burglar's family gets 270 grand

youngunz4life · August 27, 2011, 01:46 AM

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/kdvr-...,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

Crazy88Fingers · August 27, 2011, 02:32 AM

Perhaps this will shed some light on the story.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury...rglar-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.

youngunz4life · August 27, 2011, 03:20 AM

thanx for the story/update. Yeah I was questioning this guy's future worth myself while reading the story.

Eghad · August 27, 2011, 03:43 AM

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.

mehavey · August 27, 2011, 09:14 AM

Quote:

[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.

Given the situation as described in the article, this was an execution, not defense. I would have voted w/ the jury on this one.

Uncle Buck · August 27, 2011, 09:39 AM

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.

mehavey · August 27, 2011, 09:50 AM

Opinions vary.

Crime of theft or not, hiding inside the shed he was no threat.
Execution, pure and simple.

Patriot86 · August 27, 2011, 11:57 AM

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.

Dead · August 27, 2011, 04:11 PM

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.

Mr. James · August 27, 2011, 04:12 PM

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?

Aguila Blanca · August 27, 2011, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. James

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?

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.

**JohnKSa** · August 27, 2011, 11:24 PM

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.

kraigwy · August 27, 2011, 11:28 PM

That wouldn't float here, in Wyoming, if the Grand Jury didn't indite him, he couldn't be sued.

**Tom Servo** · August 27, 2011, 11:35 PM

Quote:

This is a classic illustration of the logical problem with shooting people over material possessions.

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.

Pbearperry · August 27, 2011, 11:55 PM

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.

Eghad · August 28, 2011, 09:22 AM

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.

Hardcase · August 29, 2011, 03:04 PM

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.

NJgunowner · August 29, 2011, 03:29 PM

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.

**Tom Servo** · August 29, 2011, 05:40 PM

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!"

Crazy88Fingers · August 29, 2011, 08:19 PM

Tom, I believe the Bradies call Castle Doctrine the "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later" law.

Eghad · August 29, 2011, 09:48 PM

Quote:

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?

Was the knife in his hands?

Sounds to me like the guy was retreating and trying to leave the scene.

When that happens its time to let the police do thier job and for us not to be judge, jury and executioner.

Uncle Buck · August 29, 2011, 10:29 PM

I do understand that what the people who owned the car lot did was wrong. I do agree they should have called the cops.

But what rankles me is the fact the (Original) criminals' family made money on his crimes.

Patriot86 · August 29, 2011, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Was the knife in his hands?

Sounds to me like the guy was retreating and trying to leave the scene.

When that happens its time to let the police do thier job and for us not to be judge, jury and executioner.

Unless I am reading the story wrong ( I could be) the storage shed where he was hiding was on the mans property. I know laws are often different for businesses and homes, But I think of it like a criminal went and hid in a backroom in my home.

**tyme** · August 30, 2011, 12:50 AM

Hiding in a shed on business property and hiding in a room of a domicile are lightyears apart, legally speaking.

Patriot86 · August 30, 2011, 01:21 PM

The bottom line is none of us were there, looking at the location on Google maps I do not even see a small "shed" so the shed was either very small, is no longer there or they are misidentifying the larger structures on the properties as "sheds". The shooter was never convicted of any criminal wrongdoing. The criminals family is getting paid for something that resulted from their criminal relatives actions. That just doesn't sit right with me.

That being said, shooting at a fleeing unarmed suspect (dead guys accomplice) is typically not legal but was clearly done in this case after re-reading the article.

August 27, 2011, 01:46 AM	#1
youngunz4life Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2010 Location: United States of America Posts: 1,877	burglar's family gets 270 grand http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/kdvr-...,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 __________________ "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864

August 27, 2011, 02:32 AM	#2
Crazy88Fingers Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2010 Location: Florida Posts: 797	Perhaps this will shed some light on the story. http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury...rglar-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. __________________ "And I'm tellin' you son, well it ain't no fun, staring straight down a .44" -Lynyrd Skynyrd

August 27, 2011, 03:20 AM	#3
youngunz4life Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2010 Location: United States of America Posts: 1,877	thanx for the story/update. Yeah I was questioning this guy's future worth myself while reading the story. __________________ "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864

August 27, 2011, 03:43 AM	#4
Eghad Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 6,226	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. __________________ Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member

August 27, 2011, 09:39 AM	#6
Uncle Buck Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2009 Location: West Central Missouri Posts: 2,434	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. __________________ Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.

August 27, 2011, 09:50 AM	#7
mehavey Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Posts: 1,975	Opinions vary. Crime of theft or not, hiding inside the shed he was no threat. Execution, pure and simple.

August 27, 2011, 11:57 AM	#8
Patriot86 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2010 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,143	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.

August 27, 2011, 04:11 PM	#9
Dead Senior Member Join Date: June 6, 2000 Location: AoW Land, USA Posts: 1,923	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. __________________ Dead [Black Ops] www.therallypoint.org

August 27, 2011, 04:12 PM	#10
Mr. James Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2001 Location: The Old Dominion Posts: 1,499	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? __________________ "...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat

August 27, 2011, 11:24 PM	#12
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 16,753	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. __________________ Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association? Check out Black Bear Flashlights.

August 27, 2011, 11:28 PM	#13
kraigwy Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2008 Location: Wyoming Posts: 8,593	That wouldn't float here, in Wyoming, if the Grand Jury didn't indite him, he couldn't be sued. __________________ Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Oct '78 Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

August 27, 2011, 11:55 PM	#15
Pbearperry Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 2008 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 283	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.

August 28, 2011, 09:22 AM	#16
Eghad Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 6,226	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. __________________ Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member

August 29, 2011, 03:04 PM	#17
Hardcase Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2009 Location: Sunny Southern Idaho Posts: 1,880	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. __________________ Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae

August 29, 2011, 03:29 PM	#18
NJgunowner Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2009 Location: NJ Posts: 967	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. __________________ Being a man I had to buy a Colt. But being a super awesome manly man it couldn't be any Colt, it had to be a 10mm Colt Delta Elite. I now feel ready for the zombie invasion 9mm, .40, .45, Indian chief, doesn't really matter, cause 10mm kicks all of their butts! "

August 29, 2011, 05:40 PM	#19
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalach Posts: 7,102	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!" __________________ In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer. --Albert Camus

August 29, 2011, 08:19 PM	#20
Crazy88Fingers Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2010 Location: Florida Posts: 797	Tom, I believe the Bradies call Castle Doctrine the "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later" law. __________________ "And I'm tellin' you son, well it ain't no fun, staring straight down a .44" -Lynyrd Skynyrd

August 29, 2011, 10:29 PM	#22
Uncle Buck Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2009 Location: West Central Missouri Posts: 2,434	I do understand that what the people who owned the car lot did was wrong. I do agree they should have called the cops. But what rankles me is the fact the (Original) criminals' family made money on his crimes. __________________ Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.

August 30, 2011, 12:50 AM	#24
tyme Staff Join Date: October 13, 2001 Location: Novalis 978-0553586251 Posts: 2,996	Hiding in a shed on business property and hiding in a room of a domicile are lightyears apart, legally speaking. __________________ Proud reseller of little geisha dolls with big heads that wobble.

August 30, 2011, 01:21 PM	#25
Patriot86 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2010 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,143	The bottom line is none of us were there, looking at the location on Google maps I do not even see a small "shed" so the shed was either very small, is no longer there or they are misidentifying the larger structures on the properties as "sheds". The shooter was never convicted of any criminal wrongdoing. The criminals family is getting paid for something that resulted from their criminal relatives actions. That just doesn't sit right with me. That being said, shooting at a fleeing unarmed suspect (dead guys accomplice) is typically not legal but was clearly done in this case after re-reading the article.