• 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.
Ive seen this kind of garbage so many times....Ive numbed myself to it
 
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.

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.
 
whatever Matlock. the fact that a bleeding heart jury decided to give his family $$$ doesn't prove anything. :roll:

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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.

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.
 
The standard for a criminal TRIAL is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for a criminal INDICTMENT is preponderance of the evidence.

then apparently, contrary to your OPINION, there wasn't a preponderance of evidence, since these guys weren't indicted. :lamo
 
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?


drag him out and shoot him in the hallway.
 
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.


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.
 
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.
That, and it is relatively easy to introduce reasonable doubt.
The fact that a certain jury found it 51% likely that the people here did not act in self-defense is piss-poor foundation for an argument that they are guilty of a criminal act.
 
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.

nothing?

field-cricket.jpg
 
The law in Colorado is clear:

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

'Overkill'...not just an unfunny pun.
 
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?

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.
 
then apparently, contrary to your OPINION, there wasn't a preponderance of evidence, since these guys weren't indicted. :lamo

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.
 
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.
 
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.

In MY HOUSE?
Family there?

I shoot the closet till there was nothing left of it. Wouldnt be able to tell where the wood ends and his insides begins.
 
And you would go to jail.

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.
 

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.
 
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.

teh FACT that these guys were not convicted and not in jail is proof positive that according to the law, again contrary to your matlock opinion, they are NOT murderers.
 
Last edited:
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.

Not at all. He was armed. The people defending themselves and their property had no way of knowing his intentions.

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?

I would have shot him.

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.

It's more tragic to me that people feel sorry for a drug addict, thieving scum. But the over dramatic descriptions are just annoying.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

The only thing it proves is that they weren't tried and convicted. It doesn't prove that they aren't 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.

that's why you drag him out and shoot him in the hallway
 
The only thing it proves is that they weren't tried and convicted. It doesn't prove that they aren't murderers.

again...look up the legal definition of "murderer". for an alleged lawyer, you sure have a crappy vocabulary. :lamo
 
Last edited:
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.

It certainly is a possible outcome, as demonstrated here. If you break into someone's house or property, there is always a chance you'll get shot for your efforts.
 
The only thing it proves is that they weren't tried and convicted. It doesn't prove that they aren't murderers.

Yes, but they are presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom