1 posted on
02/25/2003 7:16:34 AM PST by
Cagey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
To: Cagey
Crime Pays Jury Verdict Alert.
To: Cagey
I feel for the victim of this verdict, but this is a very good point: "You can't set these type of traps because property isn't worth a human life," Winters said, adding that the booby traps might just as easily have been tripped by firefighters or police officers answering an emergency call at the bar.
To: Cagey
I mean the second part of the quote: "the booby traps might just as easily have been tripped by firefighters or police officers answering an emergency call at the bar.
To: Cagey
How can the family recover when the thief was more responsible than anyone else? And even assuming Illinois is a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, wouldn't that verdict be reduced by 50% - the amount the thief was responsible for? Poor reporting on this outrageous verdict.
To: Cagey
Hold muh cocaine?
12 posted on
02/25/2003 7:30:37 AM PST by
boris
To: Cagey
Would not a sober fireman read the signs? It was an abuse of the judge to not allow for the fact that the perpetrator was high on coke and whatever else. His intoxication contributed to his death. This is no different that the DWI driver who pleads innocent because he was drunk at the time and his thoughts were impared. A defense that is prohibited.
What happened to laws that you could not benefit from the commission of a criminal act. This fool and his family should not be able to benefit from the criminal act.
The fact no jury would convict the business owner is a seperate issue.
To: Cagey
If a firefighter or policeman had been injured or killed, then that person's family could have sued. For this worthless turd, the result of the trial should have been that his family pay the defendants' court costs. While we're at it, their lawyer should have been reprimanded for introducing BS hypotheticals that did not in fact occur.
14 posted on
02/25/2003 7:34:16 AM PST by
hauerf
To: Cagey
because property isn't worth a human life That depends on the life and the property. In my opinion.
15 posted on
02/25/2003 7:35:39 AM PST by
neutrino
(1eV... and still able to zing along!)
To: Cagey
Lethal security systems are flat-out wrong. This was a good verdict.
Had this been a home and a thief broke into the home at night, the occupants would have rightfully feared for their lives; this is why they can justifiably use deadly force.
Whoever set the trap is in my opinion lucky that they got off with only a civil judgment. This was negligent homicide.
To: Cagey
Winters contends there was little evidence linking Harris to the earlier break-ins and said it wasn't clear why Harris was entering the bar through the window around 2 a.m. "We're never going to know Larry's intent..." Probably just looking to borrow a flashlight so he could help an elderly woman across the street.
And, firefighters don't look for alarm signs when answering a call.
Um... If they have any sense, they do.
21 posted on
02/25/2003 7:43:50 AM PST by
Sloth
(I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!)
To: Cagey
"Jurors weren't allowed to be told that Harris was drunk and on cocaine, nor that he had served time in prison for two burglary convictions."
this is always tough. the last jury I was on a man was on trial for agg. assualt w/deadly weapon. the defense was decent utilizing self defense if I recall correctly. After the trial the judge told us how the guy had a rap sheet a mile long that included assault. what was presented to us as an isolated incident turned out to be par for the course.
To: Cagey
The verdict sends a message that property owners can't use lethal security systems to defend their homes and businesses, so if you want to pilpher, steal, break in, threaten, go ahead because harm comming to an out and out criminal with no respect for humans or their property won't be tolerated.
27 posted on
02/25/2003 7:50:12 AM PST by
EGPWS
To: scholar
Say Scholar??
It's
Chicago.
Again.
Wheels are wobblin' real good, now.
...they're just about off completely, kid.
28 posted on
02/25/2003 7:52:12 AM PST by
Landru
To: Cagey
"..There comes a time in the history of every people when they become so pathologically soft and tender that they actually side with those elements of their society that harms them i.e. criminals..."-A Great Historian 1888
36 posted on
02/25/2003 8:18:41 AM PST by
AEMILIUS PAULUS
(Further, the statement assumed)
To: Cagey
"Family of electrocuted thief gets $75,000""The verdict sends a message that property owners can't use lethal security systems to defend their homes and businesses, said John Winters, the Chicago lawyer who represented Harris' mother and brother in the civil case."
[Shaking my head] American lawyers prove day after day that Shakespeare was right. Please, please Freepers, vote for Republicans at all levels, from the Presidency down to the dog catcher, until we rid the vermin we call lawyers from our judicial system through tort reform.
37 posted on
02/25/2003 8:23:25 AM PST by
tom h
To: Cagey
There is a case for penalizing the setting of dumb "booby traps", because they could endanger legitimate emergency entries (e.g. the fire department).
However, the fact that this crook or his survivors got one red cent is an outrageous travesty.
38 posted on
02/25/2003 8:27:35 AM PST by
steve-b
To: Cagey
Rights to private property are vanishing into the mists of time. Our society is too affluent when thieves are not dealt with by the police powers of the state and criminals' wasted, predatory lives are valued more than owners' rights of self-defense of life and earned property.
Once we're under the Sharia, such matters will be handled with Devine justice as there will no bar owners remaining.
To: Cagey
Booby traps are a Bozo-NoNo. They are indiscriminate and thus can cause harm to innocents. Even if the intended target is the one who falls for the trap, you'll still find yourself in deep kimchee. That having been said, they should have used a much higher voltage. : ) 75kV or so would have given a nice, attention-getting jolt but without enough current to actually cause injury.
(Keep in mind that I'm an engineer, not an attorney. While giving the burglar a taser-like jolt would be extremely entertaining, it might not be entirely legal. Did I mention how entertaining this would be? Feel free to post any video clips you might have of an intruder doing the 75kV-quick-step.)
45 posted on
02/25/2003 9:08:27 AM PST by
Redcloak
(bortaS nIvqu' 'oH bortaS'e')
To: Cagey
THIS IS ALL WRONG!!!!!!!!!!
78 posted on
02/25/2003 9:53:22 PM PST by
celtic gal
(Clinton proved that crime pays)
To: Cagey
When will the madness end. This verdict is part of the sick slippery slope which will lead to burglars staging injuries while attempting a harmless little break in, so they can score with a jury.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson