Thread: Legitimate defence of property, or cold-blooded murder?

Originally Posted by Hollywood

So, why on earth do we all not just talk about the known facts instead of spending hours argueing, fussing and cussing over what we all know in the end are just speculations and personal opinions and completely ignoring any facts that might counter our speculation & opinions? Example: you still have made no comments over the three bullets that were fired and obviously hit SOMEWHERE. It's illogical.

I was discussing the known facts, you're attempting to introduce unknown facts. The shooter was not charged with a crime, correct? No one should fire shots in that environment, no one should risk getting fired on by attempting to steal. I don't know what's to discuss beyond that if we're not going to speculate.

Isn't the op suggesting the civil ruling may be wrong according to some people? That's where I was going with this, perhaps the civil ruling is wrong, but you may be right, perhaps the court considered the fact that this man (the dead one) would have been in jail and adjusted his "future earnings" accordingly.

Originally Posted by Sparta

I was discussing the known facts, you're attempting to introduce unknown facts. The shooter was not charged with a crime, correct? No one should fire shots in that environment, no one should risk getting fired on by attempting to steal. I don't know what's to discuss beyond that if we're not going to speculate.

Isn't the op suggesting the civil ruling may be wrong according to some people? That's where I was going with this, perhaps the civil ruling is wrong, but you may be right, perhaps the court considered the fact that this man (the dead one) would have been in jail and adjusted his "future earnings" accordingly.

I know. I never said or implied the shooter was charged with a crime. All I asked was what would your opinion of the shooter be had one of those three shots hit and killed a child hundreds of yards away, or a relative of yours. This was a clear case of everyone involved acting stupidly, the criminals and the business owner. Maybe we should be relieved only ONE person was killed.

I'm not suggesting the shooter wasn't acting a fool. Not only did he endanger bystanders for no good reason, he also took his own life in his hands, this could easily have ended with the shooter dead. At all times, my first priority is to avoid violent confrontation.

My one and only contention is that perhaps the shooter shouldn't have been held financially liable to the extent he was based on what we know.

Originally Posted by Sparta

I'm not suggesting the shooter wasn't acting a fool. Not only did he endanger bystanders for no good reason, he also took his own life in his hands, this could easily have ended with the shooter dead. At all times, my first priority is to avoid violent confrontation.

My one and only contention is that perhaps the shooter shouldn't have been held financially liable to the extent he was based on what we know.

Yeah right. Yoiu might want to re-read your posts #98 and #102.

Originally Posted by Leo2

At another place, there is much outrage being expressed that the three men involved in this killing have been ordered to pay compensation to the child of the deceased.



Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury...#ixzz1WTwUjL3h

For myself, I am outraged that the three men involved in the shooting were not indicted for murder, and as accomplices to murder, and are not rotting in prison 'for the term of their natural lives'.

What think you?

Not having the link to go on... I'm sorry, but I think you should be allowed to defend your property and yourself.

Once a person breaks in to your home or your business, you should have the right to defend it... if robbers and burglers don't like that, perhaps they should find a safer line of work.

Originally Posted by Gypsy

This crime didn't occur in Texas. It occurred in Colorado. Different laws.

Eh sorry. The link doesn't work for me and I saw El Paso County lol

Originally Posted by Hollywood

Yeah right. Yoiu might want to re-read your posts #98 and #102.

Post 98 was a statement about the "victim", I stand by that, I have no sympathy for him. Any feelings I have against the shooter are not at all inspired by the theif, but rather neglect for the saftey of innocent by-standers.

Post 102 was a statement, which I also stand by, based on civil penalties awarded to the theifs child.

Originally Posted by rstrobel89army

Eh sorry. The link doesn't work for me and I saw El Paso County lol

No problem!