• 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.
Wake said:
He could have used those knives. If I broke into your property looking to steal stuff, and I have a bat slung over my shoulder and I'm either walking towards you or trying to get away once you brandish a gun, am I to assume I'm not to be shot? Why do you defend the meth head/thief/intruder?
Click to expand...

1) I'm not defending anyone. I'm pointing out that these guys murdered someone. I don't have to like the guy they killed or support his actions to reach the conclusion that he was murdered.

2) Let me see if I'm following your hypo. You break onto my property carrying a bat. I point a gun at you. Is this accurate?
At that point, yes, you can probably conclude that I'm going to shoot you, and can react accordingly. If I shoot you and you're running away, I have committed murder. If you charge at me with the bat, I am, at that point, under threat of deadly force, and can, therefore, protect myself with deadly force and kill you.

The whole point is that you're not supposed to assume anything. You're supposed to react with appropriate force under the situation, and the law doesn't support pre-emptive killings. In this situation the killers didn't even know the guy was armed, and they certainly never saw him attempting to use any weapons. The law cannot and does not allow you to kill someone on the off chance that they might represent a threat. You have to wait until they actually indicate that they're attempting to use either deadly force or force that might cause great bodily injury. That didn't happen here. If you think about it a little bit this makes sense. Under your logic, it'd be legal to shoot anyone who unlawfully enters your property under the theory that they might be a threat, even if you have no reason to believe that other than the fact that they're on your property, and even if it turns out that they're totally unarmed and not remotely interested in engaging in any criminal activity. Shooting someone in such circumstances is incredibly reckless, dangerous, and generally a bad idea.
 
Aderleth said:
1) I'm not defending anyone. I'm pointing out that these guys murdered someone. I don't have to like the guy they killed or support his actions to reach the conclusion that he was murdered.

2) Let me see if I'm following your hypo. You break onto my property carrying a bat. I point a gun at you. Is this accurate?
At that point, yes, you can probably conclude that I'm going to shoot you, and can react accordingly. If I shoot you and you're running away, I have committed murder. If you charge at me with the bat, I am, at that point, under threat of deadly force, and can, therefore, protect myself with deadly force and kill you.

The whole point is that you're not supposed to assume anything. You're supposed to react with appropriate force under the situation, and the law doesn't support pre-emptive killings. In this situation the killers didn't even know the guy was armed, and they certainly never saw him attempting to use any weapons. The law cannot and does not allow you to kill someone on the off chance that they might represent a threat. You have to wait until they actually indicate that they're attempting to use either deadly force or force that might cause great bodily injury. That didn't happen here. If you think about it a little bit this makes sense. Under your logic, it'd be legal to shoot anyone who unlawfully enters your property under the theory that they might be a threat, even if you have no reason to believe that other than the fact that they're on your property, and even if it turns out that they're totally unarmed and not remotely interested in engaging in any criminal activity. Shooting someone in such circumstances is incredibly reckless, dangerous, and generally a bad idea.
Click to expand...

They didn't "murder someone". They defended themselves against strung-out meth heads/thieves who broke onto their property. Technicall you are defending them as evidenced by your lengthy amount of posts on this issue.

If you shoot me after I break into your property while walking towards you with a bat and run once I see you with a gun, you do hve the right to shoot because I shouldn't have broken into your property with a deadly weapon. I don't see how it's murder. Can the same argument be used for a soldier in Afghanistan/Iraq who shoots at terrorists who run now that they realize they are outmatched?

If I see people who look threatening, who have broken into my property, who hae done so before, then yo're darn right I'm going to assume they mean me harm. And if the dumbass flees after he realizes this crab has claws then oh well, one less intruder. I'm not going to wait until the guy tries to kill me. To hell with that.
 
Wake said:
They didn't "murder someone". They defended themselves against strung-out meth heads/thieves who broke onto their property. Technicall you are defending them as evidenced by your lengthy amount of posts on this issue.

If you shoot me after I break into your property while walking towards you with a bat and run once I see you with a gun, you do hve the right to shoot because I shouldn't have broken into your property with a deadly weapon. I don't see how it's murder. Can the same argument be used for a soldier in Afghanistan/Iraq who shoots at terrorists who run now that they realize they are outmatched?

If I see people who look threatening, who have broken into my property, who hae done so before, then yo're darn right I'm going to assume they mean me harm. And if the dumbass flees after he realizes this crab has claws then oh well, one less intruder. I'm not going to wait until the guy tries to kill me. To hell with that.
Click to expand...

you DO NOT have the right to shoot a fleeing intruder who is not an imminent threat. you cowboys need to check yoursleves.
 
Wake said:
They didn't "murder someone". They defended themselves against strung-out meth heads/thieves who broke onto their property. Technicall you are defending them as evidenced by your lengthy amount of posts on this issue.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. The number of my posts largely indicates that I apparently have to explain the basics of criminal law to a large number of people. You're engaging in some very mushy thinking here.

Also, they absolutely were not defending themselves. What danger are you in from a fleeing person? Are you concerned that he'll trip and inadvertently fall on top of you?

Wake said:
If you shoot me after I break into your property while walking towards you with a bat and run once I see you with a gun, you do hve the right to shoot because I shouldn't have broken into your property with a deadly weapon. I don't see how it's murder. Can the same argument be used for a soldier in Afghanistan/Iraq who shoots at terrorists who run now that they realize they are outmatched?
Click to expand...

1) Nobody in this situation was walking towards anyone with a bat. Two apparently (though not actually) unarmed people were fired upon with little to no warning based solely on the fact that they'd broken into the property. This is illegal. The statute is very clear. Read it again.

2) What soldiers can and cannot do while actively engaged in combat in a war zone has absolutely nothing to do with what civilians can and cannot do stateside. This is a terrible, terrible analogy.


Wake said:
If I see people who look threatening, who have broken into my property, who hae done so before, then yo're darn right I'm going to assume they mean me harm. And if the dumbass flees after he realizes this crab has claws then oh well, one less intruder. I'm not going to wait until the guy tries to kill me. To hell with that.
Click to expand...

Good for you. This attitude makes you every bit as much a criminal as the guy who broke in. Given that he's cavalier about small amounts of property, whereas you're being cavalier about taking a life, you're actually a much worse criminal. Be warned, if you ever act on your beliefs, there's a very real chance you'll get to see first hand what life is like in a state prison for a couple of decades.

Also, we have no indication that they "looked" threatening. The knives were not visible, and once again, they weren't behaving in a threatening manner.
 
Last edited:
Huh. Well, you've given me more info to rethink my worldwiew and for that I'm grateful. Thank you.
 
Gipper said:
The true problem is that the lawyer(s) on this thread are right - legally.

Many other people on this thread are right - ethically.

What we need to do is change the law to defend life and property against malicious intent.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't just the law. It's the people who support these laws. This mentality that all human life is sacred is nonsense. People in this thread are using the law to defend people who do not deserve to be defended. Yes, in many states, the law is unfortunately tilted in support of criminals. However, at least from my perspective, those laws are unjust. I don't care what the law says: if someone breaks into my house, my place of business, whatever- it's likely that they'll end up either dead or severely injured. I refuse to risk my life, or my family's life on the off chance that the low life breaking in may or may not be a lethal threat.
 
evanescence said:
The problem isn't just the law. It's the people who support these laws. This mentality that all human life is sacred is nonsense. People in this thread are using the law to defend people who do not deserve to be defended. Yes, in many states, the law is unfortunately tilted in support of criminals. However, at least from my perspective, those laws are unjust. I don't care what the law says: if someone breaks into my house, my place of business, whatever- it's likely that they'll end up either dead or severely injured. I refuse to risk my life, or my family's life on the off chance that the low life breaking in may or may not be a lethal threat.
Click to expand...


Most reasonable States, like my own SC, allow for this if someone has broken into your personal home... that is, you get the benefit of the doubt as to whether they were a threat in most cases. Place of business is also included in SC, FL and many states.

As I've said: me personally, I'm all for one less methhead thief running around and if the details exceeded the letter of the law a bit, I'd probably still vote Not Guilty if I were a juror.

Having said that though, anybody who carries or keeps arms for defense needs to know what the state laws are, because you violate them at peril of your freedom. Not everyone is lucky enough to run into jurors who put common sense ahead of the letter of the law. Shooting someone who appears to be fleeing is always very risky from a legal standpoint and I don't recommend it. Now, IMHO if you really think your life is in danger, you do what you have to do and worry about justifying it in court later... but keep your mouth shut in the meantime.

"I called it in, I will sign the complaint. I was in fear of my life, due to actions by that person. I want my lawyer present during all questioning. I feel shaken up and unwell; I think I should see a doctor."

That's what you say to the cops, and nothing more other than name, address, and your lawyer's name. If you're having ongoing troubles with some low-life, NEVER tell the cops anything like "I'm going to shoot the next bastard who tresspasses on my business!" No no no. No talking. Don't sing it, bring it. ;)
 
Aderleth said:
Yes it is. Here's the quote from the Colorado penal code:

"A person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if the person knowingly causes the death of a person." Legal Resources


"Knowingly" in this context is synonymous with "intentionally." Check out, e.g., Black's law dictionary for a discussion of how the terms intentional and knowingly are used in criminal law.

Incidentally, given that these guys laid in wait prior to killing the trespasser, they might also be guilty of first degree murder. That's harder to prove, though.

I've already posted the Colorado penal code statute related to valid affirmative defenses. It's many pages back. If you'd like me to re-post it I'd be willing to do so. You'll find that it's consistent with the post you attempted to reply to. In the future I'd suggest doing some actual research before making bull**** claims that you can't back up with evidence.



Nonsense. The Colorado penal code is consistent with exactly what I've been saying. You may not like the law, but please stop pretending to understand it.
Click to expand...

I repeat it is not the definition of murder, murder is a legal term, the guy is not a murder no matter how bad you want him to be or try to sell your opinon that he is LMAO

also you have still only stated your OPINION on the law, nothing more.

It seems you have a real issue with determining what is your opinion and what facts are. :shrug: no worries though whether you know the difference or not the fact remains the guy isnt a murder nor have you proved so.
 
Goshin said:
"I called it in, I will sign the complaint. I was in fear of my life, due to actions by that person. I want my lawyer present during all questioning. I feel shaken up and unwell; I think I should see a doctor."

That's what you say to the cops, and nothing more other than name, address, and your lawyer's name. If you're having ongoing troubles with some low-life, NEVER tell the cops anything like "I'm going to shoot the next bastard who tresspasses on my business!" No no no. No talking. Don't sing it, bring it. ;)
Click to expand...

This is very good advice. I've personally reviewed in-custody interviews where the cops say things like "if you just admit what you did, it'll be better for you," and the client's dumb enough to buy it. The first and last words out of your mouth (beyond "my name is x") should be "I'd like to see my lawyer."

My Criminal Procedure professor once told us a story about a client she had who was arrested after breaking into a home (the residents were out of town or something). While he's standing in the living room of this house, he said to the cops "okay, you got me on a [whatever the statute number is for burglary]." There's not much a defense attorney can do for you at that point except try to get the confession excluded.
 
Aderleth said:
He doesn't need to. I already proved the third one and you damn well know it, which is why you have failed to reply to any of the half dozen or so posts in which I've challenged you to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

you have proved NOTHING lmao
all you did is state your OPINION and ASSUMPTIONS over and over again which does nothing to "beyond reasonable doubt" LMAO
 
Aderleth said:
This is very good advice. I've personally reviewed in-custody interviews where the cops say things like "if you just admit what you did, it'll be better for you," and the client's dumb enough to buy it. The first and last words out of your mouth (beyond "my name is x") should be "I'd like to see my lawyer."

My Criminal Procedure professor once told us a story about a client she had who was arrested after breaking into a home (the residents were out of town or something). While he's standing in the living room of this house, he said to the cops "okay, you got me on a [whatever the statute number is for burglary]." There's not much a defense attorney can do for you at that point except try to get the confession excluded.
Click to expand...


Yeah, like I said, I'm an ex-cop: very few detectives are Columbo or Matlock, and they really don't need to be. Most suspects convict themselves out of their own mouth, either because they submit to questioning and shoot their mouth off to the cops, or because they told someone else too much and word got around until someone "dropped a dime".

We're actually quite lucky that most criminals are fairly stupid. :lol:
 
Aderleth said:
I will never stop being amazed when people attempt to defend the actions of murderers. Frankly, these guys got off lucky. They should be in prison, not just in debt.
Click to expand...

What would really amaze you would be the sharp decrease in violent crime if people were allowed to fight back.
 
Aderleth said:
How so? I've explained that the conclusions of the two juries were factually inconsistent, which means that one of them must have reached a bad decision (i.e. did not do their job). We don't know which one of them. Consequently neither conclusion is a reliable basis for any conclusions at all as to the legality of the actions of these men. What about this reasoning - specifically - do you find to be inadequate?
Click to expand...

You are aware that there are stricter standards for a criminal trial than there is for a civil trial? This means that the jury in the civil trial basically said it was likely or probable that the shop owners shot and killed one of the burglars, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact a jury in a civil trial basically is it was probably that these shop keepers killed the burglar is not evidence that the shop keepers did any thing illegal or even committed murder.


Keep in mind that by it's very nature, the fact that a grand jury was convened suggests that the prosecutor did want to try these guys for murder.
Click to expand...

And why do you think the prosecutor did not want to try these men for murder or even some lesser crime? You can't say there was a lack evidence,witnesses and confession that the shop keepers shot and killed one of the burglars. It is basically a open and shut case the shop keepers shot the burglars,if this was murder case it would be a extremely easy job for the prosecutor.
 
Smokified said:
What would really amaze you would be the sharp decrease in violent crime if people were allowed to fight back.
Click to expand...

that happened in a town I once lived in when i was the first person to shoot a mugger in a rather long period of time. after the DA noted that what I did was proper and that lots of people had carry permits, muggings went from rare to non-existent
 
Aderleth said:
This is very good advice. I've personally reviewed in-custody interviews where the cops say things like "if you just admit what you did, it'll be better for you," and the client's dumb enough to buy it. The first and last words out of your mouth (beyond "my name is x") should be "I'd like to see my lawyer."

My Criminal Procedure professor once told us a story about a client she had who was arrested after breaking into a home (the residents were out of town or something). While he's standing in the living room of this house, he said to the cops "okay, you got me on a [whatever the statute number is for burglary]." There's not much a defense attorney can do for you at that point except try to get the confession excluded.
Click to expand...

 
O_Guru said:
I repeat it is not the definition of murder, murder is a legal term, the guy is not a murder no matter how bad you want him to be or try to sell your opinon that he is LMAO
Click to expand...

I quoted you the statutory definition of murder in the relevant jurisdiction, and your response is that it's not the definition of murder. Would you also like to argue that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun? Or perhaps that I'm not currently writing in the English language?

I mean, seriously, how desperate are you to avoid the facts?
 
TurtleDude said:
that happened in a town I once lived in when i was the first person to shoot a mugger in a rather long period of time. after the DA noted that what I did was proper and that lots of people had carry permits, muggings went from rare to non-existent
Click to expand...

On the other hand we have liberal states, like the state of MN, that would lock up anyone who even remotely attempted to fight back as opposed to retreating which essentially enables these criminal bastards to do whatever they want whenever they feel like it.

This needs to stop. Not to mention the tax payers have yet another expense with this worthless law enforcement and pathetic legal system.
 
Smokified said:
On the other hand we have liberal states, like the state of MN, that would lock up anyone who even remotely attempted to fight back as opposed to retreating which essentially enables these criminal bastards to do whatever they want whenever they feel like it.

This needs to stop. Not to mention the tax payers have yet another expense with this worthless law enforcement and pathetic legal system.
Click to expand...

anyone who attempts to perpetrate a felony upon another person should be barred from seeking redress in either the criminal or civil courts for whatever happens to them in the proximity of the felonious transaction
 
jamesrage said:
You are aware that there are stricter standards for a criminal trial than there is for a civil trial? This means that the jury in the civil trial basically said it was likely or probable that the shop owners shot and killed one of the burglars, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact a jury in a civil trial basically is it was probably that these shop keepers killed the burglar is not evidence that the shop keepers did any thing illegal or even committed murder.
Click to expand...

We've talked about this. A grand jury uses the same standard of proof as a civil trial. So using the same standard of proof to reach conclusions on substantively identical factual issues (i.e. did the defendants willfully cause the death of the trespasser, and if so, did they have a valid reason to do so (i.e. self defense)), jury A reached conclusions that are totally inconsistent with the conclusions of jury B. Since they cannot both be right, both are suspect, and neither can be a basis for any conclusions. This is why I've repeatedly asked you to address the facts and the law rather than appealing to a dubious authority.


jamesrage said:
And why do you think the prosecutor did not want to try these men for murder or even some lesser crime?
Click to expand...

In the post that you're responding to I specifically pointed out that the prosecutor did want to try these men for murder. This is why he convened a grand jury. I can't believe I'm explaining this yet again, but the way a grand jury works is as follows:

The prosecutor reviews the evidence, and decides he wants to bring a criminal case against someone. Before he is allowed to do so, he first has to convince a grand jury to allow him to do so. The grand jury is convened, the prosecutor makes his case (just the prosecutor - there is no judge or defense attorney). The grand jury makes a decision as to whether or not to prosecute. So the decision to actually prosecute is emphatically not in the hands of the prosecutor, it's in the hands of the jury.

Since we've established, over and over again, that the decisions reached by the juries cannot be squared with one another, neither decision is a particularly valid basis for any conclusions.

jamesrage said:
You can't say there was a lack evidence,witnesses and confession that the shop keepers shot and killed one of the burglars. It is basically a open and shut case the shop keepers shot the burglars,if this was murder case it would be a extremely easy job for the prosecutor.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the many, many posts I've made on this subject? Many of them addressed directly to you?
 
TurtleDude said:
anyone who attempts to perpetrate a felony upon another person should be barred from seeking redress in either the criminal or civil courts for whatever happens to them in the proximity of the felonious transaction
Click to expand...

I agree. If the prosecution can use the argument that a situation would not have occured unless a certain action was committed by the accused, then the same argument should hold true on the other side of the table.
 
Smokified said:
What would really amaze you would be the sharp decrease in violent crime if people were allowed to fight back.
Click to expand...

People are allowed to fight back. What they're not supposed to do is fight preemptively.
 
We've talked about this. A grand jury uses the same standard of proof as a civil trial. So using the same standard of proof to reach conclusions on substantively identical factual issues (i.e. did the defendants willfully cause the death of the trespasser, and if so, did they have a valid reason to do so (i.e. self defense)), jury A reached conclusions that are totally inconsistent with the conclusions of jury B. Since they cannot both be right, both are suspect, and neither can be a basis for any conclusions. This is why I've repeatedly asked you to address the facts and the law rather than appealing to a dubious authority.
Click to expand...

The part that you are missing here though is that in a criminal trial one must be found guilty by unanimous decision where in civil court the scale only has to be slightly tipped in one direction.
 
Aderleth said:
People are allowed to fight back. What they're not supposed to do is fight preemptively.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. In many (most) states you have the duty to retreat, not fight back and defend yourself. It was not until recently that states began reconsidering and in some cases even passing/repealing laws making it acceptable to defend yourself without the duty to retreat.
 
Smokified said:
The part that you are missing here though is that in a criminal trial one must be found guilty by unanimous decision where in civil court the scale only has to be slightly tipped in one direction.
Click to expand...

The part that you're missing is that there was no criminal trial. There was a grand jury. Not the same thing. Also, not all juries (criminal or civil) need to be unanimous. Every jurisdiction handles this a little bit differently.
 
Smokified said:
This is incorrect. In many (most) states you have the duty to retreat, not fight back and defend yourself. It was not until recently that states began reconsidering and in some cases even passing/repealing laws making it acceptable to defend yourself without the duty to retreat.
Click to expand...

Nope. Most western states have never had duty to retreat laws, and that's been the case since before many western states were actually states. Duty to retreat is mostly a Northeastern phenomenon, and even there, it's contingent upon the ability to retreat. If you can't retreat, you can still defend yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom