lot, for crying out loud. He was trapped inside a shed. All these "what if he shot through the door, what if he came out with an axe" speculations don't mean ****. He didn't shoot through the door, he didn't run out with a weapon. He was trying to hide. The cops could have been called and the guy hauled off to prison. Instead he was executed, on a used car lot, for trying to break into one of the cars. Last I heard, that is not a capital crime.
I think a lot of folks here are just trolling for lulz. There is no way executing the guy in cold blood was warranted, and some of these posts would be chilling if they weren't just contrived bullcrap designed for ****s and giggles.
So, out of curiousity, if there was a burglar in your house and you chased him into a closet. What would you do? Call the cops and hold him there, or shoot him through the door?
WOW thats a lot of fantasy and play on words lets count all the dishonesty and spin.
just a "car lot?" still personal property
"trapped inside a shed? trapped? hiding? planing? waiting to attack? etc etc how do you know?
"Trying to hide" how do you know?
"The cops could have been called and the guy hauled off to prison." or by time they got there he could have escaped who the cops could of discovered the owner dead with a knife sticking in him, isnt the what if game fun?
"exacted" again how do you know? maybe he was shot just before making his move?
assumption is fun but its dangerous when you presume you know everything but I guess its easy to do when its OTHERS lives who could be at risk.
You seem to b under the faulty assumption that I'd allow myself to be arrested.
Though I have an interesting question for you... What would you do with a defendant who refused to defend himself in court or answer any questions? I ask because that's exactly what my response would be, should I be arrested in such a case.
teh FACT that these guys were not convicted and not is jail is proof positive that according to the law, again contrary to your matlock opinion, they are NOT murderers.
As a rule defendants do not testify on their own behalf anyway. Presumably the evidence would show a bullet hole through the closet door and blood inside the closet, and that would probably do the trick.
The only thing it proves is that they weren't tried and convicted. It doesn't prove that they aren't murderers.
I'm pretty sure I already answered that question, but in any case.... It's a dumb question. The guy who shot the burglar to death is more at fault. In the law biz this is what's known as an intervening cause. The harm within the risk of committing burglary is that you might get caught and go to jail for a few years. You might even say that a harm within the cause is getting shot in some circumstances (burgling an occupied residence at night, for example). But getting shot through a door in broad daylight is not a proximate cause of petty burglarly.
The only thing it proves is that they weren't tried and convicted. It doesn't prove that they aren't murderers.