• 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.
Where exactly can we draw the line between self-defense and "wrong"?
 
I'm kinda wondering what would've happened had they tried to go for a more cut-and-dried charge like negligent homicide or, bare minimum, manslaughter. Those almost seem like slam dunks. The mens rea argument seems to be a little more lenient that way. Of course, I'm no lawyer.
 
Gipper said:
I'm kinda wondering what would've happened had they tried to go for a more cut-and-dried charge like negligent homicide or, bare minimum, manslaughter. Those almost seem like slam dunks. The mens rea argument seems to be a little more lenient that way. Of course, I'm no lawyer.
Click to expand...

even simple assault should have been a slam dunk.
 
Well yeah, but assault would be a slap on the wrist most likely. I'm being devil's advocate here (prosecutor), so I'd want to find the worst crime I could make stick. The two I mentioned would have a great shot, in my opinion. Both of those could also carry a year or three in jail.

Assault is what you get when you smack Snooki in a bar for being mouthy. That dude was on the street after four hours and a couple hundred bucks.
 
Gipper said:
Well yeah, but assault would be a slap on the wrist most likely. I'm being devil's advocate here (prosecutor), so I'd want to find the worst crime I could make stick. The two I mentioned would have a great shot, in my opinion. Both of those could also carry a year or three in jail.

Assault is what you get when you smack Snooki in a bar for being mouthy. That dude was on the street after four hours and a couple hundred bucks.
Click to expand...

maybe the prosecutor didn't want to convict these guys so he filed charges that he knew would never make it to trial?
 
Gipper said:
Very possible. He'd be disbarred if he did, and there was evidence of it.
Click to expand...

be damned hard to prove intent if he did. more likely, some bleeding heart coerced him into charging these guys
 
OscarB63 said:
be damned hard to prove intent if he did. more likely, some bleeding heart coerced him into charging these guys
Click to expand...

Or he legitimately thought the charges were valid, but was overridden due to jury nullification. Not a lot of people are in a position to tell a DA who to prosecute.
 
mertex said:
Sounds like a Teabagger talking. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to admit they are one.......

And, this was not a home invasion - reading abilities would have clarified that.
Click to expand...

mertex said:
You are wise to take the high road, Leo. There's no fixing "stupid".
Click to expand...

People who resort to ad homs are severely lacking in an intelligent argument. Obviously, one of the posts you were trying to refer to was a hypothetical. Look that word up, and become familiar with it. Many people on political forums use hypothetical situations to demonstrate a point. I'm sure even you could muster an example.
 
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...

I will never stop being amazed at how reflexively you take up with the side of criminals.

They should not be in prison. They were defending their livelihood from bandits, and given the fact that the bandits were armed, I am not so sure they should be liable for anything. One can only speculate as to what degree the fact that the defendants were immigrants from a former eastern bloc nation might have had on the jury's decision.
 
Liar-Liar-jim-carrey-1014563_576_384.jpg


"I could've gotten him $600,000"
 
Sig said:
I will never stop being amazed at how reflexively you take up with the side of criminals.
Click to expand...

That's an insipid thing to say. I'm opposed to the actions of both sets of criminals. The problem is that you are apparently incapable of admitting to yourself that the property owners are also criminals.
 
wow, 106 pages in and still defending meth-heads. nice work counsellor
 
Aderleth said:
That's an insipid thing to say. I'm opposed to the actions of both sets of criminals. The problem is that you are apparently incapable of admitting to yourself that the property owners are also criminals.
Click to expand...

That's probably because I'm not so sure they are criminals. Indeed, they do not appear to have been criminally charged. It's one thing when a person or persons inadvertently wanders onto your property absent of malice, but when they are there to plunder you should have the right to defend your property without fear of criminal or civil penalty.

The problem with you is that you are incapable of admitting that the deceased was a worthless meth junkie who got what was coming to him (with the exception of the posthumous award). Of course, your other problem is that you are habitually on the opposing side of the law-abiding citizen who is forced to take drastic measures to defend himself in a society that has grown increasingly soft of the habitual criminal.
 
Sig said:
That's probably because I'm not so sure they are criminals. Indeed, they do not appear to have been criminally charged. It's one thing when a person or persons inadvertently wanders onto your property absent of malice, but when they are there to plunder you should have the right to defend your property without fear of criminal or civil penalty.

The problem with you is that you are incapable of admitting that the deceased was a worthless meth junkie who got what was coming to him (with the exception of the posthumous award). Of course, your other problem is that you are habitually on the opposing side of the law-abiding citizen who is forced to take drastic measures to defend himself in a society that has grown increasingly soft of the habitual criminal.
Click to expand...

apparently our fake lawyer doesn't believe in the premise of innocent until PROVEN guilty. note: his opinion is not proof
 
OscarB63 said:
apparently our fake lawyer doesn't believe in the premise of innocent until PROVEN guilty. note: his opinion is not proof
Click to expand...

Be careful, he's also a black belt in Judo, Karate, Toyota, and ten other Japanese words.
 
Sig said:
That's probably because I'm not so sure they are criminals. Indeed, they do not appear to have been criminally charged. It's one thing when a person or persons inadvertently wanders onto your property absent of malice, but when they are there to plunder you should have the right to defend your property without fear of criminal or civil penalty.
Click to expand...

You would be sure they are criminals if you actually applied the law (which I've posted on this thread) to the facts (also available on this thread). They were not criminally charged because the grand jury overrode the prosecutor. My suspicion is that this is due to jury nullification. If you disagree, look through this thread before commenting further. I'm not going to re-hash points that I've made dozens of times in this thread. And yes, you do have the right to defend yourself and your property. Under Colorado law, you do not have the right to defend your property using deadly force, and self-defense was not at issue here. Again, if you disagree, look at the law and tell me why, specifically, you believe these guys did not violate it. Appeals to authority (i.e. the grand jury) will be ignored.

Sig said:
The problem with you is that you are incapable of admitting that the deceased was a worthless meth junkie who got what was coming to him (with the exception of the posthumous award).
Click to expand...

Sorry, no. The elements of murder are not contingent on whether or not the person murdered was a nice person. I could give a **** about the robber. It's irrelevant to my thinking. I know you believe otherwise, but that's because you're not thinking clearly.

Sig said:
Of course, your other problem is that you are habitually on the opposing side of the law-abiding citizen who is forced to take drastic measures to defend himself in a society that has grown increasingly soft of the habitual criminal.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Stop writing some bull**** narrative about who I am in your head, and try logic for once. Apply the facts to the law, and tell me why I'm wrong.
 
OscarB63 said:
apparently our fake lawyer doesn't believe in the premise of innocent until PROVEN guilty. note: his opinion is not proof
Click to expand...

Neither is yours. Unfortunately for you, my opinion is backed up by facts, and supported by the law. Yours isn't. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
 
Sig said:
Be careful, he's also a black belt in Judo, Karate, Toyota, and ten other Japanese words.
Click to expand...

Childish baiting. An excellent substitute for reasoning. Thank you for demonstrating your "worth."
 
Aderleth said:
You would be sure they are criminals if you actually applied the law (which I've posted on this thread) to the facts (also available on this thread). They were not criminally charged because the grand jury overrode the prosecutor.
My suspicion is that this is due to jury nullification.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like the prosecutor didn't have much of a case if he couldn't even get a grand jury to agree to the charges.

If you disagree, look through this thread before commenting further. I'm not going to re-hash points that I've made dozens of times in this thread. And yes, you do have the right to defend yourself and your property. Under Colorado law, you do not have the right to defend your property using deadly force, and self-defense was not at issue here. Again, if you disagree, look at the law and tell me why, specifically, you believe these guys did not violate it. Appeals to authority (i.e. the grand jury) will be ignored.
Click to expand...

Two words: Castle Doctrine

1. Was the deceased making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle?

YES

2. Was the deceased acting illegally?

YES

3. Was it reasonable for defendant to expect the deceased to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon him?

YES

4. Was it reasonable for the defendant to believe that the deceased intended to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary?

YES
Click to expand...
 
Sig said:
Aderleth said:
Sounds to me like the prosecutor didn't have much of a case if he couldn't even get a grand jury to agree to the charges.



Two words: Castle Doctrine

1. Was the deceased making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle?

YES

2. Was the deceased acting illegally?

YES

3. Was it reasonable for defendant to expect the deceased to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon him?

YES

4. Was it reasonable for the defendant to believe that the deceased intended to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary?

YES
Click to expand...

Setting aside, for the moment, the fact that you're making some poor assumptions here, you're also not applying Colorado law. Why don't you look that up (or find it in this thread) and try again? I'll be going away for several hours, so you've got plenty of time to do some actual research to form your argument.
Click to expand...
 
Aderleth said:
Sig said:
Setting aside, for the moment, the fact that you're making some poor assumptions here, you're also not applying Colorado law. Why don't you look that up (or find it in this thread) and try again? I'll be going away for several hours, so you've got plenty of time to do some actual research to form your argument.
Click to expand...

so what kind of law do you practice? curious I am
Click to expand...
 
jamesrage said:
It is not murder to use lethal force to defend yourself and property against burglars especially armed burglars.If what the property owner did was murder then he would be in prison right now.



Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
Police said in a 145-page investigative report that the intruder had knives in his pockets and one strapped to his ankle

Read more: Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
Click to expand...
Are there any states where it's legal to use lethal for to defend your property?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Are there any states where it's legal to use lethal for to defend your property?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, (one) or a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

As of the 28th of May, 2010, 31 States have some form of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law. Alabama,[9] Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,[10] South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,[11] West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, Nebraska,[12] New Hampshire, and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.[

These state use differing forms of Castle Law:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
per Wikipedia

Read about individual states here
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom