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

eminent? ???

Ikari said:

Which is the precise reason as to why we have jury of peers to begin with.

Click to expand...

Actually we have a jury of our peers because the fear is that another group might not apply the law. We don't have a jury of our peers because we want them to bond with the defendant and not apply the law.

Ikari said:

Or the one who makes the first aggressive move. Which in this case would be the thief, as he was the first individual to violate rights and was the initiator of the scenario which led to his death.

Click to expand...

It is against the law to be a vigilante. It appears they vigilantes were waiting for the thief, so that means they were there as vigilantes first, and they made the first agressive move first, as they killed him before he was able to steal.

Granted that if they would have called police and the police ended up shooting him, it would have been okay - those are our laws, you don't have to like them but should obey them.

liblady said:

the prosecutor couldn't win the case, that doesn't mean they didn't commit a crime, it means they weren't CHARGED with a crime.

Click to expand...

LMAO
so you are GUESSING and CAN NOT PROVE they are guilty of murder?
funny, why couldnt the prosecutor win the case? is it because theres no enough evidence to support such a charge?

liblady said:

the prosecutor couldn't win the case, that doesn't mean they didn't commit a crime, it means they weren't CHARGED with a crime.

Click to expand...

innocent until proven guilty? anyone?

AdamT said:

Actually we have a jury of our peers because the fear is that another group might not apply the law. We don't have a jury of our peers because we want them to bond with the defendant and not apply the law.

Click to expand...

Jury by peers is to be the ultimate check on government power. Government can pass all the laws they want, but if the jury of peers does not agree with the law, they do not give a guilty verdict. Jury nullification is one of the MOST important duties of a jury.

OscarB63 said:

correct. so, under the law, they did not commit any crime

Click to expand...

Not according to one grand jury, no. According to the civil jury they did.

Gipper said:

It also doesn't matter one iota to me who is a lawyer and who is not. The "law" was upheld in criminal court in which they were acquitted. Unfortunately, civil court lawyers are emotional predators who create sympathy for those who deserve none, and are rewarded by a faulty system designed to reward based on emotion and subjectivity.

Click to expand...

There was no court, and no acquittal. There was a grand jury proceeding (which is emphatically not a trial) at which the grand jury chose not to indict. I'm going to say this one more time:

The grand jury result and the civil jury result - which used the same standard of evidence - reached inconsistent conclusions. And the grand jury was not exposed to the defendant's side of the story. This means that the civil jury chose to find the defendants guilty based on having information more favorable to the defendants, whereas the grand jury chose not to indict based solely on the information most favorable to the prosecution. This doesn't make any sense, and it suggests that either the prosecutor at the grand jury screwed up, or that jury refused to apply the law to the facts, as is their duty.

Because these two results are totally inconsistent with one another, saying "well the jury didn't find them guilty so they aren't murderers" isn't really an argument. What makes quite a lot more sense is to actually look at the facts available to us, and compare them to the statutes at issue (i.e. murder and self-defense). If you do so honestly, you'll find that these guys intentionally killed another human being without a valid basis for self defense.

mertex said:

It is against the law to be a vigilante. It appears they vigilantes were waiting for the thief, so that means they were there as vigilantes first, and they made the first agressive move first, as they killed him before he was able to steal.

Granted that if they would have called police and the police ended up shooting him, it would have been okay - those are our laws, you don't have to like them but should obey them.

Click to expand...

how is it an aggressive move to be on your own property?

What I'm saying is that I consider the letter of the law less important than justice. In this case, if I were a juror, there is no way I would have convicted these men of murder (and notice, they're weren't), nor awarded the family of the scumbag any money... because IMHO it is common sense, practically a law of nature, that when you go out ARMED to steal from another man, you're asking for it... and if you "get it", I'm not going to be sympathetic.

I sympathize with the biz owners. They've had repeated thefts from the place where they make their livelihoods, and the cops have neither stopped it nor made arrests. Did they exceed the letter of the law in their response? Yes they did. Do I give a ****? Not so much. Scratch one scumbag, and maybe a few others will think twice about that crap.


Some of you probably don't know how this stuff goes.... lemme 'splain, Lucy:

Some idiot gets hooked on Meth. When his habit grows to the point that he can't support it (and has probably lost his job, if any) he starts stealing from his family, his relatives, and his neighbors' yards. The family begs and pleads with him to get straight... maybe he checks into a 12-step place for 28 days if he can get gov't funding for the stay... usually he's back on Meth within a month after getting out.

Eventually his family gets fed up and either gives him the boot or tells him he's gone the next time he steals from them or the neighbors, so he broadens his horizons and starts stealing from strangers. He starts carrying a knife or a gun, to "defend himself" from those who might object to his thefts.... you know, the innocent property owners.

He gets arrested now and then... most of the time he gets probation, or a few weeks in the pen, but nothing major. 90% of the crap he does, he gets away with.

As he gets away with more and more, he gets bolder and bolder. Also, as the Meth works its magic on his brain, he gets dumber and dumber and less able to judge things like the implications and consequences of his actions.

Couldn't he get clean and go straight? Maybe... a few do, most do NOT. More likely he keeps going until he either dies of an overdose one day, or one of his associates kills him over money or drugs.... OR he finally runs into a combative homeowner one midnight burglary and either commits 1st Degree Murder or gets himself killed.

That's the typical "arc" of this kind of scumbag. I've seen it so many times I can predict it better than a professional gambler.

You should see what kids who grow up with these idiots as parents end up like. Many of them grow up believing its fine to take drugs and steal, 'cuz that's what Daddy always did, and those who have anything "owe it to them" because they "need" it.

Maybe the family of the dead drug addict thief ought to pay the business owners instead, for giving their granddaughter a chance to grow up and be something other than another scumbag.

OscarB63 said:

innocent until proven guilty? anyone?

Click to expand...

oj was innocent, got it.

how does shooting someone through a door not rate a charge? the prosecutor should be drummed out of office.

I actually do have a relative like that...few, actually. I've pretty much ostracized them. They're no kin to me. They're low-lifes that would grant a net benefit to society were they to die...much like this guy who died.

AdamT said:

Not according to one grand jury, no. According to the civil jury they did.

Click to expand...

civil juries don't determine whether or not a crime occurred. you would think a lawyer would know that.

Ikari said:

Burglary is force used against the rights and liberties of another individual. It is force, if the first act it is the aggressor act.

Click to expand...

Not according to the law it's not.

mertex said:

It is against the law to be a vigilante. It appears they vigilantes were waiting for the thief, so that means they were there as vigilantes first, and they made the first agressive move first, as they killed him before he was able to steal.

Granted that if they would have called police and the police ended up shooting him, it would have been okay - those are our laws, you don't have to like them but should obey them.

Click to expand...

They were "vigilantes" (not sure it's correct in this context) because someone was breaking into their property and stealing their stuff. They watched for it to protect their property. They cannot be the first aggressor. Otherwise they would have hunted the man down without him having first violating their rights. But that was not the case. Cause and effect as it is.

liblady said:

correct. oj was innocent. thanks.

Click to expand...

who here has said he wasn't? If you would actually read the thread, instead of trying to be a smartass, you would have notice that I, on more than on occasion, said that OJ was not guilty of murder.

thanks for playing :roll:

OscarB63 said:

civil juries don't determine whether or not a crime occurred. you would think a lawyer would know that.

Click to expand...

They determined that the civil equivalent of murder occurred. And if you look at the language in the article, you'll find that their factual conclusions mirror the elements of the murder statute.

Ikari said:

Jury by peers is to be the ultimate check on government power. Government can pass all the laws they want, but if the jury of peers does not agree with the law, they do not give a guilty verdict. Jury nullification is one of the MOST important duties of a jury.

Click to expand...

Laws are passed in our democracy. A group of nine people don't get to pick and choose which laws they like and which laws they don't like.

Aderleth said:

Not according to the law it's not.

Click to expand...

Violation of rights requires force. Theft of property is violation of rights, it requires a force to accomplish. That force was FIRST levied and the reaction was then the shooting. Whether or not you think the shooting was right or wrong, if you're going to be honest you must recognize whom the original aggressor was. The three men were not looking for this guy, they were not patrolling the streets, trying to find his home. The responded to an action taken against their rights. We can argue whether or not the response was within the law as written or even "right"'; but it DOES NOT CHANGE THE ORDER OF EVENTS.

Aderleth said:

They determined that the civil equivalent of murder occurred. And if you look at the language in the article, you'll find that their factual conclusions mirror the elements of the murder statute.

Click to expand...

civil equivalent of murder :lamo

AdamT said:

Laws are passed in our democracy. A group of nine people don't get to pick and choose which laws they like and which laws they don't like.

Click to expand...

then sue them...mr matlock

AdamT said:

Laws are passed in our democracy. A group of nine people don't get to pick and choose which laws they like and which laws they don't like.

Click to expand...

Yes. yes they do. It was acknowledge, encouraged, and used in our history.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court stated in 1789: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1796: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. " U. S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1902: "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, stated in 1941: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."

Click to expand...

Aderleth said:

There was no court, and no acquittal. There was a grand jury proceeding (which is emphatically not a trial) at which the grand jury chose not to indict. I'm going to say this one more time:

The grand jury result and the civil jury result - which used the same standard of evidence - reached inconsistent conclusions. And the grand jury was not exposed to the defendant's side of the story. This means that the civil jury chose to find the defendants guilty based on having information more favorable to the defendants, whereas the grand jury chose not to indict based solely on the information most favorable to the prosecution. This doesn't make any sense, and it suggests that either the prosecutor at the grand jury screwed up, or that jury refused to apply the law to the facts, as is their duty.

Click to expand...

Ok lawyers, so help me out - they were put before a grand jury, the defendants chose to keep quiet and not self-incriminate (as per the Bill of Rights, about halfway down somewhere), and just by looking at strict physical evidence the GJ concluded that there was no way in hell the prosecution could get a conviction in a trial. Is that about it? Or do they often fail to indict cases that have a legal leg to stand on?

I'm listening. Go Wapner on me.

well, let's see. the prosecutor didn't file charges, instead he bailed and sent it to the grand jury. i'm guessing this was a political hot potato, colorado springs and all. he shirked HIS duty, i was giving him the benefit of the doubt in saying maybe he felt he couldn't win the case.

it's abundantly clear by the police report that these men planned this murder. they even hid the gun from the police, or did you not see that? they shot a man throught a clodes shed door, they TOLD the police they were going to shoot intruders. did you READ the article or are you just blindly defending a man who AMBUSHED and killed another man?

Milanovic and his father told police a week before the shooting they would shoot any intruders who returned. Police say the men concealed the rifle in the trunk of a car so well that a police detective initially missed it during a search.
Read more: Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO

Ikari said:

Violation of rights requires force. Theft of property is violation of rights, it requires a force to accomplish. That force was FIRST levied and the reaction was then the shooting. Whether or not you think the shooting was right or wrong, if you're going to be honest you must recognize whom the original aggressor was. The three men were not looking for this guy, they were not patrolling the streets, trying to find his home. The responded to an action taken against their rights. We can argue whether or not the response was within the law as written or even "right"'; but it DOES NOT CHANGE THE ORDER OF EVENTS.

Click to expand...

First of all, yes, they very probably were looking for this guy. They apparently told the cops that they intended to shoot the next intruder on their property, then they did exactly that. Second, your force argument is legally meaningless for self defense purposes. If you want to get the law changed so it reflects that definition, run for legislative office and get that bill passed. As things stand, to invoke self-defense in a situation in which you've used deadly force, you first have to be in imminent fear of death or great bodily harm. That's not at all what happened in this situation.