• 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.
Unfortunately this kind of post actually makes you sound like you're 14. And not a particularly bright 14 at that.

WOW now you have nothing to offer but failed attempts to insult LMAO
how did I know that was next :lamo usually is when people have nothing left

seriously, can you back up your false claims in anyway what so ever? We've all been waiting. I mean dont get me wrong its very entertaining watching you dodge and ignore facts and questions, twist the truth, be dishonest and argue things that are meaningless but it be nice if you had something of substance to debate too. :shrug:
 
they should be in prison.

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.

that said, his parents should be smacked for believing their son was "just in the wrong place at the wrong time"....imo, people who break the law should always expect consequences.

the civil jury found... the grand jury on the criminal side apparently felt that the men had "reasonable belief", otherwise there would have been a trial :shrug: whether people like it or not, the grand jury didn't think these guys were murderers
 
I know this reply was on the first page, but I did want to say that does not justify lethal force. Obviously, you've never been through a concealed weapons class. You CANNOT use deadly force to defend property or stop someone from trespassing on your land. Only if they break into your home where you reside or they attempt to harm you or someone else personally can you use deadly force. For instance, someone was charged with murder for shooting someone dead trying to steal his jet ski. The guys life wasn't in danger so he committed murder.

I don't agree with it, but it's the way it is. You kill someone trying to steal your car out of your driveway and you'd be lucky to only do 15 years in the clink. However, if you are IN THE VEHICLE when this occurs, put a bullet in the bastards head. But don't put one in the BACK of his head while he's under the dash trying to hotwire it when you aren't in the vehicle. However, if upon discovering he's been caught and he brandishes a weapon, any weapon worse than a screwdriver, put a bullet in his head. He is, at that point, considered armed and dangerous and you have a right to confront him (at least in Louisiana) on your property. He cannot pull a weapon without the risk of being killed. But if he just takes off running when you catch him, you can't shoot in the back. That's murder.

Forget CCW classes, here in SD we're trying to get rid of the entire license.
 
I'd like to see where I actually used that phrase. Please point it out for me.

I've been pointing out that there was no valid basis for a self defense argument. Put another way, the three guys had no actual basis for believing that they were being threatened with deadly force.

IOW, the poor drug addict who broke onto the property, armed with 3 knives posed no threat. yeah, no way that could be taken as defending him.
 
IOW, the poor drug addict who broke onto the property, armed with 3 knives posed no threat. yeah, no way that could be taken as defending him.

You've got to work on your reading comprehension, there, buddy. I didn't say that he posed no threat (we have no way of knowing what his intentions were, although it seems fairly likely that he intended to steal car stereos then run away), I said that they had no reasonable basis for believing that he posed a threat at the time he was shot. Remember, the knives were not visible, and he certainly wasn't using them in a threatening manner.
 
They weren't indicted by the grand jury. Not the same thing. Also a somewhat strange thing in this context, because a petite jury did find them guilty using the same standard of evidence, and after weighing the evidence in their favor (which the grand jury did not and could not do). In other words the jury with access to the evidence most favorable to the murderers held them liable, whereas the jury (the grand jury) that had access only to the evidence against them chose not to indict. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Actually, it's a petit jury, not a petite jury.
 
You've got to work on your reading comprehension, there, buddy. I didn't say that he posed no threat (we have no way of knowing what his intentions were, although it seems fairly likely that he intended to steal car stereos then run away), I said that they had no reasonable basis for believing that he posed a threat at the time he was shot. Remember, the knives were not visible, and he certainly wasn't using them in a threatening manner.

Do these guys have a ChipIn or any kind of fundraiser to help pay the $300K? I would like to donate.
 
Forget CCW classes, here in SD we're trying to get rid of the entire license.

That's a good subject of another thread. You shouldn't need a license to exercise a fundamental right.
 
My guess is that the prosector wasn't too interested in trying the killer and therefore didn't put on a particularly inspired presentation to the jury. After all, if he had really wanted to charge the killer he could have requested a preliminary hearing before a judge rather than going to the grand jury. It's far more likely that a judge would have found probable cause to indict.
 
Certainly not if you define murder as requiring criminal conviction. I guess you could also say that the guy who was shot wasn't a burglar, because he wasn't convicted of burglary.

true but he was a drug addict
 
true but he was a drug addict

Apparently. But people have been known to beat drug addictions ... provided they haven't been shot through the heart first.
 
You've got to work on your reading comprehension, there, buddy. I didn't say that he posed no threat (we have no way of knowing what his intentions were, although it seems fairly likely that he intended to steal car stereos then run away), I said that they had no reasonable basis for believing that he posed a threat at the time he was shot. Remember, the knives were not visible, and he certainly wasn't using them in a threatening manner.

fortunately for them, the facts and the jury were at odds with your opinion
 
Apparently. But people have been known to beat drug addictions ... provided they haven't been shot through the heart first.

yeah. meth heads turn their lives around every day :roll:
 
It is illegal in the jurisdiction in which this occurred to use lethal force to defend property,

What law says this?

and as I've pointed out numerous times, they had no valid reason to believe they were under threat of a deadly assault.

That is your opinion that they had no reason to believe they under thread of deadly assault. You do not know what kind of threat a trespasser poses.

In fact, by their own admission (according to the article) they made up their mind to shoot whoever the next intruder was well in advance of that intruder actually being shot.

I am pretty sure most victims of a lot burglaries make that decision to arm themselves because you do not know what kind of harm the intruder intends to do you. That intruder may not want to leave witnesses so he may shoot,stab or use some other method to kill you.That intruder may be horney and decide to rape you. That intruder may decided that he is going to just beat the hell out of you for fun.

As I asked you to do before, look at the facts that we have available, and compare them to the statutory definition of self-defense. Their actions do not comport with that definition. Intentionally killing a human being absent some valid defense (such as self defense) is murder. Ergo they committed murder.
They are not murderers.What they did was not murder.If what they did was murder, they would have been charged with murder, went to trial and sentence upon a guilty conviction. Are you trying to say that the DA,or who ever is going to ignore a confession,physical evidence and a motive if what these men did was murder or even illegal?
 
My guess is that the prosector wasn't too interested in trying the killer and therefore didn't put on a particularly inspired presentation to the jury. After all, if he had really wanted to charge the killer he could have requested a preliminary hearing before a judge rather than going to the grand jury. It's far more likely that a judge would have found probable cause to indict.

again...that's just your opinion
 
They weren't indicted by the grand jury. Not the same thing. Also a somewhat strange thing in this context, because a petite jury did find them guilty using the same standard of evidence, and after weighing the evidence in their favor (which the grand jury did not and could not do). In other words the jury with access to the evidence most favorable to the murderers held them liable, whereas the jury (the grand jury) that had access only to the evidence against them chose not to indict. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

translation: they didnt have enough to go to court with IE NO MURDERERS lol




Their subjective belief is not relevant to the legal standard for self defense. Take a look at any textbook on criminal law and you'll find that I'm right.

I dont have to look it up because I already know you are wrong and the fact is it does.
Because circumstance MATTERS and what they feel/know may very well be relevant

What they think matters
police can disagree and charge them
the a jury either agrees with what they though or doesnt and then they get charged or not

just how it works sorry

"legal standard" is based on circumstance
circumstance may very well be how the subject felt :shurg:
 
fortunately for them, the facts and the jury were at odds with your opinion

Except that that's not exactly true. Remember, there were two juries: the grand jury and the petit jury. Both of them used the same standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence). Grand juries only hear the evidence from the prosecution, i.e. the evidence least favorable to the defendants. The petit jury hears all of that evidence, plus all of the evidence in favor of the defendants.

The grand jury chose not to indict, based on the case least favorable to the defendants, whereas the petit jury held them liable, after weighing the aforementioned unfavorable evidence against the evidence in their favor. These two verdicts, taken together, don't make a lot of sense.
 
I dont have to look it up because I already know you are wrong and the fact is it does.
Because circumstance MATTERS and what they feel/know may very well be relevant

Translation: "Don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind."

Word of advice - don't go to law school. You'd get your ass handed to you with that kind of attitude.
 
Except that that's not exactly true. Remember, there were two juries: the grand jury and the petit jury. Both of them used the same standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence). Grand juries only hear the evidence from the prosecution, i.e. the evidence least favorable to the defendants. The petit jury hears all of that evidence, plus all of the evidence in favor of the defendants.

The grand jury chose not to indict, based on the case least favorable to the defendants, whereas the petit jury held them liable, after weighing the aforementioned unfavorable evidence against the evidence in their favor. These two verdicts, taken together, don't make a lot of sense.

Hence my suggestion that the prosecutor, unlike the plaintiffs' attorney, wasn't particularly diligent in making his case.
 
Hence my suggestion that the prosecutor, unlike the plaintiffs' attorney, wasn't particularly diligent in making his case.

I think that's possible. The other possibility (as I think we discussed) is jury nullification.
 
Translation: "Don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind."

Word of advice - don't go to law school. You'd get your ass handed to you with that kind of attitude.

LMAO nice try but you are still wrong if you are insisting that what they felt doesn't matter at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom