Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

AdamT said:

As would I. But if you run away, or run into a closet, I'm not going to hunt you down like a dog.

Click to expand...

Yes, because I know what you're doing in the closet. You're just standing there, scared. I obviously know if you're pulling out a pistol or planning some other violent act. I should just assume.

That's the premise of your whole argument - assume. Assume he didn't want to use a weapon. Assume he was trying to get away peacefully. Assume this, assume that.

Assumption is the mother of all fook-ups.

Gipper said:

Seriously, if I catch you in my home

Click to expand...

Wasn't home invasion. The laws in that state are more strict for the case you describe. I don't think most people would disagree with you on home invasion.

Although if you saw it was a 12 year old neighbor kid, I would hope you'd be man enough not to kill them. Just saying.

AdamT said:

I believe that their goal was to go undetected. They didn't set out to attack anyone.

Click to expand...

3 knives is a helluva plan B wouldnt you say?

Gipper said:

Yes, because I know what you're doing in the closet. You're just standing there, scared. I obviously know if you're pulling out a pistol or planning some other violent act. I should just assume.

That's the premise of your whole argument - assume. Assume he didn't want to use a weapon. Assume he was trying to get away peacefully. Assume this, assume that.

Assumption is the mother of all fook-ups.

Click to expand...

The premise for my argument, and the law, is reasonableness. If the guy runs into the closet I don't assume he's assembling a suitcase nuke. I don't assume he has a gun, but was keeping the bullets in his shoe. These would not be reasonable assumptions.

Mach said:

Wasn't home invasion. The laws in that state are more strict for the case you describe. I don't think most people would disagree with you on home invasion.

Click to expand...

All that proves is that the state laws need to be changed. If you stumble upon a burglar - an armed burglar - in your home, you can no more easily predict or determine what will happen than in a car lot. Desperate thieves aren't exactly pinnacles of rational thought.

Although if you saw it was a 12 year old neighbor kid, I would hope you'd be man enough not to kill them. Just saying.

Click to expand...

I don't care how old someone is - if you trespass on to my property, armed, with the intention of robbing me, you need to be prepared for consequences...whatever they may be. Just saying.

AdamT said:

The assumption is that just because the guy had knives on him, he planned on using them.

Click to expand...

It's a reasonable assumption so long as the individual in question is not in the act of committing a crime. You typically bring weapons with you while committing crimes not for aesthetic purposes. Once the person is committing a crime and is armed, it's reasonable to assume that they will use that weapon in the commission of the crime.

The premise for my argument, and the law, is reasonableness. If the guy runs into the closet I don't assume he's assembling a suitcase nuke. I don't assume he has a gun, but was keeping the bullets in his shoe. These would not be reasonable assumptions.

Click to expand...

You seem to be saying "reasonable" a whole lot for an instance of impromptu-discovered grand theft auto. I don't think reason plays any part.

You go into "reasonable" mode. I'll go into survival mode. If the only way I can ensure my life is to take yours away from you, that's exactly what I'm going to do...and I won't feel an inch bad about it.

Ikari said:

It's a reasonable assumption so long as the individual in question is not in the act of committing a crime. You typically bring weapons with you while committing crimes not for aesthetic purposes. Once the person is committing a crime and is armed, it's reasonable to assume that they will use that weapon in the commission of the crime.

Click to expand...

I'll give you that, but it's beside the point. He didn't use them, or even threaten to use them.

Gipper said:

I don't care how old someone is - if you trespass on to my property, armed, with the intention of robbing me, you need to be prepared for consequences...whatever they may be. Just saying.

Click to expand...

Now you're saying armed.
But then you claimed anyone could be armed.

So why are you adding "armed" to your criteria? I think you're full of crap about requiring them to be armed.

Gipper said:

You seem to be saying "reasonable" a whole lot for an instance of impromptu-discovered grand theft auto. I don't think reason plays any part.

You go into "reasonable" mode. I'll go into survival mode. If the only way I can ensure my life is to take yours away from you, that's exactly what I'm going to do...and I won't feel an inch bad about it.

Click to expand...

Again, "reasonable" is part of the legal standard for self defense -- not my invention. If you choose not to follow the law that's your business. But don't whine if you kill someone and end up paying a price for it. :shrug:

Adam, I am asking a serious question...do you actually believe the crap you're spewing, or are you just trying to keep the thread going? I'd honestly like to know.

Gipper said:

Adam, I am asking a serious question...do you actually believe the crap you're spewing, or are you just trying to keep the thread going? I'd honestly like to know.

Click to expand...

I absolutely believe it. Is it so incredible that I would oppose killing someone who doesn't pose a reasonable threat to your safety?

jamesrage said:

Did burglars trespass and were attempting to steal from the property owner? Yes? then I would say the property owner was justified in using lethal force.

Click to expand...

When its not your home, the law rarely agrees. If these guys were in their own house, things may have been different.

Mach said:

Now you're saying armed.
But then you claimed anyone could be armed.

So why are you adding "armed" to your criteria? I think you're full of crap about requiring them to be armed.

Click to expand...

As I stated before, if you trespass onto my property with the intent of robbing me, it's your burden of proof to convince me that you are not armed. If I don't feel safe, I will neutralize the situation any way I choose to. I'm not going to assume a damn thing.

AdamT said:

I'll give you that, but it's beside the point. He didn't use them, or even threaten to use them.

Click to expand...

Certainly did not. This is one of those iffy cases, I can see why the owners would still shoot. I guess in that sense, the proper judgment is no criminal court, but civil liability; which was the eventual outcome of this particular case. Still, it's something a lot of us would rather see no civil responsibility since all of this initiated off of an individual's choice to commit a crime against another person.

AdamT said:

I absolutely believe it. Is it so incredible that I would oppose killing someone who doesn't pose a reasonable threat to your safety?

Click to expand...

And if you're wrong about the "reasonable threat to your safety"? Is your life worth being wrong?

I know mine's not.

Ikari said:

Certainly did not. This is one of those iffy cases, I can see why the owners would still shoot. I guess in that sense, the proper judgment is no criminal court, but civil liability; which was the eventual outcome of this particular case. Still, it's something a lot of us would rather see no civil responsibility since all of this initiated off of an individual's choice to commit a crime against another person.

Click to expand...

Clearly the best result would have been for the property ownes to hold them until the police arrived so they could be prosecuted for burglary.

Spoken like a sequestered academic who has never seen "real" violence in his life.

Gipper said:

And if you're wrong about the "reasonable threat to your safety"? Is your life worth being wrong?

I know mine's not.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's worth not shooting people for irrational reasons. If I'm walking down an empty street at night, and there's someone walking behind me, I don't get to shoot them in the head just because there's a remote chance that they might attack me.

Gipper said:

Spoken like a sequestered academic who has never seen "real" violence in his life.

Click to expand...

Spoken like a keyboard cowboy....

AdamT said:

Clearly the best result would have been for the property ownes to hold them until the police arrived so they could be prosecuted for burglary.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would argue that point. The best result would have been that the criminal was successfully detained without further resistance and that the police arrived and were able to make a clean arrest with no one else getting hurt. Would of, could of, should of. However, being in these circumstances is a lot different that sitting back on an internet political board talking about it. None of us were there, we do not know what the people were thinking of the threat they believed themselves to be under. That's really the key there. There are many things which can go wrong in the apprehension and subduing of a criminal. They didn't know what he was doing. He didn't show his hands or try to surrender or run off the property. Instead, he took position within the property out of eyesight of the owners. There was no way for them to know at the time what he was doing and could still easily perceive the criminal as a legitimate threat. Better safe than sorry in some cases, particularly when your life is actually on the line.

I don't think what is being said here is that every confrontation with a criminal should end with the criminal being shot dead. But rather that should it come to it, should the individual (who was not doing anything wrong, he was not the initiator of force; that is very important. The initiator of force was the criminal) feel threatened to the level of necessitating response, that there should be proper protections built in for that individual. An individual should not be punished for protecting their rights and liberties from outside threat and force.

The simple lesson here is that if you do not want your rights infringed upon, do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Gipper said:

Unless he's a butcher, I'd say common sense would dictate that carrying knives during an incident of grand theft auto slightly leans toward the side of carrying them for potential use. Either you're attempting to be the devil's advocate here, or you're astronomically ignorant.

Click to expand...

I decided this was the case for him many posts ago

AdamT said:

The premise for my argument, and the law, is reasonableness. If the guy runs into the closet I don't assume he's assembling a suitcase nuke. I don't assume he has a gun, but was keeping the bullets in his shoe. These would not be reasonable assumptions.

Click to expand...

this is a prime example of dishonesty

AdamT said:

Yeah, it's worth not shooting people for irrational reasons. If I'm walking down an empty street at night, and there's someone walking behind me, I don't get to shoot them in the head just because there's a remote chance that they might attack me.

Click to expand...

more dishonesty WOW

AdamT said:

Yeah, it's worth not shooting people for irrational reasons. If I'm walking down an empty street at night, and there's someone walking behind me, I don't get to shoot them in the head just because there's a remote chance that they might attack me.

Click to expand...

Dang! Thise news stories got it wrong! They said the business owners were on their own property when a meth addict armed with three knives broke in to their property. They didnt say they were wandering the streets just randomly shooting people. That changes EVERYTHING...