I think judge and jury should be piss tested to see if maybe they were high when they came to the conclusion that a burglar's family should be able to sue someone defending their property.
Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
An El Paso County 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.
Parents of the victim, Robert Johnson Fox, embraced their attorneys after a judge announced the jury’s verdict, capping a two-week-long civil trial in which business owner Jovan Milanovic and two relatives were painted as vigilantes who plotted a deadly ambush rather than let authorities deal with a string of recent burglaries.
Phillip and Sue Fox, who filed suit for wrongful death in 2010 on behalf of 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.
“Rob was in the wrong place doing the wrong thing, but the punishment didn’t fit the crime,” Sue Fox said afterward. “I can’t excuse his actions, but he didn’t deserve to be executed.”
The exact amount of the award was $269,500, for factors such as loss of companionship and loss of future earnings. The family will also be awarded some of the costs associated with the more than yearlong legal battle.
The jury of three men and three women deliberated for 2½ days over closely contested testimony about the predawn shooting on April 19, 2009.
This isn't even self-defense given the context of the crime.
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.
I wouldn't exactly expect the business owners to have bean bag guns. I hope this story spreads to scare those thinking of committing burglary.
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.
Did burglars trespass and were attempting to steal from the property owner? Yes? then I would say the property owner was justified in using lethal force.
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.
It is if the intruders aren't attempting to use lethal force (with some exceptions for home invasions). Your own article points that out.
Because the grand jury didn't indict. Frankly I'm surprised by that. It suggests that possibly something else is going on. Nevertheless, again according to your own article (not to mention my own knowledge), these men violated the law.
You and the law are in disagreement on this issue.
The intruders were armed.
All it proves is that the standard used for civil trials is too lax and should be just as strict as the standards for criminal trials.
I wouldn't exactly expect the business owners to have bean bag guns. I hope this story spreads to scare those thinking of committing burglary.
I hope the story spreads to discourage business owners from behaving like thugs. Congratulations to them. Instead of being out a couple hundred bucks for a car stereo or two, they're out $260k. Clearly that was a wise decision they made.
Also, bean bag guns? Seriously?
So the property owner was found guilty in a criminal trial and serving time?
So the property owner was found guilty in a criminal trial and serving time?
So let's just expect the owners to sit there and watch some piece of crap human steal from them? If you don't like lethal shots or bean bag guns, perhaps you prefer taser guns?
You criticize their decisions like they should have known some ignorant jury was going to award money to the criminal's family.
As I've explained twice now, I find the behavior of the grand jury baffling based on the facts we have available. You probably would to if you actually looked at what the law says and what actually happened.
So let's just expect the owners to sit there and watch some piece of crap human steal from them?
You criticize their decisions like they should have known some ignorant jury was going to award money to the criminal's family.
Sounds like a case of jury nullification. They weren't going to indict someone for shooting a burglar even if the law said otherwise. It's not uncommon.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?