• 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.
Did you not read your own article?

A couple of hayseeds tried to play cop and gunned down an unarmed man. (unless you count the pocket knife)...

Thankfully, parts of Texas do seem to be catching up with the modern world. The jury did the right thing.

These yahoos should be in jail. Thanks to the NRA, idiots like this try live out some Western movie fantasy. Shoot-out at the white trash junk yard.

Did you read the article? i would hardly consider three knives as "unarmed."
 
Did you read the article? i would hardly consider three knives as "unarmed."



One in the pocket, one taped to a leg. Sound like a homeless junkie trying to boost some parts to support a drug habit.

I guess when one scaled a fence to get away and the other hid in shed, the must of looked oh so very threatening...

Here's what you do:

1) Pick up the phone

2) Dial 911 - tell them there are two men trespassing on your property.

3) Go back to watching Fox News.

Again, it's not the old west. You don't ambush rustlers and string 'em up.
 
This is the last time I'm going to say this:

I am challenging you to demonstrate to me using the facts that we have available and the statutes at issue that what these men did was not murder. No more appeals to authority. They are wearing thin, and I've already pointed out many, many times why this particular authority is not particularly useful.

I've provided you with the relevant statutes. Use the facts and the law to tell me why you think I'm wrong.

Your opinion is irrelelvent in this matter. If they were murders they would be in prison right now. You seem to forget that murder is nothing more than a legal technicality and these men do not meet that legal definition.
 
The challenge was to use the facts and the law to demonstrate why what these guys did was not murder. Are you going to address this or would you like to continue posturing?

I am pretty sure that the people who decide whether or not to do a criminal trial are actual experts on the law. The fact that these experts on the law did not go through with criminal trial or even offer a plea deal means that these experts on the law know that these men did not commit murder. You keep whining about facts but you keep ignoring the fact the shop owners did not go through a criminal trial.

If these men are murders do honestly think that who ever decides whether or not to go through a criminal trial is going to ignore such a case? Murder is a pretty big deal. There is evidence that one of the shop owners killed one of the burglars, there is also a confession, there is a witness and motive. This would be a slam dunk case for the prosecutor if was illegal for shop owners to use lethal force to defend their property including shops.
 
Last edited:
One in the pocket, one taped to a leg. Sound like a homeless junkie trying to boost some parts to support a drug habit.

I guess when one scaled a fence to get away and the other hid in shed, the must of looked oh so very threatening...

Here's what you do:

1) Pick up the phone

2) Dial 911 - tell them there are two men trespassing on your property.

3) Go back to watching Fox News.

Again, it's not the old west. You don't ambush rustlers and string 'em up.

1) Pick up my gun

2) lock and load

3) shoot the ****er

This may not be the old west, but I have every right to defend myself, my family, and my property.

btw, Fox news sucks.
 
One in the pocket, one taped to a leg. Sound like a homeless junkie trying to boost some parts to support a drug habit.

I guess when one scaled a fence to get away and the other hid in shed, the must of looked oh so very threatening...

Here's what you do:

1) Pick up the phone

2) Dial 911 - tell them there are two men trespassing on your property.

3) Go back to watching Fox News.

Again, it's not the old west. You don't ambush rustlers and string 'em up.

another potential dem voter down the toilet.

we need to make this sort of action legal. saves tax dollars, and deters crime
 
Your opinion is irrelelvent in this matter. If they were murders they would be in prison right now. You seem to forget that murder is nothing more than a legal technicality and these men do not meet that legal definition.

Murder is a legal technicality! Nice.
 
This may not be the old west, but I have every right to defend myself, my family, and my property.

Actually you do not have the right to defend your property with lethal force.
 
Wrongful-death =/= murder.

It's not even negligent manslaughter.

It appears to have been the ulawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, i.e. murder in the first degree. It was, at minimum, second degree murder.
 
Your opinion is irrelelvent in this matter. If they were murders they would be in prison right now. You seem to forget that murder is nothing more than a legal technicality and these men do not meet that legal definition.

Exactly some one wake me when something changes currently theres no murders in this story just peoples currently wrong opinions :shrug:
 
Actually you do not have the right to defend your property with lethal force.

Which completely undermines the concept of property rights. If you can't use lethal force, then all attempts to detain, stop, or run off would be burglars are empty bluffs.

Let me give you a hypothetical (And admittedly unlikely) scenario. I wake up in the middle of the night and hear strange sounds coming from my living room. I grab my gun and go to investigate. I see a man in my living room grabbing my TV. I pull me gun out and order him to stop. He looks at me, smirks and says, "You can't shoot me. That's murder," and then turns his back to me, picks up my TV and walks out the door.

What am I supposed to do? Just watch the guy go and then call the police so they can document the theft after the fact and I can hope they stumble onto the thief at some later date. (Because let's be honest a stolen TV isn't going to be a top priority case for many departments). Can I shoot him after he ignores my order to stop? Even though his back is to me? Can I tackle him and risk initiating a physical confrontation with a man who's physical abilities are unknown to me and who may or may not be armed himself?
 
Which completely undermines the concept of property rights. If you can't use lethal force, then all attempts to detain, stop, or run off would be burglars are empty bluffs.

Let me give you a hypothetical (And admittedly unlikely) scenario. I wake up in the middle of the night and hear strange sounds coming from my living room. I grab my gun and go to investigate. I see a man in my living room grabbing my TV. I pull me gun out and order him to stop. He looks at me, smirks and says, "You can't shoot me. That's murder," and then turns his back to me, picks up my TV and walks out the door.

What am I supposed to do? Just watch the guy go and then call the police so they can document the theft after the fact and I can hope they stumble onto the thief at some later date. (Because let's be honest a stolen TV isn't going to be a top priority case for many departments). Can I shoot him after he ignores my order to stop? Even though his back is to me? Can I tackle him and risk initiating a physical confrontation with a man who's physical abilities are unknown to me and who may or may not be armed himself?

No, you can't shoot him if the only thing you're worried about is him taking your TV. We don't have the death penalty for property theft.
 
It appears to have been the ulawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, i.e. murder in the first degree. It was, at minimum, second degree murder.

Castle Doctrine allows people to do that in various situations. So, think what you want, you aren't the court system and the court says otherwise.
 
Which completely undermines the concept of property rights. If you can't use lethal force, then all attempts to detain, stop, or run off would be burglars are empty bluffs.

Let me give you a hypothetical (And admittedly unlikely) scenario. I wake up in the middle of the night and hear strange sounds coming from my living room. I grab my gun and go to investigate. I see a man in my living room grabbing my TV. I pull me gun out and order him to stop. He looks at me, smirks and says, "You can't shoot me. That's murder," and then turns his back to me, picks up my TV and walks out the door.

What am I supposed to do? Just watch the guy go and then call the police so they can document the theft after the fact and I can hope they stumble onto the thief at some later date. (Because let's be honest a stolen TV isn't going to be a top priority case for many departments). Can I shoot him after he ignores my order to stop? Even though his back is to me? Can I tackle him and risk initiating a physical confrontation with a man who's physical abilities are unknown to me and who may or may not be armed himself?

blow a hole right threw his back! Looks to me the only reason you got him in the back is because he was winding up to throw that tv at you, oh well dead bad guy :shrug:


lol :D
 
No, you can't shoot him if the only thing you're worried about is him taking your TV. We don't have the death penalty for property theft.

and after I shot him "we" still wouldnt have the death penalty for property theft. More dishonest talk.
 
Castle Doctrine allows people to do that in various situations. So, think what you want, you aren't the court system and the court says otherwise.

yeah PA changed its Castle Doctrine not to long ago they removed the STUPID rule that you must retreat first before you use deadly force. Im glad they did.

EDIT: just read it also protects them from the stupid CIVIL suits. TO bad the guy in these story didnt have a similar law in his state, then the weaker suit would have never of happened.
 
Last edited:
yeah PA changed its Castle DOctrine not to long ago they removed the STUPID rule that you must retreat first before you use deadly force. Im glad they did.

Hell yeah good for them.
 
Hell yeah good for them.

Im actually pretty pumped about it, I cant believe I didnt know? It happened in June? not THAT long ago but geez you think I would have heard news like that.

Oh well glad it happened, not that it really changes how I would respond it just gives me a better piece of mind that the law is where it should be on the side of the victim now.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, I still understand what you are saying, but what I think you are still missing is the purpose of punitive damages, which made up the bulk of the jury's award. Punitive damages are awarded to reform or deter's the defendant's conduct, where actual damages would not suffice to accomplish that goal. It is clear that McDonalds had no intention of changing its policy prior to the punitive damage award. A spokesman for McDonalds testified that they had done a cost benefit analysis and had determined that it was cheaper for them to seriously burn 70 of their customers a year than it was for them to make a common sense change to their coffee brewing policy. The company also lied about their reason for maintaining the policy. They claimed that they kept the coffee so hot because most of their customers didn't drink it until they reached their destinations, and they wanted it to still be hot when they arrived. But McDonald's own research showed that most of their customers actually drank the coffee in route. I don't know why you keep bringing up the lid, because it was not an issue in the case. The case was about the temperature of the coffee, which was established by a uniform policy throughout the company.

So once again, I don't think the jury's decision was irrational. McDonalds knew that the temperature they prescribed for their coffee could and WOULD cause approximately 70 people per year to suffer serious burns. In reality I'm sure the number is much higher, but that is the number who actually complained to McDonalds. It was apparent that McDonalds would not change it's policy if it only had to compensate the burn victims with relatively modest settlements, even though some were as high as $500,000. McDonalds made an economic decision to endanger its customers, and the jury made the decision to change McDonald's economic equation.

So what's next? Signing a waiver at the drive-thru? Will there be escape clauses written on posters outside Wal-mart during the winter when grounds may be icy?

You're actively creating a hyper-litigious society, which I am assuming you would enjoy, given your profession. What about McDonalds? I know lots of people - my mom tops of that list - who love McDonalds coffee. She, and they, and many others would not want it to change. They don't want coffee that turns luke warm by the time they're out of to-work traffic. What about opportunity costs? What if several hundred thousands of people decide that Burger King coffee is better now that it doesn't turn into ice by the time you reach your parking space?

If you don't want McDonalds coffee, that really hot coffee, don't go there. It's that simple. McDonalds was never negligent, which is necessary to award punitive damages. This was just an ambulance chaser and a bunch of irresponsible folk trying to get rich off the back of a major corporation. Nothing more.
 
AdamT said:
No, you can't shoot him if the only thing you're worried about is him taking your TV. We don't have the death penalty for property theft.

Watch me. I shoot him and I walk away scott-free. Nobody could hear him say that. When the police arrive, all they'll see is a man they believe is shaken up, putting on an Oscar-winning performance in front of a corpse with the intention of robbing and maybe killing him. Maybe I thought he had a weapon and began to pull it on me. Maybe he said a death threat to me.

When I walk out of court, watch me live it up at T.G.I. Fridays. Better luck next time, counsel.

Best part? One less piece of trash in the world today.
 
Watch me. I shoot him and I walk away scott-free. Nobody could hear him say that. When the police arrive, all they'll see is a man they believe is shaken up, putting on an Oscar-winning performance in front of a corpse with the intention of robbing and maybe killing him. Maybe I thought he had a weapon and began to pull it on me. Maybe he said a death threat to me.

When I walk out of court, watch me live it up at T.G.I. Fridays. Better luck next time, counsel.

Best part? One less piece of trash in the world today.

You're not a Christian, are you?
 
Yeah, but not a "good" one, I guess. Of course, then again, if you read the Bible you'll see a very, VERY violent book. So who knows?

Spare me the "what would Jesus do" banter, please.
 
Watch me. I shoot him and I walk away scott-free. Nobody could hear him say that. When the police arrive, all they'll see is a man they believe is shaken up, putting on an Oscar-winning performance in front of a corpse with the intention of robbing and maybe killing him. Maybe I thought he had a weapon and began to pull it on me. Maybe he said a death threat to me.

When I walk out of court, watch me live it up at T.G.I. Fridays. Better luck next time, counsel.

Best part? One less piece of trash in the world today.

that's why I have several "unregistered" handguns with the serial numbers filed off. you just never know when you might need a drop weapon. "see officer, there is a gun in his dead hand. he was going to shoot me, I had no choice but to shoot him first"
 
You know, I almost mentioned something about that, but I figured if they were ever to search your home, you might have some explaining. However, I guess if you don't go out robbing and holding people up, you're safe. Fourth Amendment rights and all. But damn, that can get expensive, especially if you get robbed semi-often.

Personally I think you can just get away with a sob story in front of a felonious corpse. Then again, I'm cheap. Guns aren't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom