burglar's family gets 270 grand

Y

youngunz4life

New member
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/kdvr...r-he-was-shot-killed-20110826,0,6188947.story

I don't think this is a drive-by, but have you ever noticed that these type of articles have very little detail or explanation? It seems the people leaving comments about the news story understand; I am just not understanding why the jury doesn't. Does anyone live in this area? The assailant had knives and the business in question had been robbed multiple times. The people robbed weren't charged, so I am guessing again this idiot wasn't shot in the back...again not enough info
 
Perhaps this will shed some light on the story.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury-123946-burglar-lot.html

A knife-wielding meth head named Fox jumped a fence into a car lot with an accomplice with the intent to steal something for more drugs. The owner told them to scram. The accomplice jumped back over the fence, Fox remained on the property and was shot by the owner. The grand jury seems to have acknowledged that the property owner had the right to defend his lot. Although, according to Colorado law, their Castle Doctrine doesn't apply to businesses. And Fox wasn't an imminent threat to the lot owners.

I'd have to question how much "companionship and future earnings" this guy would have been good for. But criminal and civil courts have different standards. Read up on the (alleged) O.J. Simpson murders for more info on that. Also, jurors just want to go home.
 
Criminal and Civil court have no relationship to each other there is no double jeopardy. You may get cleared in a criminal matter but still get taken to civil court. If the guy had died with a weapon in his hand the civil trial outcome may have been different or may not have.

This is where Castle Doctrine laws may play a big part in deciding if you have a defense to a civil case.

The family might be lucky to keep a little over half of that settlement depending on what type of financial arrangement or agreement they had with the lawyers.
 
[the intruder] Fox was standing [trying to take shelter] inside a small shed when a .45-caliber rifle bullet passed through the shed’s door and pierced his heart.
Click to expand...
Given the situation as described in the article, this was an execution, not defense. I would have voted w/ the jury on this one.
 
Sorry, I still think the family should have been required to pay for the ammo.

I guess the part that leaves me feeling like I do is that these guys were committing a crime when the man was shot and killed. If the guy had climbed the fence looking for shelter and to stay warm, that would be one thing, but this was during the commission of a crime.
 
The guy was armed with a knife, technically he is not a threat until within arms reach. Would any of you WAIT for someone to get in arms reach?


Another example of our insane legal system. Thank god here in Illinois, if you shoot someone lawfully in your home you are somewhat shielded from lawsuits.
 
I can attest to Jurors just want to go home. I was on a juror for 3 weeks for a federal civil case. It was very interesting, especially when a defense witness called another defense witness a liar. LOL. In the end everyone wanted to just get out of there, I did however read the insurance policy that was at the heart of the lawsuit (ugh so many pages) and found a paragraph that basically said the plaintiff did not have a leg to stand on at all. (not that they would have won even if I did not read that)... Everyone wanted to go home, but in the end we did what we had to do to get it right.

Oh and the plaintiff lawyers made more than a few mistakes in presenting evidence, that did not look too good for them either.

I do not know the details about this, did not even read the short story, but if you go around threatening people with a weapon and you get shot/stabbed/injured/kill I think tough luck you got what you deserve.
 
Read the story again. The family laid in ambush for these clowns and came out fully intending to harm them from the drop of the green flag. Heck, they even told the police they would shoot the next intruder found on their property. The late, unlamented Mr. Fox was trying to hide. They shot him through a closed door. He had several knives on his person, but this wasn't discovered until after he was D-E-D dead. In other words, they didn't shoot him because he was threatening them with a knife. They shot him because he was a drug-addicted lowlife coming to steal more of their stuff, and they were damned well not going to have any more of that.

So, this was an execution to protect property. Fox may have been a piece of human detritus, but he didn't commit a capital crime, and he wasn't a threat to the Milanovices. I'm with the jury on this one, to my utter astonishment.

I don't think this article says, but were there ever any criminal charges filed? Or did the prosecutors take a pass because of the totality of the circumstances?
 
Mr. James said:
I don't think this article says, but were there ever any criminal charges filed? Or did the prosecutors take a pass because of the totality of the circumstances?
Click to expand...
The article I saw on this case said the prosecuting attorney elected not to file charges. He did send it to a grand jury, which declined to issue an indictment. So -- no crime by the shooters, just a civil settlement for a lot more money than they'll ever be able to pay.
 
Just for a moment, I'm going to ignore the legal and moral issues for a moment to focus on logic.

This is a classic illustration of the logical problem with shooting people over material possessions. Even if you beat the criminal rap, the civil case will very likely cost you more than you prevented the person from taking or damaging.
 
This is a classic illustration of the logical problem with shooting people over material possessions.
Click to expand...
I've also postulated moral problems with it in the past.

The case at hand, however, is about one simple thing: vigilantism. The (now) defendants made a truly wretched decision, and I find the intent behind it to be reprehensible.
 
I am in no way trying to put myself in the shoes of the owner who shot the creep.All I can say is,in today's climate,if you don't have to pull the trigger,don't.Juries can be very scary in so many ways.
 
If the person was presenting no threat then in a lot places you just used excessive force and would be liable for criminal and civil penalties. Once the threat ceases so should your use of force.

These guys got lucky the grand jury no billed them and the DA isnt going to joust with the windmill.
 
I remember reading about this when it happened and thinking that if there was ever a case of calling 911 and telling them to have the cops hotfoot it over because the perps were on the premises, this was it. I mean, you're eyeballing the thieves, they've got no guns and they don't even know you're there.

Tangentially topical, I took a CCW class a while back in which the instructor spent a substantial amount of time talking about why you shouldn't draw that gun. There are a gazillion scenarios best solved by keeping your mitts off the weapon and precious few that involve sending lead downrange. When I read the original story, I felt pretty firmly that this was one of the former.
 
The MOST these guys should have done was hold them at gun point and wait for the cops to arrive. There was no call for shooting this guy.
 
Something that worries me about this is the effect it may have in states that haven't yet passed Castle Doctrine laws.

Colorado paved the way for this back in the 1980's. Now we have a case in which a defendant was found justified under that law by a criminal court, but later found guilty by a civil court.

So, someone opposing the passage of Castle Doctrine in, say, North Carolina can now say, "Colorado has a 'make my day' law, and it lets murderers go free!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top