Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

but challenging someone who is likely to resort to lethal force is a bad career move, all things considered.

My new favorite quote

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[DanG 1]

Quote

Look, if someone is already committing suicide by the installment program, robbing a frightened person with a Bull Mastiff or harpoon gun at the ready is simply cutting to the chase.

I disapprove of the use of lethal force for anything short of last-ditch defense (in which case it is likely to be ineffective), but challenging someone who is likely to resort to lethal force is a bad career move, all things considered.

I agree, and you bring up an inportant distiction between burgulary and robbery. Burgulary is stealing from a place. Robbery is stealing from a person. Burgulars, by definition, are not a threat to your health. Robbers are. You can appropriately defend yourself against robbers, but "defending" against burgulars is essentially hunting.

SC disclaimer: I realize these definitions are not legally accurate, but they get the point across.

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Shooting him in the back is still not warranted.

The deceased wasn't shot in the back, or at least the linked article doesn't mention it. The accomplice was supposedly shot at as he was running away, which *still* isn't being "shot in the back".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The people in this story did not issue a warning, they set a trap and seemed to intend on killing people over property. The self-defense claim is laughable.

And yet prosecuters didn't charge them with murder. So we should be asking ourselves "why?" Probably because they have more facts than we do. We're all aware of how incorrect news stories can be - I suggest we not take this one at face value. The prosecuters probably know more than we do, and they know the law more than we do. Since they didn't charge the men with murder, that tells me that the news story upon which some of you are basing your opinions doesn't tell the whole story. So one should not be so quick to judge until they find out the remaining facts.

Quote:

"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."

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

The people in this story did not issue a warning, they set a trap and seemed to intend on killing people over property. The self-defense claim is laughable.

But the perps were meth addicts! Isn't that a trump factor?

At least one person here thinks that it is okay for a cop to threaten to execute someone because they are a gun owner and possibly cruising for a hooker. So why shouldn't meth addicts be given the same treatment? If it's right for one group, it's right for the other.

Of course, the correct answer is that it's not right for either group. Not everyone here seems to recognize that when it comes to gun owners.

[Fast 0]

At the end of it all, the thing to remember is that if you don't try and take things that don't belong to you, it's a whole lot less likely you will be shot dead, imprisoned or severely injured.

If you're convicted of committing a crime I don't think you deserve any rights to claim a judgement against someone for you getting hurt or killed. I think that should play into things in these cases. You were doing something you know is wrong, there are risks associated with that, much like jumping from a plane. You should take what you get.

What's next, addict sues dealer cause the drugs were an inferior product?

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

GO Texas!

Shooting was in Colorado, not Texas.

He probably knows that, and was just saying that Texas laws on armed defense are superior to those in Colorado.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

you bring up an inportant distiction between burgulary and robbery. Burgulary is stealing from a place. Robbery is stealing from a person. Burgulars, by definition, are not a threat to your health. Robbers are. You can appropriately defend yourself against robbers, but "defending" against burgulars is essentially hunting.

While burglers may be looking to avoid encounters with the property owners, that's doesn't mean that if they DO run into someone, that they're not a threat to the property owners. Burglars don't like going to jail any more than robbers, and could well be a threat. That's why the large majority of states allow deadly force to be used in a home against a burglar, because the presumption is that they ARE dangerous, and the homeowner has nowhere else to which to retreat to safety. A burglar's only chance in such circumstances when encountering an armed homeowner, is to run away as fast as possible and present no further threat. And that's the way I prefer it.

[DanG 1]

Quote

While burglers may be looking to avoid encounters with the property owners, that's doesn't mean that if they DO run into someone, that they're not a threat to the property owners. Burglars don't like going to jail any more than robbers, and could well be a threat. That's why the large majority of states allow deadly force to be used in a home against a burglar, because the presumption is that they ARE dangerous, and the homeowner has nowhere else to which to retreat to safety. A burglar's only chance in such circumstances when encountering an armed homeowner, is to run away as fast as possible and present no further threat. And that's the way I prefer it.

I completely agree. I just want to make it clear that I believe once the burgular is fleeing, you need to hold your fire.

- Dan G

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
why do i even bother replying to such an idiotic question..

it's a fair question - why is having a gun that you can control "immature protection of property" but having a lethal dog that you have little control over "responsible home protection"?
....


It's an idiotic question.

I can call my dog to come back but, not the cartridge.

Jeez

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

....
why do i even bother replying to such an idiotic question..

it's a fair question - why is having a gun that you can control "immature protection of property" but having a lethal dog that you have little control over "responsible home protection"?
....

It's an idiotic question.

I can call my dog to come back but, not the cartridge.

Jeez

Sounds like you need to train your trigger finger as well as you've trained your dog, then.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

....
why do i even bother replying to such an idiotic question..

it's a fair question - why is having a gun that you can control "immature protection of property" but having a lethal dog that you have little control over "responsible home protection"?
....

It's an idiotic question.

I can call my dog to come back but, not the cartridge.

Jeez

Sounds like you need to train your trigger finger as well as you've trained your dog, then.

Notice how they all change the nature of the question or avoid it entirely. That alone speaks volumes. I guess inert gun = bad; dangerous (Virgin said as much) dog = totally awesome.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[DanG 1]

Quote

Notice how they all change the nature of the question or avoid it entirely. That alone speaks volumes. I guess inert gun = bad; dangerous (Virgin said as much) dog = totally awesome.

A. Who are "they"? We all seem to be arguing past each other in this thread.
B. IIRC, virgin_burner has said in other threads that he owns multiple guns and is quite proficient at their use. I doubt he thinks guns are bad.
C. The whole "you're lock step with us or you're a gun-o-phobe" thing is why a lot of people are wary of the pro-gun lobby.

- Dan G

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Quote

Notice how they all change the nature of the question or avoid it entirely. That alone speaks volumes. I guess inert gun = bad; dangerous (Virgin said as much) dog = totally awesome.

A. Who are "they"? We all seem to be arguing past each other in this thread.
B. IIRC, virgin_burner has said in other threads that he owns multiple guns and is quite proficient at their use. I doubt he thinks guns are bad.
C. The whole "you're lock step with us or you're a gun-o-phobe" thing is why a lot of people are wary of the pro-gun lobby.

A. Let me rephrase. They both (virgin and christel) have called the question idiotic without actually addressing it.
B. Again, let me rephrase. Gun used in property defense = bad, dangerous dog used in property defense = totally awesome.
C. That should take care of your concerns with C as well. I happen to agree with the jury in this case.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[DanG 1]

Quote

Gun used in property defense = bad, dangerous dog used in property defense = totally awesome.

The difference is that a gun is lousy for defense (property or self) if the owner isn't holding it at the time of the offense. It is also provides no deterent against the initiation of criminal behavior. No one puts a "Beware of Gun" sign in their yard and thinks it will keep people from burguling the place when they're not home.

On the other hand, the best features of a dog come into play regardless of whether you're home or not. The dog, especially with a "Beware of Dog" sign, is an excellent deterent against someone even coming on your property. Even tweaked out meth heads will think twice about jumping a fence with a dog on the other side of it.

In either case, if the bad guy keeps coming through the barking dog, or the owner warning him of the gun and intent to fire, then they get whatever they deserve.

- Dan G

[Lefty 0]

Now we're getting somewhere. I agree with everything in your last post, but those points aren't exactly relevant to mine. My original questions about the dog were meant specifically for virgin-burner, and the questions were prompted by these quotes from him:

--------------------

"killing a guy over what, a car-stereo!? really!?"

"so pulling a gun over a car stereo is what you call "mature", right!?
i would call your "john wayne"-style of dealing with things immature. tell me, do you wear cowboy-boots and hats on a regular basis? those shoe-lace kind of ties!?"

"a cowboy attitude, including the hats and boots, is very much relevant to kill someone over a car stereo.."

"i think if you pose a threat to my own life, the life of my loved ones, or even onto others lives, then i say, you are fair game.. THAT is when you pull a gun or other means of self-protection; NOT over a car stereo.."

"well, if you broke into my home, you'd have to deal with the 70lbs dobermann-rottweiler first.. if you get past her.. then you have hurt my loved ones already.. or my dog has pre--dinner-party!"

--------------------

Now, if you follow his line of reasoning from the first quote to the last, it's wrong to kill someone over property--unless his dog encounters the burglar because VB isn't home or whatever.

You have the same result: a burglar is attacked and possibly killed over property. When it's done by a dog, VB flexes his nuts by talking up his dog's defense instincts/training. When it's done with a human with a gun, the shooter is an ignorant cowboy. There seems to be a double standard there and I would like him to address it.

I really don't know how to be any clearer than that, but I'm glad that at least a couple of people in this thread see what I'm getting at.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[DanG 1]

I understand what you're saying, and I generally agree. I think where we diverge is that you seem to see the dog as an inanimate tool in the same way as the gun is. I believe the dog has a right to defend itself just like I do. If the dog (or human) barks out a warning and the bad guy keeps coming, then hurting him is okay. I will concede that the dog might be more dangerous to the trespasser who changes his mind after breaking in. Dogs can be trained not to give chase past the property line, so if you're using your dog as a lethal means of home defense, it should be so trained. In my case, my dogs are a great deterent, but I doubt they'd put up much of a fight if the burgular had a steak with him.

- Dan G

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

How anyone can defend a group of heavily armed men looking for an excuse to execute someone instead of making a simple citizen's arrest is beyond me!

Let me know how that works for you

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

Notice how they all change the nature of the question or avoid it entirely. That alone speaks volumes. I guess inert gun = bad; dangerous (Virgin said as much) dog = totally awesome.

A. Who are "they"? We all seem to be arguing past each other in this thread.
B. IIRC, virgin_burner has said in other threads that he owns multiple guns and is quite proficient at their use. I doubt he thinks guns are bad.
C. The whole "you're lock step with us or you're a gun-o-phobe" thing is why a lot of people are wary of the pro-gun lobby.

i do own a sig-550 (ex-army, castrated, now single-fire only) and a remington shotgun. and yes, i do know how to handle them. i would get into a whole OCEAN of shit, not just a puddle, if i used them for anything else but protecting the life of me or others. this is called self-defence.

even then, my use of "lethal force" would be investigated, and it hadto be in an "appropriate and measured" way. means, if some guy comes after me with a knife, i cant just blow his head off. i may shoot him in the leg, or his arm, but i cant put a whole magazine into the poor fucker.

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[Lefty 0]

Quote

I think where we diverge is that you seem to see the dog as an inanimate tool in the same way as the gun is.

Not inanimate, but certainly a tool in defense situations. But a dog is a tool that, no matter how much training you give it, you have even less control over than a gun. The dog won't know if an intruder is after a stereo, which VB thinks is beneath protecting, or if the intruder has more sinister motives. A human can gauge the nature of the threat. A dog just sees a threat.

When you look at it in that light, having a guard dog almost seems worse since the intruder can't explain to the dog that he's only after items with a small dollar value. Which, again, VB says aren't worth defending.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Lefty 0]

Quote

even then, my use of "lethal force" would be investigated, and it hadto be in an "appropriate and measured" way. means, if some guy comes after me with a knife, i cant just blow his head off. i may shoot him in the leg, or his arm, but i cant put a whole magazine into the poor fucker.

Sounds like a good way to get knifed while you're working all that out. Center mass until he stops. If he lives, good for him. If he doesn't, too bad for him because he attacked me with a deadly weapon.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[DanG 1]

Quote

Not inanimate, but certainly a tool in defense situations. But a dog is a tool that, no matter how much training you give it, you have even less control over than a gun. The dog won't know if an intruder is after a stereo, which VB thinks is beneath protecting, or if the intruder has more sinister motives. A human can gauge the nature of the threat. A dog just sees a threat.

When you look at it in that light, having a guard dog almost seems worse since the intruder can't explain to the dog that he's only after items with a small dollar value. Which, again, VB says aren't worth defending.

Putting aside what vb may or may not have said, you're right that you can't train a dog as well as you can control a gun. On the other hand, if someone comes into the house above shouts about having a gun, are you going to take their word for it that they only want the stereo? I suppose you could draw down on them, and order them to leave. If they put their hands up, calmly walked over to the stereo, picked it up, and backed out of the room, I think I'd let them keep it and rely on the cops to get it back for me. If they said they only wanted the stereo and got within ten feet of my wife, I'd put them down. I suspect most reasonable people, including vb, would do the same thing.

- Dan G

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

I think where we diverge is that you seem to see the dog as an inanimate tool in the same way as the gun is.

Not inanimate, but certainly a tool in defense situations. But a dog is a tool that, no matter how much training you give it, you have even less control over than a gun. The dog won't know if an intruder is after a stereo, which VB thinks is beneath protecting, or if the intruder has more sinister motives. A human can gauge the nature of the threat. A dog just sees a threat.

When you look at it in that light, having a guard dog almost seems worse since the intruder can't explain to the dog that he's only after items with a small dollar value. Which, again, VB says aren't worth defending.

no-no-no, VB said a dog is an animal, and as such cant be held responsible for it's actions.

as someone else pointed out and to what i agreed, if you ignore the 70lbs, big, black, mean dobermann-rottweiler barking you very probably have other interests than things of small value.

ii also said if you ignore THAT threat, you are fair game. and the dog has every right to have a little fun with you (the possible burglar that is).

and this is still different from waiting with your gun at the ready to shoot a THIEF.

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[Lefty 0]

Quote

I suppose you could draw down on them, and order them to leave. If they put their hands up, calmly walked over to the stereo, picked it up, and backed out of the room, I think I'd let them keep it and rely on the cops to get it back for me.

I gotta say, if that situation ever occurred I might start laughing too hard to shoot them.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[virgin-burner 1]

dude, if you cant figure out what the difference is between a dog protecting it's territory and a HUMAN conciously killing someone, then you have more issues than i'm willing to deal with, that should be reserved for your clerk.

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda