The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ptarmigan on August 26, 2011, 10:15:46 PM
-
Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit
http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury-123946-burglar-lot.html#ixzz1WAJvzqf5
This is really stupid. Colorado has become leftist like California and Massachusetts. :mental:
-
I'm on the fence with this one.
-
One less scumbag on the planet.
-
Lots of hair-splitting on this one, to wit the right to defend your HOME against burglars and other scumbags, but not businesses.
But that's the law in Colorado, apparently.
If you have to shoot a scumbag in Colorado, you'd better make sure that all the criteria are in place:
1. Scumbag on my property? Check.
2. Scumbag in the process of stealing something of mine? Check.
3. Scumbag armed with a weapon of some type? Check.
4. Scumbag running away after I've got the drop on his ass? Check.
Put the weapon down, then. Can't shoot the scumbag since he's high-tailing it out of there, or is trying to hide someplace where he thinks I can't see him.
That's a lot of checking to do at 4 a.m.
Why not just say, "**** it," and just leave the doors and windows open? That way nobody gets hurt and while your stuff is stolen, the important thing is the scumbag is allowed to live to steal again.
All that said, civil lawsuits are apparently "easier" to prove in court -- in this case, that the scumbag's death was wrongful and that equates to $$ -- and that's why the judicial system is clogged full of them.
I wonder how much the attorneys are getting out of it? And whether or not the business owners are actually going to pay?
Remember the bullshit that OJ pulled to avoid paying when he lost HIS civil lawsuit for wrongful death?
-
I'm sure the meth-head was only thinking of his little girl the whole time. ::)
-
Siding w/ the jury on this based on the article, maybe there is more to the story but how are you going to shoot somebody through a door and claim that it was justified.
-
Siding w/ the jury on this based on the article, maybe there is more to the story but how are you going to shoot somebody through a door and claim that it was justified.
On the other hand, when you fire a shot through a shed door, what are the odds you intended to kill the guy inside? They didn't even wing the other guy, it sounds more like they were trying to scare the crap out of them, and actually hitting the one was an accident. I feel for the little girl, but more because her dad was a messed up methhead thief than because he's gone...she's probably going to be better off without him.
-
On the other hand, when you fire a shot through a shed door, what are the odds you intended to kill the guy inside? They didn't even wing the other guy, it sounds more like they were trying to scare the crap out of them, and actually hitting the one was an accident. I feel for the little girl, but more because her dad was a messed up methhead thief than because he's gone...she's probably going to be better off without him.
Shoot = deadly force = intent to kill
-
On the other hand, when you fire a shot through a shed door, what are the odds you intended to kill the guy inside? They didn't even wing the other guy, it sounds more like they were trying to scare the crap out of them, and actually hitting the one was an accident. I feel for the little girl, but more because her dad was a messed up methhead thief than because he's gone...she's probably going to be better off without him.
Ditto what RC said. You don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, and you don't shoot anything you don't intend to kill.
Bottom line, the tweekers are scumbags, but they didn't present an imminent threat. Had the guy turned around and tried to go for his knife, all bets are off and no jury would have given anyone a dime.
-
Siding w/ the jury on this based on the article, maybe there is more to the story but how are you going to shoot somebody through a door and claim that it was justified.
This make me think of Stephen Kings the Shining. ' Here's Johnny'
This gives me the horrors, a woman alone hears someone break in, she grabs a gun runs into the bathroom and looks the door.
She hides but the door knob keeps turning and as she calls out Who Are You no answer.
So far we have a lone armed woman hiding in the bathroom and someone is trying to get in.
[A ] this is your 18 year old daughter, what do you think she should do next ?????
This is your wife, what do you think would be a safe move for her???
[C] This is your grandma, old and frail, what do you believe should she do??
[D] This is in fact YOU who have come home to find while you were at work thieves broke in. This becomes a problem when the police cannot help you. You awake in the night to the sound of people again breaking in, grab a gun and get IN a locked bathroom. You just pray the people will take what they want and go away. BUT they for some reason want to get to you , do you sit back and even armed wait for the door to be broken down. Do you stay calm and collective and reason all these things out----???
-
This make me think of Stephen Kings the Shining. ' Here's Johnny'
This gives me the horrors, a woman alone hears someone break in, she grabs a gun runs into the bathroom and looks the door.
She hides but the door knob keeps turning and as she calls out Who Are You no answer.
So far we have a lone armed woman hiding in the bathroom and someone is trying to get in.
[A ] this is your 18 year old daughter, what do you think she should do next ?????
This is your wife, what do you think would be a safe move for her???
[C] This is your grandma, old and frail, what do you believe should she do??
[D] This is in fact YOU who have come home to find while you were at work thieves broke in. This becomes a problem when the police cannot help you. You awake in the night to the sound of people again breaking in, grab a gun and get IN a locked bathroom. You just pray the people will take what they want and go away. BUT they for some reason want to get to you , do you sit back and even armed wait for the door to be broken down. Do you stay calm and collective and reason all these things out----???
Read the article. There was a very specific set of circumstances leading up to the shooting that had NOTHING AT ALL to do with whatever it you just wrote above. The property owners were hiding after hours and in the dark with guns, the property owners chased bad guy 1 off their property over a fence by shooting at him, bad guy 2 was chased into a shed and shot through the door. Does that sound like my daughter home alone and scared hiding in the bathroom?
Eupher gave some facts about self-defense in Colorado, read those too.
-
Lots of hair-splitting on this one, to wit the right to defend your HOME against burglars and other scumbags, but not businesses.
But that's the law in Colorado, apparently.
If you have to shoot a scumbag in Colorado, you'd better make sure that all the criteria are in place:
1. Scumbag on my property? Check.
2. Scumbag in the process of stealing something of mine? Check.
3. Scumbag armed with a weapon of some type? Check.
4. Scumbag running away after I've got the drop on his ass? Check.
Put the weapon down, then. Can't shoot the scumbag since he's high-tailing it out of there, or is trying to hide someplace where he thinks I can't see him.
That's a lot of checking to do at 4 a.m.
Why not just say, "**** it," and just leave the doors and windows open? That way nobody gets hurt and while your stuff is stolen, the important thing is the scumbag is allowed to live to steal again.
All that said, civil lawsuits are apparently "easier" to prove in court -- in this case, that the scumbag's death was wrongful and that equates to $$ -- and that's why the judicial system is clogged full of them.
I wonder how much the attorneys are getting out of it? And whether or not the business owners are actually going to pay?
Remember the bullshit that OJ pulled to avoid paying when he lost HIS civil lawsuit for wrongful death?
I completely agree with you in this.. In 1999, my father and I were throwing a baseball in our front yard after we had a neighborhood barbeque. When it started to get dark, we decided to go back into the house, and all of a sudden we heard a scream. Considering that we lived in Miami, and had experienced random burglaries and thefts, my father, who was putting away the baseball gloves, grabs a baseball bat and takes off down the street. When I finally caught up to the area in which we heard the scream, I saw my dad standing over an completely unconscious hispanic male, along with some lady with her shirt torn and her 6 year old child wrapped around her leg.
Long story short, the mugger sustained a fractured skull, and surgery had to be done to relieve pressure from his brain. The DA declined to pursue charges of excessive force based on the fact that it was really only 1 swing of the bat, and that my father didn't continue to beat this man after he was rendered a non-threat. The civil side was an entirely different matter. The family of the criminal had contacted a plaintiffs attorney, and they tried to take my father for all he had in a lawsuit. They said that even though this man was armed, he never brandished the knife, therefore the use of a deadly weapon was not considered within the scope of the self-defense. The case went on for what felt like ages, and eventually a jury trial found my father negligent and awarded the plaintiff around $500,000 in damages to the mugger.
Of course my father appealed the verdict, and requested it be tried in a different district that wasn't predominantly hispanic, and the verdict was overturned and the plaintiff was awarded not a penny. My point in bringing this story up is that it's pretty ridiculous that there is a legal system in place that potentially penalizes people who are just trying to protect themselves and their properties. I guess that's the world we live in though.
-
But there is no reason we have to live in that world.
-
Unless you have a spaceship with FTL capabilities, I don't really see much of an alternative. The truth is, if you listen to the radio in South Florida, count the amount of "lawyer referral services" telling you to call them if you've been in an accident, whether it was your fault or not. Then you'll understand that the problem is only getting worse, and also why insurance rates are getting more expensive by the day.
-
Same thing in and around Chicago, and, I suspect, throughout our country.
It's often said that there are too many lawyers. Not true. There are too many idiots, possibly like your neighbor, who sit on the juries that grant these idiotic awards. That's why lawyers have "Jury Experts," to review the jury panels to eliminate people who don't agree with their cases.
-
I live in Georgia. My wife is a lawyer. We have talked about this. If a burglar comes into your home and you shoot and kill him, no jury would ever convict you, and for that reason, no prosecutor would ever bother to bring it to court. Keep in mind we are talking about a burglar in the home, not car lot, and we are talking about Georgia and not Colorado.
-
You wife's a lawyer? Specializing in what?
-
You wife's a lawyer? Specializing in what?
She does appeals. She only works for other lawyers.
-
She does appeals. She only works for other lawyers.
Criminal? Product liability? Wrongful death?
-
All kinds. An appeal has to be done in a certain form and most lawyers don't like doing it. It is a specialization. I don't know much about this though. She is a lawyer, not me.
-
What do you do Mr Bush?
-
Retired software engineer and computer programmer. Age 61.
-
What do you do Mr Mann?
-
I have been the victim of numerous breakin/robberies on my farm and out buildings the last couple of years. They have stolen or attempted to steal almost everything I have or had. I don't give a great big G** D*** any more. I catch him stealing my stuff, I'm going to shoot him, tie his dead ass behind the tractor and drag him off into the woods to rot. He's acting like an animal, I'm gonna treat his carcass like a dead rabied animal.
-
Ditto what RC said. You don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, and you don't shoot anything you don't intend to kill.
Bottom line, the tweekers are scumbags, but they didn't present an imminent threat. Had the guy turned around and tried to go for his knife, all bets are off and no jury would have given anyone a dime.
He shot at a door.
-
He shot at a door.
And killed a person that he knew was on the other side of the door. Walk away and call the police and the scumbag goes to jail.
-
And killed a person that he knew was on the other side of the door. Walk away and call the police and the scumbag goes to jail.
Yes, but there was no way of knowing if there was somebody else on the other side. I knew one idiot who fired a few rounds at his girlfriend's home (she lived with her parents)... the fool was sentenced to ten years for shooting into an occupied dwelling.
-
What do you do Mr Mann?
I work with foreclosures and get to throw people out in the streets. Major bank.
-
im gonna start this with states rights. for instance, currently in MN you need to show you did not have an "out". If you dont attempt to flee if given the opportunity you cant use deadly force. Colorado seems to have the same law as MN's. my state congressman is pushing for the castle doctrine here and i support it. Basically, if you're on your property (this can mean somewhere in your vehicle or in a tent at a campground, etc) you can defend yourself from a deadly threat without having to flee. in this case though is the question of a threat. the "victim" was hiding in a shed. the "suspect" shot him through the door. I say "how do you know that the guy wasnt preparing for an attack behind that door and was about to jump out to attack the lot owner?" the guy was high on meth. meth heads do crazy shit. did the lot owner know he was high, no. did he know he was sober and hiding to diffuse the situation, no.
i support a law that allows deadly force to end threats of bodily harm. Without the need to show an attempt to flee first. and Without the need to be on your own private property. In a public place the same bodily harm threat should be dealt with in the same way as on private property. I also feel firing a gun at someone who merely has a baseball bat is justifiable. The force used for self defense should not be limited to the force of the threat. In most issues i dont tend to be on the compassionate side. In this issue, i tend to be on the "when in doubt, take em out" side.
I work with foreclosures and get to throw people out in the streets. Major bank.
you dont get a lot of "pleasure doing business with ya" compliments do you?
-
He shot at a door.
Knowing the perp was inside. Reckless endangerment when the perp presented no threat.
-
I work with foreclosures and get to throw people out in the streets. Major bank.
you dont get a lot of "pleasure doing business with ya" compliments do you?
No, But I get to wear a cape, twirl my mustache, and tie fair maidens to railroad tracks...
-
im gonna start this with states rights. for instance, currently in MN you need to show you did not have an "out". If you dont attempt to flee if given the opportunity you cant use deadly force. Colorado seems to have the same law as MN's. my state congressman is pushing for the castle doctrine here and i support it. Basically, if you're on your property (this can mean somewhere in your vehicle or in a tent at a campground, etc) you can defend yourself from a deadly threat without having to flee. in this case though is the question of a threat. the "victim" was hiding in a shed. the "suspect" shot him through the door. I say "how do you know that the guy wasnt preparing for an attack behind that door and was about to jump out to attack the lot owner?" the guy was high on meth. meth heads do crazy shit. did the lot owner know he was high, no. did he know he was sober and hiding to diffuse the situation, no.
i support a law that allows deadly force to end threats of bodily harm. Without the need to show an attempt to flee first. and Without the need to be on your own private property. In a public place the same bodily harm threat should be dealt with in the same way as on private property. I also feel firing a gun at someone who merely has a baseball bat is justifiable. The force used for self defense should not be limited to the force of the threat. In most issues i dont tend to be on the compassionate side. In this issue, i tend to be on the "when in doubt, take em out" side.
I agree with you on this.
However, no matter what the law says, in the end it often comes down to what a jury decides. Several years ago near Atlanta, a guy filling up his car at a gas station was robed at gun point. He gave the thief his wallet and the thief turned and started to walk away. The guy who had been robed had a concealed pistol. He pulled it out and shot the thief in the back and killed him. The case went to trial. The jury acquitted him because they said even though the thief had turned his back and was walking away the guy who was robbed could not know it the thief was going to turn back around and shot him. I think the jury made the right decision.
This could have gone either way based on who happened to be on jury.
-
Yup, moral of this thread is that before you shoot make sure you have a good lawyer.
-
Suit or no suit, if you break into a business with the intent of stealing something, the owners should have the right to blast you. The implication in this case is that if you're being robbed by one of these flash mobs who aren't armed at all, is that you have to stand there and watch these sacks of crap walk out and go free. But I guess in a welfare state, the government doesn't want you protecting your private property. I wouldn't have awarded the daughter crap.
-
I live in Georgia. My wife is a lawyer. We have talked about this. If a burglar comes into your home and you shoot and kill him, no jury would ever convict you, and for that reason, no prosecutor would ever bother to bring it to court. Keep in mind we are talking about a burglar in the home, not car lot, and we are talking about Georgia and not Colorado.
We have the castle doctrine here. You don't have to flee, your home, your car, your yard, anywhere you have a right to be at. You can also use deadly force to prevent a felony and whether or not a potential perp had a weapon, well, he was going for something in his pocket, officer, I swear.