Home› A Moving Train

Did the Jury get this right?

shadowcastshadowcast Posts: 2,231
edited September 2011 in A Moving Train
http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury-12 ... z1WAJvzqf5

I feel that they did not.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • bgivens33bgivens33 Posts: 290
    Tough to say not sitting in on the trial. From the article, I'm not sure they had 'reasonable' belief that their life was in danger. But that is a tough one.
  • SatansFutonSatansFuton Posts: 5,399
    Yeah, it's hard to say without really knowing what all went down, but just from what I read, I have to lean towards yes. They don't appear to have needed to fire in self-defense, and just because you can shoot somebody for trespassing, doesn't mean you have to. It's a tricky area though. I mean, they did trespass with the intent to steal, and were high, but none of those things really warrant killing somebody over.

    I just don't think the people doing the shooting really tried to resolve the situation in any way other than the most extreme way possible. Personally I would have tried to hold them at gunpoint, or at least wound them before I went off firing kill shots. But then again, the guys wouldn't have been shooting at them if they hadn't broken onto the property with the intent to steal.

    I don't know, I'm just glad I wasn't on the jury, because even typing this message my mind is sort of jumping back and forth. But the fact that they just went apeshit with the guns makes me lean more towards the side of the "victim", who if he hadn't been killed would be the defendant.
    "See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    I know this might sound horrible but it might have cost more than 300,000 if he just winged the guy :?
    another thing if someone is breaking into a home or business they need to know that things like this might happen
    and re think their plan to rob a place....just so you guys know I don't think burglery is enough to get killed over
    but if a guy is dumb enough to rob someone then.........well he should expect something like this to happen at the very least, try jumping the fence at Fort Knox and see what happens. :shock:

    Godfather.
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    A Warning Shot might have been a good idea, but when people get scared....
  • bgivens33bgivens33 Posts: 290
    I disagree with the whole premise of a warning shot.

    Either this guy felt like his(or someone else) life was in danger and he should have killed him OR, he didn't and there is no reason to fire a gun. In my experience, guns should only be fired when you are planning on killing someone.
  • blueandwhiteblueandwhite Posts: 662
    While I don't have any real sympathy for the victim here, I think the jury made the right call. From the article, it would appear that the owners of the garage simply were waiting in vigil to assassinate theses junkies because they were tired of being robbed. Chasing somebody and gunning them down doesn't really sound much like self defense. There is just something about the way the owners planned to eliminate these losers that doesn't sit right with me.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 40,271
    Milanovic and his father told police a week before the shooting they would shoot any intruders who returned. Police say the men concealed the rifle in the trunk of a car so well that a police detective initially missed it during a search.

    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.


    All of this from the atricle suggests the armed men should have righty been charged with premeditated murder.

    They got off easy. 300K.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • bennett13bennett13 Posts: 439
    blueandwhite wrote:
    While I don't have any real sympathy for the victim here, I think the jury made the right call. From the article, it would appear that the owners of the garage simply were waiting in vigil to assassinate theses junkies because they were tired of being robbed. Chasing somebody and gunning them down doesn't really sound much like self defense. There is just something about the way the owners planned to eliminate these losers that doesn't sit right with me.

    I'm curious as to how sitting in your own property constitutes "chasing somebody." I'm a firm believer in the "shoot the burglar" laws. If someone is breaking into my house or any other property, I'm fully justified in believing that their intentions are not benevolent and, therefore, they will receive a quite unpleasant surprise...but only for a split second.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,157
    Rock-salt & a 12 gauge would have been a much better solution. Non-lethal and would have sent a message to the junkies.

    I wonder if they are going to serve time for killing the guy? If not, they should be happy with just having to pay under $300K for their "solution".
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
Sign In or Register to comment.