• 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.
Ikari said:
So I must take a vantage point of the door were I can get a clear shot because I can't shoot through anything; thus putting me in his line of fire as well. I should pray that he doesn't have a weapon he's willing to use and will at least have the common courtesy of opening the door first before he chooses to open fire upon me. That's your definition of reasonable. Here's mine. If you don't want me to shoot you, do not commit crimes against me. How's that for reasonable? I'm not the one in the wrong, I'm not the one who made the choice to act against the rights of others. But I sure as hell DO have the right to defend my own rights and liberties against outside force.

If we exclude your obvious hyperbole, yes mine is more rational for mine puts power in the hands of the law abiding citizen protecting their own rights and liberties. If I have the right to violently overthrow the government should it become too large a threat against my rights and liberties (and I do), I have the right to use force against others equally trying to infringe upon my rights and liberties.
Click to expand...

No, in most states, and in the state in question in particurlar, you would be breaking the law. You would be committing a more serious crime than burglarly.
 
AdamT said:
No, in most states, and in the state in question in particurlar, you would be breaking the law. You would be committing a more serious crime than burglarly.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to be what the Grand Jury decided.
 
OscarB63 said:
Adam T assumes that since the guy ran into the shed that he was fleeing and afraid
the rest of us reasonable people don't make the assupmtion that an armed criminal has good or peaceful intentions
:shrug:
Click to expand...

That wasn't the issue though. Reasonable people don't camp out at a place of business with the intent to kill fleeing petty theives who didn't brandish guns. At least that's what the jury concluded. Did you disagree with the law itself, or their verdict?
 
AdamT said:
Then you would call the cops.
Click to expand...

And if he ends up dead because he had to wait, you'd say what? "Well at least he acted reasonably and died."?
 
AdamT said:
And around and around we go....
Click to expand...

it's because you're continually trying to sidestep fact and reality. While the civil court found them liable for the deaths, the criminal court system did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute.
 
jamesrage said:
'
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.



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.



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.
Click to expand...

Except James....the law disagrees with you. One of the basic tenements of Criminal law is that you cannot use lethal force to protect property. If there was a legitimate self-defense claim, then that would be a different story. Also, you downplay the fact that the law treats residences and businesses differently. "A man's home is his castle", is an old fashioned saying but one that still has some relevance in the courts today. Judges and prosecutors often give people more of the benefit of the doubt when the issue involves a residence over a business.

This case is a good example of people who take things to far...and these guys are lucky that they weren't prosecuted for murder because they very easily could have been.

Just because your business has been robbed in the past doesn't give you license to kill the next burglar. You might wish that it were the case, but that is not the way that American law operates. Its really just that simple.
 
AdamT said:
How is that? If you steal my hubcaps you aren't threatening my life.
Click to expand...


I will grant you that my opinion differs from the strict letter of the law in many states... though as exhibited by the grand jury's refusal to indict, I think many of the citizenry are closer to my own opinion:

More dead thieves killed by outraged homeowners and business owners would be a good thing for society, and I'd have no problem with it. Especially if they are found to have been armed at the time.

There's a reason why, in most jurisdictions, being found with a weapon while in commission of a theft typically makes it a more serious crime with more prison time attached... when you set out armed to commit theft, you are deliberately putting yourself in a position to kill innocent persons whose only crime is not wanting you to take what they've worked hard to obtain. Such persons are, IMO, a waste of breath and skin.

No, I'm not speaking theoretically, I've known such people personally. I have a relative who is a meth-head knife-toting thief... if you catch him in the act, by all means shoot him dead; his wife and children and everyone else that puts up with him will be SO much better off, not to mention society.
 
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...
You being 'sure' doesnt count for much. World of difference between hunting down a woman and slicing her up and protecting your business from an armed meth addict. Well...maybe not in your world...
 
disneydude said:
This case is a good example of people who take things to far...and these guys are lucky that they weren't prosecuted for murder because they very easily could have been.
Click to expand...

Could have. But apparently the State didn't demonstrate enough evidence to a Grand Jury to warrant a full trial.
 
So an armed man broke into a car lot attempting to burglarize, where the owners decided to protect their rights and property by firing first. What's the problem?

This isn't premeditation. This is defense. You shoot first and ask questions later, especially when you know the other person also has the ability to shoot. What were the owners supposed to do, make a deal with this piece of crap? "I'll put my gun down if you do?"...nah. Remove this scum from society. Hang this story out for the masses. Let it be known - if you willfully and maliciously strip the rights from an innocent party, some of your own very basic rights may be voided.

Maybe some of these lowlifes of society will think twice before they grab a firearm and try to take what isn't theirs.
 
Ikari said:
Stand in front of the garage and clearly shout "Well my good sir, the chase has come to an end, as it be. I shall now inform the cops and they will be here in about 5-10 minutes if they feel like it. In the meantime, my good man, I would find it quite sporting of you if you would not attempt any further attempt on my life or property. We are both reasonable men, yes? Well then it's safe to assume that you are not arming yourself further with intent to escape and/or harm myself or my family. In that case, would you be so kind as to hold up there while the police arrive. Thank you very much my good sir, tea will be served shortly".
Click to expand...

So fleeing = arming yourself further? lol, jury isn't buying that.

I have done what you described above. It resulted in an arrest, no injuries, insignificant damages (one broken window). I'd have been a coward and a dumb-**** if I had shot the kid first, and so would you.
 
OscarB63 said:
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"



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.
Click to expand...
Hell, I aint bashful and I dont need the legal definition or court conviction to call a murder a murder. OJ Simpson went Ginsu on his wife and her boyfriend. He murdered them. That is my opinion. These men protected their business. World of difference between that and murder.
 
Ikari said:
Could have. But apparently the State didn't demonstrate enough evidence to a Grand Jury to warrant a full trial.
Click to expand...
That's apparently the case, like I said, they were lucky that didn't get indicted on murder charges. I hate to say it, but a lot of what determines whether a case is filed or not depends on a lot of things, it can be very political and a lot of it depends on racial and economic factors.
 
Ikari said:
And if he ends up dead because he had to wait, you'd say what? "Well at least he acted reasonably and died."?
Click to expand...

The hypothetical is that he just ran into the garage. Obviously if he runs out and acts aggressively it's a different situation. You think the smart thing would be to go into the garage after him?
 
Gipper said:
So an armed man broke into a car lot attempting to burglarize, where the owners decided to protect their rights and property by firing first. What's the problem?

This isn't premeditation. This is defense. You shoot first and ask questions later, especially when you know the other person also has the ability to shoot. What were the owners supposed to do, make a deal with this piece of crap? "I'll put my gun down if you do?"...nah. Remove this scum from society. Hang this story out for the masses. Let it be known - if you willfully and maliciously strip the rights from an innocent party, some of your own very basic rights may be voided.

Maybe some of these lowlifes of society will think twice before they grab a firearm and try to take what isn't theirs.
Click to expand...

Yeah...that's what we need.....more vigilantes in our society......sorry, no.

BTW..."Shoot first, ask questions later" has led a many a lengthy prison sentence....jusy sayin.
 
Mach said:
So fleeing = arming yourself further? lol, jury isn't buying that.
Click to expand...

The Grand Jury apparently did. This was civil court where the burden of proof is lower. It wasn't running off the property, it was taking up position within the property. You ASSUME it would result in an arrest, no injuries, and insignificant damages; but barring psychic power you don't actually know at the time.
 
I'll make sure the next time I try to rob someone's property, I'll stand out in the open to reload my pistol. Apparently hiding behind objects to put in another clip means I was escaping or being passive.
 
disneydude said:
That's apparently the case, like I said, they were lucky that didn't get indicted on murder charges. I hate to say it, but a lot of what determines whether a case is filed or not depends on a lot of things, it can be very political and a lot of it depends on racial and economic factors.
Click to expand...

The truth is that prosecutors rarely file charges in these cases, unless it's totally clear cut. Prosecutors are in the business of putting criminals in jail. They aren't very sympathetic when crooks get chopped down in the process, even if it goes against the law. Neither are juries.
 
Gipper said:
I'll make sure the next time I try to rob someone's property, I'll stand out in the open to reload my pistol. Apparently hiding behind objects to put in another clip means I was escaping or being passive.
Click to expand...

That assumes that you already emptied a clip, which would make the question somewhat academic. But you probably would be well advised to load your gun ahead of time if your intention is to use it.
 
AdamT said:
The hypothetical is that he just ran into the garage. Obviously if he runs out and acts aggressively it's a different situation. You think the smart thing would be to go into the garage after him?
Click to expand...

But that's your Catch-22. If he succeeds in taking up his position somewhere you can't quite see, you can't do anything until you are shot at first. Perhaps I'll take the Han Solo approach. Perhaps not. But I'm not going to limit an individual's options when they are facing threats of this nature.
 
AdamT said:
The truth is that prosecutors rarely file charges in these cases, unless it's totally clear cut. Prosecutors are in the business of putting criminals in jail. They aren't very sympathetic when crooks get chopped down in the process, even if it goes against the law. Neither are juries.
Click to expand...

And perhaps that's the way it should be. Perhaps if a jury of your peers believes you did nothing wrong and rules that way, you've discovered the reason why we have trial by a jury of your peers.
 
Ikari said:
But that's your Catch-22. If he succeeds in taking up his position somewhere you can't quite see, you can't do anything until you are shot at first. Perhaps I'll take the Han Solo approach. Perhaps not. But I'm not going to limit an individual's options when they are facing threats of this nature.
Click to expand...

What if the guy's running away? Would you shoot him in the back on the assumption that he might turn around and charge you? Or maybe he's just seeking cover so he can reassemble his mysteriously disassembled assault weapon?
 
AdamT said:
The truth is that prosecutors rarely file charges in these cases, unless it's totally clear cut. Prosecutors are in the business of putting criminals in jail. They aren't very sympathetic when crooks get chopped down in the process, even if it goes against the law. Neither are juries.
Click to expand...

Gee...I wonder why that is.

I guess if I'm ever a juror in a rape case where the woman happened to find a large rock she could use to bash an attacker's head, I'll push for an assault conviction on her. Especially if he's carrying a knife. Apparently there's no difference between plugging a knowingly unarmed man and an armed one. I mean, I know when I carry a knife or gun on my random felony excursions, I just use it as a conversation piece - nothing more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom