• 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.
Tigger said:
Believe it or not people DID live in Texas prior to the invention of air conditioning. Personally, I prefer it hot over cold anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm sure had they tasted air-conditioning, they would have opted to do without. I like hot over cold myself - why I didn't like living in NH, but I wouldn't want to give up my AC in my car or home or anywhere I go on a hot summer day in Texas.




I believe many of those things can still exist in a proper society.
Click to expand...
So, you think we have an improper society? Your idea of what is proper and what isn't may just be a matter of opinion and not necessarily good.


I think we just need to take a step back and realize what the appropriate bondaries on the use and implementation of those devices ought to be.
Click to expand...
But by whose standards? Like I said in the previous statement, your idea of what is proper is not everyone else's idea. I've seen some awful behavior coming from Reps in Congress toward the president, but most Reps/cons would think it was proper, even defended it.


Some of the things we've created might not be useful in a moral society, but many would be, even if their uses might be somewhat restrained. In my mind it is more important to live a proper life than a fun or pleasant one.
Click to expand...
Since I have no idea to what you are alluding, it is hard for me to comment. I live a proper life, based on my own assessment of my life, but someone else might not like the way I live, and who am I to push my beliefs on others?
 
O_Guru said:
I challenge anybody to prove the following fallacies.

he was a kid
he was hiding
he was murdered

can anybody prove these 3 fallacies to be true?
Click to expand...

What is your definition of a kid? A three year old?

And, what do you think he was doing in the shed - of course he was hiding. He had already been shot at, certainly he wasn't figuring on how to steal the shed.

He was shot through the door. Stealing does not carry the death penalty in any state in the US that I know of.
 
O_Guru said:
What I want people to do is to back up their false statements instead of repeating lies and appeals to emotion all the time but thank you for answering at least you did it. A couple of people here seem to be making statements that are not based on reality.
Click to expand...
That goes for both sides of the argument.


So lets go through your answers:
1: Fact is, he was NOT a kid he was a LEGAL adult period. We could talk about semantics all we want but in "reality" he was an adult.
Click to expand...
He wasn't even old enough to drink beer legally.

2.) According to the article he went into a shed PERIOD, anything else is pure 100% guessing and speculation by you.
Click to expand...
And that also goes for "imagining" that he was loading a gun, or sharpening his knife.

He COULD have been hiding
He COULD have been hiding and planing on stealing later
He COULD have been look for a better weapon than his THREE knives, axe, big pipe, shovel etc
He COULD have been in there planing to ambush anybody that came in or near the shed
He COULD have been in there readying his weapons (we know them NOW to only have been knives but to the guy that shot him they could have been anything)
Click to expand...
All irrelevant. The two men were armed and had already shot at him, they could have called police and threatened to shoot if he came out - they didn't have to shoot through the door.

with the info in the article ALL of these are EQUALLY possible, we do not know and to act like you know is dishonesty.
Click to expand...
They are also equally unimportant.

also you are assuming he wasn't doing anything aggressive, in some opinions jumping the wall and attempting to steal IS aggressive and the guy that shot him did NOT know what he was doing in the shed.
Click to expand...
You need to read the story again. Of course they knew why he was in the shed, they chased him there, with guns. If the thief had a gun don't you think he would have shot back?


So again I challenge anybody to prove any of those three things true because so far there's no logical reason to yet. The challenge still remains.
Click to expand...
Your challenge is inane. To some he was a kid - a 20 year old is not much of an adult. And, the fact he was in the shed is more reason for the men to not have had to shoot him. They were armed and could have kept him there till the police arrived, instead they acted like thugs themselves and became judge and jury and sentenced him to death.

The jury made their decision based on the law. It is unlawful to play vigilante, plain and simple. They are lucky they were not charged with murder. Stealing does not carry the death penalty in any of the states in the US.
 
mertex said:
What is your definition of a kid? A three year old?
Click to expand...

A minor. Maybe even someone under 15 years of age.

And, what do you think he was doing in the shed - of course he was hiding. He had already been shot at, certainly he wasn't figuring on how to steal the shed.
Click to expand...
I think O_Guru and evanescence hit the nail on the head on the possibilities. Possibly the burglar could have been loading a weapon, looking for a weapon,trying to ambush and all sorts of other reasons.


He was shot through the door. Stealing does not carry the death penalty in any state in the US that I know of.
Click to expand...

He was a burglar that was shot. In many places it is legal to shoot a burglar. That's why none of the shop owners are in prison for murder (or even a lesser charge) of one burglar and attempted murder of the other burglar. Even though there was evidence one of the shop owners shot the burglar, evidence the gun belongs to one of the shop owners, evidence that one of the shop owners was the last person to fire the gun,evidence that the bullet came out of the gun that the owner fired, a wittiness that says one of the shop owners shot at the burglars and a confession that one of the shop owners shot the burglars. The US is not some Eurotrash country that values the lives of burglars over that of property owners.
 
jamesrage said:
The US is not some Eurotrash country that values the lives of burglars over that of property owners.
Click to expand...

James, there is much of great value in Americans and in US society - please don't advertise the worst aspects of your society as a recommendation of some spurious sort - you do your fellow Americans a disservice. Talk about your friendliness as a society, about your generosity, your inventivesness, and your material progress. You will get agreement, and admiration for your achievements, from most sensible people.
 
Leo said:
James, there is much of great value in Americans and in US society - please don't advertise the worst aspects of your society as a recommendation of some spurious sort - you do your fellow Americans a disservice.
Click to expand...

Personal and property defense is one of the best aspects of American society.Something you do not have in your country.

Talk about your friendliness as a society, about your generosity, your inventivesness, and your material progress. You will get agreement, and admiration for your achievements, from most sensible people.
Click to expand...



Sensible people support personal and property defense with lethal force.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I guess you think Jesus Christ wasn't sensible?
Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief Jesus was not the type to sit idly by and not do anything.


John 2 NIV - Jesus Changes Water Into Wine On the - Bible Gateway
13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”[c]
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Contrary to popular belief Jesus was not the type to sit idly by and not do anything.


John 2 NIV - Jesus Changes Water Into Wine On the - Bible Gateway
13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”[c]
Click to expand...

You are, of course, completely wrong.

Notice that Jesus did not do any physical harm to the money changers. Recall the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus enjoined us to "turn the other cheek" when we are hit. Jesus instructed us to never do harm to another, even when they are trying to harm us. Claiming that violence is justifiable in defense of property is absurdly anti-Christian. Jesus wouldn't even justify violence in defense of life.
 
mertex said:
What is your definition of a kid? A three year old?

And, what do you think he was doing in the shed - of course he was hiding. He had already been shot at, certainly he wasn't figuring on how to steal the shed.

He was shot through the door. Stealing does not carry the death penalty in any state in the US that I know of.
Click to expand...

legal he is an adult FACT
nobody knows what he was doing in the shed: FACT
nobody said stealing is punishable by death: FACT this is just a weak appeal to emotion

so again nobody can prove those 3 fallacies.
 
mertex said:
That goes for both sides of the argument..
Click to expand...
examples please

mertex said:
He wasn't even old enough to drink beer legally.
Click to expand...
So? last I checked the ablity to drink beer has no impact on whether you are an adult or not, you seemed confused on this



mertex said:
And that also goes for "imagining" that he was loading a gun, or sharpening his knife.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% thats why i said NOBODY knows and its all guessing, thanks glad you agree


mertex said:
All irrelevant. The two men were armed and had already shot at him, they could have called police and threatened to shoot if he came out - they didn't have to shoot through the door.
Click to expand...
Wrong its very relevant. Its only your OPINION that its not. Maybe while they are calling the police they get shot, maybe as soon as they turn around he attacks?

You dont know, neither to I and its VERY relevant. To suggest otherwise is more dishonesty.


They are also equally unimportant.


mertex said:
You need to read the story again. Of course they knew why he was in the shed, they chased him there, with guns. If the thief had a gun don't you think he would have shot back?
Click to expand...
what are you talking about I said the guy that shot him didn't know what he was DOING in the shed not that he wasn't in there.
and NO we don't know if he would have maybe he thought it was important to get cover first huh? LOL



mertex said:
Your challenge is inane. To some he was a kid - a 20 year old is not much of an adult. And, the fact he was in the shed is more reason for the men to not have had to shoot him. They were armed and could have kept him there till the police arrived, instead they acted like thugs themselves and became judge and jury and sentenced him to death.
Click to expand...

my challenge is spot on because I want people to stop making false statements and back upo thier false claims and they cant.
Everything above is you OPINION and nothing more.

mertex said:
The jury made their decision based on the law. It is unlawful to play vigilante, plain and simple. They are lucky they were not charged with murder. Stealing does not carry the death penalty in any of the states in the US.
Click to expand...

They are not LUCKY there no charges to be made in CRIMINAL court because it requires more sound evidence which there is none.

Nobody said stealing is punishable by death? this is just an empty talking point.

anybody else want to try?
 
Guy Incognito said:
You are, of course, completely wrong.

Notice that Jesus did not do any physical harm to the money changers. Recall the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus enjoined us to "turn the other cheek" when we are hit. Jesus instructed us to never do harm to another, even when they are trying to harm us. Claiming that violence is justifiable in defense of property is absurdly anti-Christian. Jesus wouldn't even justify violence in defense of life.
Click to expand...

Now I find that hard to believe seeing how before the sermon on the mount. he says that if you do not have a sword then sell your cloak. A weapon would be useless to someone who is not supposed to use violence to defend themselves.

Luke 22
[SUP]36[/SUP] He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one
 
jamesrage said:
Now I find that hard to believe seeing how before the sermon on the mount. he says that if you do not have a sword then sell your cloak. A weapon would be useless to someone who is not supposed to use violence to defend themselves.

Luke 22
[SUP]36[/SUP] He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one
Click to expand...

Read that passage in context and you will see that Jesus is speaking here metaphorically. His disciples, always making mistakes, make the same foolish mistake you do and take him literally and show Him their two swords. He says the two swords is enough! But two swords is certainly not enough two defend a dozen men, more than two would be necessary if He meant it to be taken literally. Obvious to anybody who is not trying to squeeze a pretext for self-defense out of this passage, the "sell your cloak and buy a sword" line is a metaphor for the dangers inherent in discipleship. Jesus was fond of speaking in metaphor.

If you truly do think it is to be taken literally, then you are still out of luck. Maybe He meant that having a sword strapped to your hip might be a good deterrent. Maybe Jesus commanded everybody to buy a sword. It's a strained reading, but ok, let's go with it. He certainly was unequivocal that, should you have a sword, you shouldn't use it to harm a person!

Your homework assignment tonight is to reread the Beatitudes and pray that you understand them.
 
Last edited:
at Ohio State, students returned to find some mope dead in their apartment. Apparently the mope had bled to death after breaking a window to burglarize the apartment. I wonder if the mope's estate will sue the apartment landlord for the death of the asswipe?

Me, I say good riddance.
 
Guy Incognito said:
It has everything to do with it. You could stand to learn a little mythology.
Click to expand...

No. It doesn't.

TurtleDude said:
at Ohio State, students returned to find some mope dead in their apartment. Apparently the mope had bled to death after breaking a window to burglarize the apartment. I wonder if the mope's estate will sue the apartment landlord for the death of the asswipe?

Me, I say good riddance.
Click to expand...

There have been many cases where homeowners have been sued when someone was injured while breaking into their home. If it happens to me, they may just disappear. I'm not paying for **** like that.
 
evanescence said:
What do you want?
Click to expand...

You could start by not taking two-bit potshot at faith.

evanescence said:
I didn't make the idiotic argument to begin with. It's on you to prove that religion has anything at all to do with this topic.
Click to expand...

Not even slightly. It's on you to grow p and be tolerant and respectful of the religious beliefs of others. Haven't you ever heard of the golden rule? It's in all the mythologies.
 
evanescence said:
No. It doesn't.



There have been many cases where homeowners have been sued when someone was injured while breaking into their home. If it happens to me, they may just disappear. I'm not paying for **** like that.
Click to expand...

make them sleep with the fishes?
 
Guy Incognito said:
You could start by not taking two-bit potshot at faith.



Not even slightly. It's on you to grow p and be tolerant and respectful of the religious beliefs of others. Haven't you ever heard of the golden rule? It's in all the mythologies.
Click to expand...

myths are for the fragile minded
 
Goshin said:
I don't consider killing a thief in the act to be murder. At worst, "homicide in the public interest with an excess of zeal." I realize that isn't the legal definition... but to me it is a moral one. To be a murder victim, IMO, one must be reasonably innocent or at least not be committing a felony against the shooter at the time. The grand jury apparently agreed with me. The letter of the law isn't always justice.
Click to expand...

This, of course, is the crux of the issue as reasonably understood. I understand your position. I disagree with it, obviously, but I do understand where you're coming from. My basic response is that theft is not punishable by death in any country I'm aware of. It's hard for me to understand how punishing someone with death for theft - and in this case a hypothetical albeit probable theft - can be a just act.

Goshin said:
These guys had suffered multiple thefts; it was night time and maybe hard to see clearly; it was the heat of the moment, with decisions made in a split second. I don't feel I have the right to second-guess them too much; I agree they were overzealous and should have been more careful, but I can't call it murder.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about the part in bold. If you look at the article, there's a line stating that these three guys told the cops - ahead of the event at issue - that they intended to shoot the next trespassers on their property. This suggests that the heat of the moment had very little to do with their decision to extra-judicially execute some guy.

Goshin said:
I'll admit I'm kind of case-hardened about this sort of thing. Sure, the man who died was a living soul, and every living soul has value... but he was wasting his life as an addict and an armed thief, preying on others, and odds are he would only have gotten worse as the years went by and maybe killed some innocent person some day. If I allowed myself to feel for him, I could say I was sorry that he put himself in that position, but to me that's exactly what he did: put himself in a position where somebody was liable to get killed. Better him that an honest man. Sure, it's sad that people do this to themselves and those who love them, but the world is like that.
Click to expand...

I totally get where you're coming from on this in general. To be clear, I have no real sympathy for the guy who got shot. He might very well have spent the rest of his life being useless or actively detrimental to society. However, what bugs me about the section quoted above is the part in bold. I have two problems with this:

1) From a moral and ethical (rather than legal) perspective, I don't believe that the people who shot this guy were "honest men." They hid evidence from the police (check the article re: a hidden gun), and they made a plan to somewhat flagrantly violate the law.

2) This was not a situation where anyone had to die. It was not an "us or them" situation. The three property owners could have held the criminals at gunpoint until the cops arrived. They could have put barbed wire on their fence. They could have installed an alarm system. There were any number of ways they could have resolved this issue in a more lawful and less inherently dangerous and apparently vengeful manner.
 
Last edited:
evanescence said:
Do we? If we did indeed live in a civilized society, would there be drugs addicts stealing to support their habits while their kids went without? Would we have rampant child abuse and rape?
Click to expand...

Yes, to the first question, and a qualified no to the second. First of all, we do not have "rampant" child abuse and rape. Both of those crimes do exist in the US, just like they do in every country in the world, but to suggest that either crime is "rampant" is somewhat hyperbolic. Second, "civilized" is not the same as "perfect." The fact that injustices do exist does not in any way demonstrate either that we do not live in a civilized society or that further injustices (e.g. killing someone without a valid legal reason for doing so) are reasonable.


evanescence said:
...and people are basically forced to defend themselves, their families, and their livelihoods because the police cannot.
Click to expand...

This is also hyperbole. Sometimes, yes, people need to defend themselves in situations that the police have failed to handle. Sometimes the police do handle situations. Also, "defense" is not what these three guys were doing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom