Not in a world that favored law, order, and prosperity. No, we have to live in a world where criminals are given more rights than they deserve. If Plato were alive to see this, he'd vomit in disgust.
but that has not been your arguement. you've been bleating on and on about how the "victim" wasn't a threat, etc. etc. etc. so, yes, you have been defending him
Abortionist in abortion debates point out that if it is legal to kill someone then it is not murder if it is illegal to kill someone then it is murder. Murder is basically the unlawful killing of another person under circumstances defined by the law. If what these men did was murder then they would have been tried in court, convicted and currently serving time behind bars.
- FindLaw
: the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation)
AdamT said:Vigilante justice does not favor law and order. Death is not the appropriate punishment for petty theft -- even for the Taliban.
material possessions are not worth a life. theirs or mine.
they can have them.
Sorry, not buying the vigilante argument. Which do you think is more likely - that the burglar was caught breaking in to what had to be the world's largest car sales lot if he tried to get away (off the property) and couldn't because a bunch of owners were staking out the property every night in the outside chance that someone may come by to steal a car someday...or that they were caught unaware that a meth-induced scumbag tried to commit grand theft auto carrying multiple knives he would have no qualms about using if he had to?
Actually, scratch that - I'm sure you think you know which one is more likely.
If gangbanger B shoots and kills gangbanger B in cold blood, he runs away, and the case is never solved, is he any less a murderer? Put another way, has he met the statutory requirements for murder even though the case never went to trial? Yes.
That's also apparently what happened here, based on the information we have available.
If gangbanger B shoots and kills gangbanger B in cold blood, he runs away, and the case is never solved, is he any less a murderer? Put another way, has he met the statutory requirements for murder even though the case never went to trial? Yes.
That's also apparently what happened here, based on the information we have available.
So you are saying these shop owners are on the run from the law? The police know who the shop owners are and where they live and work, they have a confession that one of the shop owners shot the scumbag, they evidence they shot the scumbag as well as motive. These men did not escape anything and they are not on the run. Do you know why they were not charged with murder even though there is evidence,confession and motive they shot the scumbag? It is because they did not murder anyone because murder is the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation). This definition does not have **** to do with your comparison of law abiding shop owners defending their property to gang banging scumbags shooting each other.It is legal to use lethal force to defend yourself,others and property. Since it is legal to those things it is not murder. Maybe if this was some scumbag sympathizing country like the UK where illegal to use lethal force to defend yourself,others and property then it would be illegal to use lethal force to defend yourself,others and your property.
It is illegal in the jurisdiction in which this occurred to use lethal force to defend property, and as I've pointed out numerous times, they had no valid reason to believe they were under threat of a deadly assault. In fact, by their own admission (according to the article) they made up their mind to shoot whoever the next intruder was well in advance of that intruder actually being shot.
As I asked you to do before, look at the facts that we have available, and compare them to the statutory definition of self-defense. Their actions do not comport with that definition. Intentionally killing a human being absent some valid defense (such as self defense) is murder. Ergo they committed murder.
criminal law disagrees with your opinion
YOU have no way of knowing if they felt they had valid reason or felt they could be under deadly assult/
None, zero, zilch
How so?
What they felt is irrelevant. The legal standard is whether or not they had an objectively reasonable basis for belief that they were under impending threat of death or imminent bodily harm. Based on the facts available, they did not have any such objectively reasonable basis.
they should be in prison.
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.
that said, his parents should be smacked for believing their son was "just in the wrong place at the wrong time"....imo, people who break the law should always expect consequences.
If I had the money, I would donate to their cause. I wouldn't mind a petition/donation set up to let the people know that property rights activists and people whose heart doesn't bleed for a squished ant side with and advocate for their right to defend what is theirs.
I'd also kick in a little extra if they spit on that thief's grave.
because they werent charged with murder thats how so lol
what THEY felt IS relevant. Sorry but the FACTS remain it DOES matter what they think. Now there is a LIMIT and the police could overrule them and charge them and then a jury would agree with them or agree with the police IF they were charged but the police DID NOT charge them. Bottom line is what they think DOES matter PERIOD its just not the END ALL to right/wrong.
What IS irrelevant is what YOU think they felt and what YOU think is resaonable.
why?
because:
1 you're not them
2 you werent there
3 you werent a witness
4 since they werent charged you not a juror
LMAO
your OPINION is meaningless and they are NOT murders
it's true, most opinions matter not at all.
yep, very true, even most of my opinions dont matter but fortunately the facts line up with SOME of my opinions in this case. And the most definitely agree with the fact that there was no murder.
Certainly not if you define murder as requiring criminal conviction. I guess you could also say that the guy who was shot wasn't a burglar, because he wasn't convicted of burglary.
oh lord more dishonesty from you. Could you possible be any more dishonest?
Again please tell me your age its tough to believe that you any older than 14?
do you have anything of substance or facts to back you claims up or will you just continue to play games LMAO
Only because he died.
That would be absolutely hilarious - and proper - if these owners took his executors and estate to civil court and was awarded similar punitive damages. Wouldn't that be great?
because they werent charged with murder thats how so lol
what THEY felt IS relevant. Sorry but the FACTS remain it DOES matter what they think. Now there is a LIMIT and the police could overrule them and charge them and then a jury would agree with them or agree with the police IF they were charged but the police DID NOT charge them. Bottom line is what they think DOES matter PERIOD its just not the END ALL to right/wrong.
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?