• 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.
OscarB63 said:
guy decides to get high on meth
guy decides to arm himself with 3 knives
guy decides to break onto another person's property


and he is the victim


guy decides to shoot the high, armed criminal and he is a murderer


mind boggling
Click to expand...

asinine is what it is
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's a strange world where some of the citizens of the "Land of the Free" think that death is a reasonable punishment for attempted petty theft of a car stereo.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth. Too many people grew up watching too many Dirty Harry movies.
 
AdamT said:
A jury isn't THE people -- it is nine *particular* people. If every group of nine particular people thinks it's okay to make up the law as it goes along, we've got a real problem.
Click to expand...

They are the representation of the People, which is brought to weight crime and law. It is why they are "of our peers".
 
Just as an aside, some of y'all don't seem to realize that there is no double jeapordy effect to a grand jury bill. If the prosecutor chooses to he can still seek an indictment from the same or another grand jury.
 
Ikari said:
They are the representation of the People, which is brought to weight crime and law. It is why they are "of our peers".
Click to expand...

Well that's all very symbolic, but in actual fact they are just nine individuals who may not represent the desire of THE PEOPLE in any way, shape, or form.
 
AdamT said:
Just as an aside, some of y'all don't seem to realize that there is no double jeapordy effect to a grand jury bill. If the prosecutor chooses to he can still seek an indictment from the same or another grand jury.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
I guess what I don't get is where the conclusion comes from that "the circumstances in the grand jury were more favorable to the prosecution". It wouldn't seem like it to me. A man, high on drugs and carrying multiple concealed weapons, was shot and killed during an attempt of grand theft auto. Can someone please explain to me where it would be more favorable for this man over victimized private property owners? I mean, the mere fact that Eminent Domain exists screams how the government is anti-landowner, but this is bordering on ridiculous.
 
Aderleth said:
And yet strangely, in circumstances more favorable to the defendants (and using the same standard of proof), another jury did find that they unlawfully and intentionally shot and killed someone without a valid defense.
Click to expand...

No, they found that the defendants were on some level liable for the death. Civil courts can only decide liability, not criminality of act.
 
AdamT said:
Just as an aside, some of y'all don't seem to realize that there is no double jeapordy effect to a grand jury bill. If the prosecutor chooses to he can still seek an indictment from the same or another grand jury.
Click to expand...

and what, other than your obvious smug know-it-all-ness, has given any indication that "some of ya'll" don't realize this?

double jeopardy, can't be tried for the same crime twice. if you were never tried.... duh
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's a strange world where some of the citizens of the "Land of the Free" think that death is a reasonable punishment for attempted petty theft of a car stereo.
Click to expand...

Who here said it is?

I dont think its a reasonable punishment had he been caught down the street or taken to trail.

Thats NOT what happened though, what happened is that this degenerate got caught in the act and got himself shot by people defending their property because this armed junkie couldn't be trusted. Hazard of being a high armed trespasser :shrug:

I dont think breaking an entering should be lawfully punished by death either but if while you are breaking and entering some old lady blows your head off too bad, should have kept your ass out her house and the confusion on whether "you were a threat or not" would never come into play.
 
AdamT said:
Well that's all very symbolic, but in actual fact they are just nine individuals who may not represent the desire of THE PEOPLE in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

Not according to the Founders. They were the last and ultimate check on government authority and power and had the rightful power to weigh fact of case and law applied.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's a strange world where some of the citizens of the "Land of the Free" think that death is a reasonable punishment for attempted petty theft of a car stereo.
Click to expand...
Silly person...not a "reasonable punishment" as accorded by the courts, but a not to be unexpected consequence when caught in the act.What do you think poor widdle wobber would have done with any of those three knives had he simply been cornered by an unarmed lot attendant? Meth addicts are so reasonable and predictable...
 
Centrist77 said:
Who here said it is?

I dont think its a reasonable punishment had he been caught down the street or taken to trail.

Thats NOT what happened though, what happened is that this degenerate got caught in the act and got himself shot by people defending their property because this armed junkie couldn't be trusted. Hazard of being a high armed trespasser :shrug:

I dont think breaking an entering should be lawfully punished by death either but if while you are breaking and entering some old lady blows your head off too bad, should have kept your ass out her house and the confusion on whether "you were a threat or not" would never come into play.
Click to expand...

bingo .
 
Gipper said:
I guess what I don't get is where the conclusion comes from that "the circumstances in the grand jury were more favorable to the prosecution". It wouldn't seem like it to me. A man, high on drugs and carrying multiple concealed weapons, was shot and killed during an attempt of grand theft auto. Can someone please explain to me where it would be more favorable for this man over victimized private property owners? I mean, the mere fact that Eminent Domain exists screams how the government is anti-landowner, but this is bordering on ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Civil juries are heavily manipulated by the lawyers who choose them. As such, emotional sway is very possible. Look at the McDonald's verdict all that time ago. Even if McDonald's was party at fault for bad lids or whatever; they were not at fault to the tune the Jury said they owed. They should have had to pay some percentage of medical bills and money lost from time away from work had they been rational.
 
OscarB63 said:
and what, other than your obvious smug know-it-all-ness, has given any indication that "some of ya'll" don't realize this?

double jeopardy, can't be tried for the same crime twice. if you were never tried.... duh
Click to expand...

probably just more dishonesty, i havent read every post but i havent seen anything that makes me think people here dont know that.

as a matter of fact in one of my posts I said until that changes (referring to the ability of him still being charged for murder and brought to trail) let me know

IF it ever goes to trail ad they are found guilty THEN I will call them murders but still disagree with the verdict. Currently they are not murders though.
 
Heh. Much of what you've said before and just here now we talked about a couple pages ago. I brought up McDonalds too, and I also questioned the "liability not guilt" thing you brought up when pertaining to civil court. Aderleth didn't seem to say I was wrong. I guess I'm glad I didn't skip the two or three days my biz law professor talked about this junk. Beats the holy hell out of contract law.
 
Gipper said:
I guess what I don't get is where the conclusion comes from that "the circumstances in the grand jury were more favorable to the prosecution". It wouldn't seem like it to me. A man, high on drugs and carrying multiple concealed weapons, was shot and killed during an attempt of grand theft auto. Can someone please explain to me where it would be more favorable for this man over victimized private property owners? I mean, the mere fact that Eminent Domain exists screams how the government is anti-landowner, but this is bordering on ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Because in a normal trial (either civil or criminal) typically you have a prosecutor/plaintiff's lawyer making the case for the party that has been allegedly wronged, and you have a defense attorney making the case in favor of the defendant. The jury, therefore, hears two sides of the story, and all the available evidence, whether it's in favor of the defendant, or works against him.

By contrast, in a grand jury, the only people present are the prosecutor and the jury. The jury just hears the prosecutor's case. They do not hear any of the defense's arguments, do not see evidence brought by the defendant, etc. In a nutshell, they're hearing a one-sided version of events. Obviously a one-sided argument is inherently more favorable to the side that makes the argument.
 
OscarB63 said:
and what, other than your obvious smug know-it-all-ness, has given any indication that "some of ya'll" don't realize this?

double jeopardy, can't be tried for the same crime twice. if you were never tried.... duh
Click to expand...

In part it was your overbearingly ignorant replies that gave me some indication that you thought that this was a dead letter as far as criminal prosecution goes.
 
Ikari said:
Civil juries are heavily manipulated by the lawyers who choose them. As such, emotional sway is very possible. Look at the McDonald's verdict all that time ago. Even if McDonald's was party at fault for bad lids or whatever; they were not at fault to the tune the Jury said they owed. They should have had to pay some percentage of medical bills and money lost from time away from work had they been rational.
Click to expand...

You realize that criminal juries go through the same process, right?

And FYI, you might want to do a little research before you assume that the McDonalds jury was off its rocker.
 
Ikari said:
No, they found that the defendants were on some level liable for the death. Civil courts can only decide liability, not criminality of act.
Click to expand...

Juries, whether civil or criminal, are finders of fact. What I was pointing out is that the civil jury reached factual conclusions consistent with both civil liability in a wrongful death suit, and a murder conviction (b/c absence of self-defense). So you are absolutely wrong in saying that the civil jury didn't (or perhaps couldn't) have reached the factual conclusions I listed.
 
AdamT said:
In part it was your overbearingly ignorant replies that gave me some indication that you thought that this was a dead letter as far as criminal prosecution goes.
Click to expand...

ah, so just llike everything else you've posted here...it is strictly your opinion and not based on any actual facts. got it :lamo
 
Aderleth said:
Because in a normal trial (either civil or criminal) typically you have a prosecutor/plaintiff's lawyer making the case for the party that has been allegedly wronged, and you have a defense attorney making the case in favor of the defendant. The jury, therefore, hears two sides of the story, and all the available evidence, whether it's in favor of the defendant, or works against him.

By contrast, in a grand jury, the only people present are the prosecutor and the jury. The jury just hears the prosecutor's case. They do not hear any of the defense's arguments, do not see evidence brought by the defendant, etc. In a nutshell, they're hearing a one-sided version of events. Obviously a one-sided argument is inherently more favorable to the side that makes the argument.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but I'm wondering exactly can be said here. Is any man powerful enough to summon his "inner Cochran" enough to make sand castles in the sky like this? Other than to point at the toddler girl and constantly shout, "they killed her daddy!" over and over, what the hell can they say? It almost seems like the defense could've walked into the room, clothes soaked through with blood, carrying sawed-off shotguns and left free and clear.
 
AdamT said:
In part it was your overbearingly ignorant replies that gave me some indication that you thought that this was a dead letter as far as criminal prosecution goes.
Click to expand...

translation: you GUESS and ASSUMED WRONG AGAIN
 
OscarB63 said:
ah, so just llike everything else you've posted here...it is strictly your opinion and not based on any actual facts. got it :lamo
Click to expand...

In this case it was my informed opinion, yes. Clearly that is your uninformed opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom