moonbattery logo

Aug 29 2011

Burglar’s Family Awarded Big Cash Bonanza

Our society is made up of the makers who built it, and the takers who are looting it into oblivion. The ideology of the takers is liberalism. Liberals control the courts. Consequently, the legal system produces rulings like this:

An El Paso County [Colorado] jury on Friday awarded nearly $300,000 to the daughter of a burglar who was fatally shot in 2009 while breaking into an auto lot.…

Phillip and Sue Fox, who filed suit for wrongful death in 2010 on behalf of [burglar Robert Johnson] Fox’s 3-year-old daughter, called the jury’s award a victory in their fight to seek accountability for the death of their son, who they say never posed a threat to the heavily armed men.

Never mind that he had knives in his pockets and one strapped to his ankle, or that he was high on methamphetamine according to his accomplice. Poor Fox was just a cuddly “have-not” who needed money to buy more drugs.

The exact amount of the award was $269,500, for factors such as loss of companionship and loss of future earnings.

Future earnings — for a meth-head burglar? They must mean future plunder and welfare payments.

On tips from Lyle and SR.

Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Share on Facebook


  • ThatDorkEricDraven

    Dave,
    What’s wrong with taking what is rightfully yours?

    Reparations now!

    Whatever.

    Dick.

  • KHarn

    Crime victims should start sueing criminals. Even if they have nothing, it would be a big “screw you!” to the welfare generation.

  • Canis lupus

    So to avoid being sued people are to allow burglars to take what they want?

  • TheDarkEricDraven

    Perhaps next time, we get actual wolves to throw the three year old girl too, aye? Not that I quite agree, but still. Besides, it was a jury that made the decision. People want to be judged by their peers.

  • StanInTexas

    So let me see, the men were not charged criminally with a crime. But they were sued for big bucks to support the child of a violent crimnal and meth-head?

    The child had no “companionship” with this sperm-donor. This is a travesty that needs to be overturned upon appeal!

  • ThatDorkEricDraven

    And I judge you a RETARD for LIFE with no chance of parole.

    quel que soit.

  • Mickey Shea

    Hey, one less larcenous tweaker running around , he should have gotten a reward.
    The plot continues, make people afraid to defend themselves by harassing, arresting, and/or suing them.
    Then unleash the mobs…..

  • Dookiestain Laflair

    If we had a sensible drug policy, meth heads would be doing 10 years mandatory minimum sentence, dealers would get 25. We could let all the pot heads and mushroom eaters go, because they aren’t the problem.

  • SR

    TheDarkEricDraven says:
    “Perhaps next time, we get actual wolves to throw the three year old girl too, aye?”

    What’s wrong with a foster home away from drugs? Or the grand parents Phillip and Sue raise the kid, after all they raised a a meth-head burglar son.

  • http://www.henrypbabcock.com Henry

    Shoot. Shovel. Shut up.

  • FrankW

    Peers? So the owners of the car lot were judged by other business owners who have been sued after being robbed? I call BS there. The reality is the jury consisted of at least 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. Wanna take bets on the jury makeup? I would be willing to bet none of the people on the jury own a business. I will bet 2 or less have a college degree (in a marketable major, forget art, music, women’s studies, social work, or other “Will you have fries with that?” majors). I will bet that 5 are or have been unemployed or on welfare currently on in the last two years. And to top it all off the (if it was attainable) 9 of the jury were libs. Conservatives have jobs.

  • FrankW

    Oh yeah, where is the mom? Grandparents sued, hell they should have been held accountable for raising a methhead.

  • Garpin

    Protecting your home and family is one thing. Standing watch over your expensive property in order to alert the LEOS in the event of an intrusion is another.

    Arming yourself, chasing someone down and killing them because they trespassed on commercial property is a whole different animal.

    Was Fox wrong? Without question. Did he deserve to die because of it? No way. No one was physically threatened by his lawlessness.

    This was vigilantism, pure and simple and is precisely the reason we train and pay our police to serve and protect us so we don’t have people running around thinking they are judge, jury and executioner.

    IF they had used the weapons as a method to detain the perps I would applaud. They didn’t, they murdered one of them.

    I know, no charges were filed against them, but the facts of the matter don’t change because of it.

    I also know if I killed someone in a similar manner, I wouldn’t be able to sleep.

  • TheDarkEricDraven

    So, Frank, “too stupid to get out of jury duty”? Then you admit its a flawed system?

    *Spittake* Garpin, are you serious? Damn David, me and one of you’re regulars agree on something.

  • StanInTexas

    Garpin, he came onto private property, armed and looking to commit a crime. Should the property owners have waited until he pulled a knife, or a gun. Should they have stood by and let themselves get stabbed before they acted? It is of no small note that these men were not charged with a crime in this killing. So then your use of the word ‘murder’ is incorrect and ignorant.

    Remember this saying, “When seconds count, the police are only MINUTES away”!

    And while taking a human life should never be done casually, I would sleep fine knowing I had played a part in making sure this piece of human garbage would never be able to harm another person ever again.

  • barny

    I live in this county and it is riddled with hippie and liberal trash. The crime in this county the past couple years is insane. There is a gang war going on in Colorado Springs and police are not taking it seriously, a once great city has been over run by crime and meth addicts and the jobs here are low paying or don’t exist. It is really sad this used to be a great place to live.

  • Secret Squirrel

    How about the solution Indonesia has for drug traffickers and dealers? The dreaded hukuman mati for drug dealers/traffickers.

    Note: They sentence drug dealers and traffickers to death in that country.

  • kiplingsburdens@aol.com

    Shoot. Shovel. Shut up. – WORDS TO LIVE BY!

    Never let the government sit in judgement of you. Never give a Liberal judge or Over Zealous Prosecutor looking to make a name for himself or cary out his personal brand of Social Justice by prosecuting you for defending yourself.

    Without a body there is no crime… A manhole makes a perfect burial plot for a burglar. Bleach destroys all DNA…

    Keep Clean…

  • Garpin

    Stan:

    I don’t believe they knew anyone would be there. Until the guys started yelling, chasing and shooting at them, there was no reason they would know.

    IF the guy with the knife had menaced the guys with guns, then that’s an un-winnable scenario. That was not the case, the guys with the guns were the aggressors, and in all likelyhood, the cops would have got there in time to stop the burgarly or recover any lost inventory.

    Killing someone in cold blood is the matter of fact. The 145 page police report stated that the owner told the police they would shoot the next person they found illegaly on the lot.

    So I will change my accusation of murder to premeditated murder.

  • Garpin

    TheDarkEricDraven says:

    *Spittake* Garpin, are you serious? Damn David, me and one of you’re regulars agree on something.
    _______

    Weird isn’t it…

    I’m almost certain more people agree with me across the broader spectrum on this issue than disagree.

    I’ve been a business owner for a long, long time and have been broken into a number of times.

    Insurance is a good thing.

    Putting myself into a position where I may be killed never occoured to me. Sure I was angry and upset, but it’s only stuff. That’s why I have a security system that responds to infra-red, motion and noise. The police are alerted, they respond then they call me when it’s safe.

    I file a report with my insurance, and get a check. Nobody dies.

    That is what should have happened in this case as well.

  • gunnerjones

    Wrongful death, the owners should of attempted to stop and hold the thief until the LEOs showed up. Of course if they resisted and pulled a knife…

  • gunnerjones

    “Fox was standing inside a small shed when a .45-caliber rifle bullet passed through the shed’s door and pierced his heart. ”

    sorry, can’t claim self defense

  • born in 76

    A fund should be set up for the true victims of this crime and $600K rewarded back for the act of heroism.

  • Spurwing Plover

    AND LET US THE FIRST THINGS WE DO LET US KILL ALL THE LAWYERS the jury must have rocks in their heads

  • TheDarkEricDraven

    Thats so good of you to say Garpin. Really, thats awesome of you. From now on, I’m going to call you Drizzt Do’Urden. I’d tell you the meaning of this, but it would be better for you to find out yourself. See Stan, and 76 there? Those are your allies here. Remember that. I’m going to go out of my way to avoid antagonizing you.
    .
    .
    .
    I’m also going to leave this here:
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeelFaceTurn

  • Garpin

    Good lord. Now I’m a dnd character that’s only 5’4″ tall and 130 pounds. I was that size in reality when I was 13. (Now: 6’4″ 245lbs)

    In your worldview I’m still a heel eric. It’s just that I think it’s a very bad thing for people to take the law into their own hands. Had this been a case of home invasion, I would have been on the other side of the fence. This case involved some stuff that could easily be replaced and no one was being threatened. Some think Mr. Fox got what was coming to him. I thought the punishment was far greater than the crime warranted.

    I believe in the teachings of Jesus inasmuch as I try to be as good to people as I want them to be to me.

    I also believe I am less than a man if I don’t protect my family in the face of a valid threat. That’s why there is a .40 in one bedside, a .32 in the other and a 12 guage pump shotgun behind the front door. I will protect my family with my LIFE. I could not care less about my car or my chainsaw or my o-scope and wouldn’t shoot anyone over any “thing” I own. I consider a home invasion a valid threat to my family and I will shoot first and ask questions later.

    Protecting my family is worth losing everything I have, protecting everything I have is not worth losing my family or my life.

  • StanInTexas

    Garpin, you are wrong.

    The crooks were the aggressors when they chose to enter another persons property ARMED with the intend to rob them. The knives they carried were not for decoration. They were weapons to be used if anyone got in their way. Unfortunately, they encountered ARMED resistance. And unwinable situation for sure, and one I’m sure they did not anticipate. They probably thought they could go there, intimidate the owners, and stab them of they got too mouthy.

    The piece of human garbage got EXACTLY what he deserved. Lesson to be learned, if you don’t want to be shot, then DON’T ROB PEOPLE!

  • SPURWING PLOVER

    CRIME PAYS when youra sleazie bloodsucking lawyer

  • Garpin

    Stan, I would beg to differ, but you have made up your mind.

    I’m not wrong, we just have an extreme difference in inventory loss prevention methodology.

  • AC

    “Fox was standing inside a small shed when a .45-caliber rifle bullet passed through the shed’s door and pierced his heart. ”

    sorry, can’t claim self defense

    If the hopped up armed burglar had shot out from that shed, then there would have been a loss of innocent life.

    The reason we have the castle doctrine is so innocents never, ever are forced to give dangerous felons the benefit of the doubt or the chance to shoot first.

    If a crook suddenly pulls a gun you can’t see and decides to fire, your reaction time won’t be sufficient to save yourself, unless you have a bead on his head (and even then its too close for the comfort of professional shooters).

    If you fail to neutralize the crook, and the crook pulls a gun suddenly, catching you off-guard, your life will come down to his aim.

    Neutralizing the threat stops that.

    If people don’t want to be shot they shouldn’t be out committing armed burglaries while high on drugs.

    The death of this lowlife may have saved the occupants from the burglar’s knives. It may have also saved other occupants of other buildings by deterring armed burglaries in the community at large.

    It is a good thing when dangerous burglars are shot in the act. If thieves can expect death from burglary, they’ll either lower their criminality, or switch to less threatening larcenies. Either way innocent people win.

  • AC

    IF the guy with the knife had menaced the guys with guns, then that’s an un-winnable scenario. That was not the case, the guys with the guns were the aggressors, and in all likelyhood, the cops would have got there in time to stop the burgarly or recover any lost inventory.

    Burglary is legally a forcible felony, which means it is menacing in and of itself.

    If you come across any burglar your heart will be racing, even if he’s unarmed.

    You don’t know if he’s armed until it’s too late.

    If the burglar is aggressive or high on drugs and wants to leave no witnesses or panics for any other reason you will be DRT with no recourse.

    I would not trust my life to, as you put it, “in all likelyhood”

    If 99% of the time the cops get there in time it is still too much of a burden to the innocent people who aren’t out smoking meth and burglarizing businesses.

  • Marci

    Another clear indication of the insanity and moonbattery that has infected our society to the core. Wonder if any of them were jurors on the Anthony case? Seems likely. Stupidity-disease that has no cure.

  • Garpin

    AC –

    Again, I don’t believe taking a vigilanty approach to protect property is ever the right decision. As you pointed out: what if the kid in the shed had had a gun and managed to shoot back – would some stolen keys and radios been worth it?

    Just one other thing to consider; this all took place at a closed car lot at 5:30 am on a Sunday, you can’t believe the perps thought they were going to encounter anyone can you?

    Rather than lay in wait with weapons, putting yourself in danger waiting for felons who are also armed, why not just get a couple of big dogs and a decent security system? Or does it make more sense to ambush and kill thieves?

    FYI, Colorado has a “make my day” law that applies to homes but not businesses.

    The owner and the others knew what they had done was wrong.. That’s why the police were not notified until 10 minutes after the first shots were heard.

    I stand by everything I wrote and assert the scenario you define was not what happened in this case.

  • StanInTexas

    Once again, you are fault the citizens and defending the criminals. Why should these men pay out MORE money and MORE effort to make sure these criminals have it easy and don’t get hurt doing their crimes?

    You are missing some very key points here, so stop lying and saying this is only about “inventory loss prevention methodology”.
    1) From the article – “The 4th Judicial District Attorney’s Office declined to file charges in the shooting, and instead sent the case to a grand jury, which decided against returning an indictment, effectively clearing the trio of criminal wrongdoing.” In orther words, in the eyes of the law, these men committed no crime. Yet they are being punished by Criminals for having doen NOTHING!
    2) The news is repleat with stories of people that cooperate with theifs and other criminals, only to be assaulted and killed ANYWAY. Your defense of these monsters makes it sound liek you would rather the business owners have been stabbed by the criminals. They might be injured or dead, but in your mind, ONLY THEN would they have been morally correct.
    3) THIS BEARS REPEATING. The only act of aggression here was the two men that came onto someone lese property ARMED with intent to do malice to get what they wanted.

    You think that property ios not worth human life. I agree. Where we differ is that you give the benefit of the doubt to the theives and want to beleive that if they were just allowed to steal what they wanted, that they would have been happy with that and left, doing no harm. I believe that they were there to ignore the law, to rob another person of their property, and to use violence to commit and get away with their crime. You are willing to second-guess these men and put THEIR lives on the line to defend this criminal.

    The community should be thanking these men for ridding them of this vermin. Especially the NEXT place they would have robbed with knives, looking for drug money. Only then, robbing may not have been enough of a thrill and they might have decided to escalate their enjoyment by raping or murdering whoever they found.

    I am very sorry you have guns in your house Garpin. Because while you are standign there, doing math in your head to consider whether that TV and stereo are that important to you, you and your family will be killed and MORE guns will be in the hands of criminals.

  • Kevin

    StanInTexas says:
    August 29, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    The knives they carried were not for decoration.
    *******

    How do you know that? Were you there? Knives are all the rage on the runways of Paris this fall season. And you’d know that if you’d stop worrying about stupid stuff like defending your family/property and concentrate on what’s REALLY important: staying on top of the fashion world.

    My winter jacket comes with a hood and a machete. I’m styilin’ this autumn! Tres bien!

  • StanInTexas

    Kevin, I would encourage all of the burglers and home-invasion people in Texas to avail themselves of this particular fashion statement. That way, that can be the best dressed CORPSE in the city.

    Just like a stupid wop. Brings a knife to a gunfight!
    Sean Connery – The Untouchables

  • Sam Adams

    “Fox was standing inside a small shed when a .45-caliber rifle bullet passed through the shed’s door and pierced his heart. ”

    What kind of rifle fires a 45-caliber bullet???

  • StanInTexas

    Sam Adams…

    Here’s one, Made in America!!!
    http://www.henryrepeating.com/rifle-big-boy.cfm

  • Sam Adams

    And do you think the car lot owners were packing one of those bad boys?

    Personally, I suspect sloppy reporting, which is typical in most gun-related cases.

  • StanInTexas

    Sam, the article didn’t say. Odds are it is sloppy reporting, but the .45 Colt is a popular round.

  • FrankW

    No kiddin it is a flawed system. The average person is unable to separate the theatrics and protocols of the court system from the meaningful evidence. The morons that generally get selected for jury duty generally are the ones the aliens would not abduct. A jury of peers is ridiculous. It should be jury of experts or a jury of actual peers in the subject at trial. It would be 12 people who are being recompensed (by the loser of the case in my opinion) for their time being there. The jury would also be made up of 12 people that pass an exam (oral and written) containing elements of the case at hand. For example: for an embezzlement case I would have a jury of accountants, for a criminal case such as this I would have had 12 “Mom & Pop” business owners (6 who have been robbed in the last year, 6 who had not).

  • StanInTexas

    Frank, add to that the fact that these men were cleared of any criminal wrongdoing in the case, but are now being held accountable for a ‘crime’ they did not committ.

    So we have a system where the law can say “No Crime Occurred” and then turn around and say “You are at fault, so you will be punished.” This is double-jeopardy at it’s most basic point.

  • FrankW

    I think Henry makes a .45 caliber lever action “Cowboy” rifle. Given the Urban environment I seriously doubt they were pullin the long gun. More likely it was a pistol with store bought rounds. They don’t seem like the basement reloader types to me.
    Still I understand the difference in thought of attacking the thief versus not attacking, you gotta do what is right for you. But that having been said, at what point does the responsibility become solely that of the criminal (the thief for libs) for any actions that occur from either party? Without the cause (the thief) there can be no effect(the shooting). Sympathies to the kid and all, but the handing out of cash (especially with no criminal charges) is ridiculous. And considering the parents failed raising dad, does anyone expect them to do better with grandkid? And where is the mom in all this or her parents?

  • AC

    What kind of rifle fires a 45-caliber bullet???

    It depends on the definition of “rifle.”

    As far as the law is concerned, the popular semi-auto submachine gun clones with 16″+ barrels are rifles.

    This fact was recently used by the forces of freedom to strike down California’s new ammo regulations on the grounds that pistol ammunition is unconstitutionally vague.

    The article says it was an H&K, so I suspect the caliber reporting is right, and the weapon was a civilian variant of the H&K MP5 or UMP.

  • Sinister66

    Did anybody read the whole report?

    No one mentioned:

    “Police said in a 145-page investigative report that the intruder had knives in his pockets and one strapped to his ankle, but never posed a threat to Milanovic or the other men, his father Ljuban Milanovic and brother-in-law Srdjan Novak.”

    “Under Colorado’s self-defense laws, the use of deadly force is justified only under the “reasonable belief” that it’s necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. The jury found that none of the men had a legitimate claim of self-defense.”

    “Property rights are not a lawful defense for using deadly force in Colorado, and the state’s so-called Make My Day law, which sets lower standard for using force, applies to households, not businesses.”

    “Milanovic and his father told police a week before the shooting they would shoot any intruders who returned. Police say the men concealed the rifle in the trunk of a car so well that a police detective initially missed it during a search.”

    Why stash the weapons if everything was justified?

    No ones family was threatened.
    No ones life was endangered.
    The law is what the law is.
    Lethal force was not justified.
    From the sound of it if the thieves would have surrendered they both would have been shot.

  • StanInTexas

    Sinister, did they bring the knives for decoration? Or for opening letters? The ONLY reason the criminals were not a threat is because they were confronted by superior firepower BEFORE they were able to use the knives on the business owners.

    They came onto private property ARMED with the intend to commit a crime. Like Garpin above, you would have rathered the property owners be beaten or stabbed to death. But in your case, if that had happened, you would STILL defend the criminals and not want them held accountable.

  • AC

    Again, I don’t believe taking a vigilanty approach to protect property is ever the right decision. As you pointed out: what if the kid in the shed had had a gun and managed to shoot back – would some stolen keys and radios been worth it?

    There was nothing “vigilante” bout this. Vigilantism is the extra-legal dispensation of justice. The shooter was not meting out one man justice, he was ending the burglary. His actions would be vigilantism if he followed the burglar back to his drug den and gunned him down there.

    When a citizen shoots a felon in the act the purpose is not about punishing the felon as the justice system would do if it apprehended the criminal.

    The purpose of shooting a felon in the act is solely to stop the threat. We are not concerned with things like punishment, pain, or killing.

    The primary goal is to stop the threat. While that frequently means DRT, DRT isn’t the goal, only the way of achieving the goal.

    Just one other thing to consider; this all took place at a closed car lot at 5:30 am on a Sunday, you can’t believe the perps thought they were going to encounter anyone can you?

    What the perp thought was irrelevant. He was a meth-addicted burglar.

    It is reasonable for people to be on their own property at any hour. We’ll get back to this part later.

    Rather than lay in wait with weapons, putting yourself in danger waiting for felons who are also armed, why not just get a couple of big dogs and a decent security system? Or does it make more sense to ambush and kill thieves?

    Security systems are a dismal failure which rely on an adequate police response. They occasionally catch a thief and can shorten the duration of a burglary, but they will not prevent a smash and grab, nor do they prevent the damage from the smash. Commercial security systems are also costly.

    FYI, Colorado has a “make my day” law that applies to homes but not businesses.

    Colorado law is weak, which is the basis for the problem.

    States with strong laws protect law-abiding citizens anywhere they have a right to be, including in their business at 5:30AM on a Sunday.

    Here in Florida we don’t retreat. Texans don’t retreat either.

    Such laws empower citizens to defend themselves and others by ending forcible felonies anywhere that citizen has a right to be. These laws remove protection from felons by making forcible felonies unsafe, no matter where they are committed. A commercial burglar or prowling rapist in the park deserves no more legal protection than a residential burglar.

    The owner and the others knew what they had done was wrong.. That’s why the police were not notified until 10 minutes after the first shots were heard.

    That isn’t proof they did something wrong.

    It could be evidence that they were wondering if the legal response itself might be wrong.

    It could also be that they were so shaken up and in shock that things like time began to change their tempo. Ever hear a disaster survivor say “it all happened so quickly” or “I thought it would never end”?

  • Sinister66

    Stan
    You can try to justify what happened all you want with whatever assumption you feel applicable. The investigation concluded the shooters were not threatened. One of the thieves was even running away and was shot at. If he would have been hit there would have been a murder charge.
    Also “PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE NOT A LAWFUL DEFENCE FOR USING DEADLY FORCE IN COLORADO.”

  • AC

    “Under Colorado’s self-defense laws, the use of deadly force is justified only under the “reasonable belief” that it’s necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. The jury found that none of the men had a legitimate claim of self-defense.”

    The grand jury (of their peers) also found there wasn’t even enough probable cause to bring this to trial, and we all know the quip about grand juries being able to indict a ham sandwich.

    The more likely scenario is that the civil jury was specially selected by a liberal ambulance chaser to specifically be sympathetic to criminals.

    No ones life was endangered.

    Did you miss the part about the aggressive, drug addled felon?

    Did you miss the part about the knives?

    Even ignoring the knives for a moment, the situation was still dangerous. The felon had broken into an auto repair shop, likely full of tools.

    If the burglar armed himself with one of the screwdrivers likely laying all over such an establishment, one wrong stab from that to the heart or neck and you’re finished. You might get stabbed in such a fashion if he appears unarmed, and you decide to subdue him with fists and tackles. As soon as you move in to kick his ass the hopped up maniac pulls a screwdriver out of his pocket, and before you know it, your time on this Earth is down to a few minutes.

    There is a reason why correctional officers are so cautious about handling hardened felons in maximum security prisons. Many correctional officers have been killed by improvised shanks, even when they receive prompt medical attention.

  • AC

    Also “PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE NOT A LAWFUL DEFENCE FOR USING DEADLY FORCE IN COLORADO.”

    Freedom of speech was also not a lawful defense to criticism of the government in the Soviet Union.

    Bodily integrity is a human right, even if a moonbatty justice system doesn’t recognize it.

    Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

  • StanInTexas

    Sinister, you need to read ALL of the article, not just the parts that justify your idiocy.

    The men were found to have not committed a crime. They did not commit murder. In the eyes of the law, they did NOTHING WRONG.

    Yet they are being punished because it is SOOOOOO terrible that his vermin’s daughter has to grow up without her meth-head, knife-carrying, theif of a father.

    If you don’t want to get shot, then DON’T ROB PEOPLE.

    The criminals could have been carrying machines guns, grenades, and flame-throwers; but because they were confronted BEFORE they could bring them out, you would STILL say they were not a threat.

    It is PATHETIC the way Liberals coddle criminals.

  • Garpin

    Stan:

    Again, there is no point in arguing with you as you haven’t bothered to read what I wrote, or you are of some weird opinion I am a bleeding heart that only deserves to be yelled at.

    I was in no way, shape or for defending the perps. I was railing against taking the law into your own hands in the premise of protecting some stuff. It just isn’t worth it. (As the wrongful death suit proved)

    I’ve stated it more than once, had this been a home invasion, I would have been on the other side. This wasn’t. The men that owned the lot were never in danger except by their own stupidity.

    Insult me all you want, there is no way you can convince me killing someone over some property will ever be right.

    These men should have called 911 the second they saw someone on the lot. They were armed, they had no fear of any harm where they were hiding in the office. No amount of foaming rhetoric will alter the situation.

    Please re-read what I wrote, when it comes to my family, there is only a desire for grouping, not math. Want to test my skill? Break into my home.

    Again, vigilantism is illegal because we have the rule of law. We train and pay people to put their lives on the line so we don’t have to.

    One last point: Had the dead kid been your kid or your nephew or grandson, would you be as cavalier about his death – given the circumstance? Be honest.

    I’d bet not.

  • StanInTexas

    “Insult me all you want, there is no way you can convince me killing someone over some property will ever be right.”

    Garpin, I am not trying to convince you of that. If you had bother to read what *I* wrote, you would see we agree on that point. What I AM trying to convince you of is that there is no way to know if the armed and drug-induced felon that is on your property will be satisfied to just take your stuff and leave.

    We train and pay people to put their lives on the line so we don’t have to.
    Yes, and when second count, the police are only minutes away with their chalk outlines and reams of forms that your next-of-kin can fill out until their fingers bleed.

    My son is a Marine that was raised to respect the law. If he turned out to be a criminal that was robbing people for his drug habit, I woudl be very sad he was gone, but I WOULD NOT try to hold to people he threatened financially responsible for his actions.

    You are faulting the property owners of being on their own property and for having the temerity ot want it protected. Think about this if you are able to, if Fox had not tried to rob this property, he would be alive.

  • AC

    Do you understand the meaning and consequences of concealed weapons?

    Concealed means you can’t see it, and you sure as hell can’t respond until it is probably too late.

    I manage to conceal a full-sized Glock which I carry on my person almost every day, in accordance with a lawful carry license in my state. If you met me close up on the street in broad daylight, you’d never know where it was unless I told you; so how are these two men supposed to spot an even smaller weapon on a felon in the distance in a dangerous situation at night?

    The smaller subcompacts and Saturday night specials more favored by criminals are even easier to conceal.

    If the drug addled burglar were carrying a firearm and chose to use it then at least one of the two citizens would have been shot, and quite possibly killed.

    Why should law abiding citizens have to wait for the criminal to fire first?

  • FreedomFox

    Most of the objections against shooting the methhead seem to circle around the idea that since he only had knives, and the business owner got the drop on them, it wasn’t a fair fight.

    To which I say, “gee, you think?” The thug brought a knife to a gun fight, and you try to say he wasn’t a threat because it was a fight he couldn’t win. So, you think he should have tried to negotiate? Perhaps let him get within 10-20 feet so he has a fair chance at closing distance before he’s shot? Hand him a gun to make it fair? It’s not supposed to be a fair fight. As a citizen interested in living you stack the odds in your favor as much as you can, and be assured the criminal is trying to do the same thing. If you’re better at it, you get to live to tell about it and there’s one less criminal on the streets.

    You don’t fight off criminals by handing them an equivalent weapon and counting off ten paces (which, ironically, is more likely to land you in jail in Texas than just shooting them). You don’t stop and try to read their minds, if they’re armed you must assume that they intend to use their weapons. If they are behaving aggressively you must assume they are armed. You secure the area first, ask questions later.

    You claim “What if the perp had a gun and managed to shoot back? Would it have been worth it?” To which I say: that’s exactly why you shoot him. Dead perps don’t return fire, and it’s amazing how being wounded will often persuade them to surrender.

  • AC

    As long as you want to play hypotheticals, what if the burglar had been Stan’s son, a Marine?

    It isn’t uncommon for servicemen to come back with baggage, be forgotten about by their government, and fall through the cracks.

    If a Marine got hooked on drugs, was ignored by the VA, and started breaking into businesses while armed, I guarantee you two average Joes would be killed quickly if a meth freakout made our hypothetical burglar feel the need to shoot.

    You do bring up a good point. We never know the skillsets of those who break into our homes and businesses. That bolsters my case for an abundance of caution in favor of the citizens.

  • Sinister66

    AC
    The whole “this could happen” or “this might happen” dont really mean anything since none of that did happen. and only things that “did” happen matter.

    “Did you miss the part about the aggressive, drug addled felon?”
    the one running away or the one hiding? doesnt sound aggressive to me.

    StanInTexas
    You miised what I said (typical). If they would have shot the thief running away there would have been a murder charge.

    “The men were found to have not committed a crime. They did not commit murder. In the eyes of the law, they did NOTHING WRONG.”

    So you believe OJ Simpson was wrongly convicted in the wrongfull death of Nichole when he was found not guilty of murder.

    Look I carry two pistols and a knife at all times. But I know when they can and cant be used (Prefer to knuckle up).If you dont know the laws were you live then maybe a gun isnt the best thing for you.

  • AC

    That last post was addressed to Garpin.

  • AC

    The whole “this could happen” or “this might happen” dont really mean anything since none of that did happen. and only things that “did” happen matter.

    If it did happen then two innocent people would be laying dead at the hands of a junkie burglar. That isn’t supposed to happen. The law should be written accordingly to empower innocents imperiled by such circumstances.

    the one running away or the one hiding? doesnt sound aggressive to me.

    The aggression began when he burglarized the business.

    If he were shot in the back while running down the street, clear of the establishment he burglarized, then you might have a point.

    As long as he’s in that establishment the innocents have no way to know if he’s truly trying to disengage the burglary or whether he’s adjusting his position to regain the tactical advantage.

  • StanInTexas

    Sinister, I do know the law, and have been a Concealed Carry permit holder for a long time.

    And the comparision to the OJ trial is idiocy on steroids. This was not a case of the jury being stupid, this is a case of there not even being enough evidence to prosecute. They did not go to trail for the non-crime, so no crime occurred, a point you continue to deliberately to ignore.

    If you prefer to carry two pistols, but would rather fight your opponent bare handed, then you are far too STUPID to be allowed to carry a gun.

  • Garpin

    We are arguing semantics. Mr Fox messed up. No doubts. I maintain that he didn’t deserve to die because of it. Jail – yes, dead no..

    Gentlemen, there is no hide left on the horse.

    We have common ground. That will have to do.

  • Sinister66

    Stan
    Actually I am confident in my abilities to defend myself. Putting a beatdown on somebody rather then kill them is always prefered. I have been a member of the AJJF since I was 4 years old (am 38 now) and consider myself an honorable individual and if it comes down to it opponent. You seem to be kind of a bitch.

    All of your arguements presented were based on aasumptions of what could of happened and nothing on what did happened. I would agree with Garpin and the points he made as they were based on the reality of what happened, not the fantasy of what could have happened.

    “It is PATHETIC the way Liberals coddle criminals.”
    Nice douchbag comment.

  • Sinister66

    Dave

    these types of stories seem to get the most reaction. you should find more like it.

  • StanInTexas

    Sinister, I am based in REALITY, while you and Garpin are judging the actions of the property owners based upon 20/20 hindsight!

    Of course you KNOW NOW, after the fact, that the criminals did not have a gun. They did have knives but you NOW KNOW that they meant no threat to the owners.

    But in the heat of the situation, when drug-crazed people are breaking into your property, YOU DO NOT KNOW ALL OF THAT. And if you do not assume that the criminals that are there intend to do you or your family hard, then you are an abject idiot that is destined to become a statistic.

    You want to use your fists in a confrontation because you are confident in your ability to fight. What an moron you are. Confrontations with criminals are not about a fair fight, or about proving to them you are the superior fighter, it is about SURVIVAL. What if they have a knife? Are you still confident? What about a gun, are you bullet-proof? And that if they have an accomplice that you didn’t see with a baseball bat. You may think you are Chuck Norris, but you aren’t. Even Chuck Norris isn’t ‘Chuck Norris’!

    And it is a FACT that Liberals coddle criminals. Only a complete partisan idiot and douchbag would even make an attempt to argue that point.

  • FrankW

    Deserve might be the key point here. Noting there was no criminal case, noting that the shooter did not leave his property, noting that the dead guy was on their property did the shooters deserve to be civilly liable? Deserve is an opinion. And the makeup up the jury (as I alluded to earlier) is key in this part. Is a system that encourages less than average intelligence in a juror going to consistently return a verdict that is deserved? Not likely.
    And yes I understand the whole CO laws say… argument. That would totally apply in my opinion in regards to a criminal trial, but not a civil one. My personal opinion is that if criminal charges were considered by a grand jury and not brought, then there can not be a civil case either. Either you were guilty of murder or you were not.

  • Sinister66

    “But in the heat of the situation, when drug-crazed people are breaking into your property, YOU DO NOT KNOW ALL OF THAT. And if you do not assume that the criminals that are there intend to do you or your family hard, then you are an abject idiot that is destined to become a statistic.”

    How does the saying go,” Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups”.

    You make an assumption and are wrong you deserve the consequences that follow.

    FrankW
    Good point.

  • Sinister66

    Stan

    “You want to use your fists in a confrontation because you are confident in your ability to fight. What an moron you are. Confrontations with criminals are not about a fair fight, or about proving to them you are the superior fighter, it is about SURVIVAL. What if they have a knife? Are you still confident? What about a gun, are you bullet-proof? And that if they have an accomplice that you didn’t see with a baseball bat. You may think you are Chuck Norris, but you aren’t. Even Chuck Norris isn’t ‘Chuck Norris’!”

    They have a knife I can handle that. They pull a gun then I will pull mine and put an end to the situation. I can draw pretty quick and hit my target dead center without too much effort.

    Everything else shows you watch too much TV.

  • StanInTexas

    Sinister,

    You just made my point for me. You want to assume that you can handle the criminals. You think you can outfight, disarm, or outdraw anyone that is out there. Your arrogance and stupidity will be your demise.

    Here is another saying for you, Sinister. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I personally woudl rather have to explain to the police why there is a deqad body on my floor than have the police explain to my family that I am dead beacuse some low-life was better with fists or knives or a gun than I was.

    And as far as this case goes, these men were not wrong about their assumptions, arrocding to the law and to the grand jury. Only a group of stupid people in a civil case thought differently.

  • Hooty Hoot

    Sinister66 = Internet tough-guy LOL!!!!!

  • Sam Adams

    To broaden the thought a bit, one needs to consider the fact that we live in a society where black on white violence occurs frequently, which is not covered by the MSM, and where “flash mobs” suddenly form and strip a store bare before the police have time to respond.

    Since the government has no rights of its own, and only consists of responsibilities delegated to it by the citizens, then citizens most certainly have a right to protect both their lives and their property.

    That said, do you think that if the flash mobs or roving gangs of blacks found more armed citizens in their paths, would it put a curb on their lawlessness?

    Personally I think so.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy