Drive by shooting in Brookside

[Hammock Parties]

Jesus. Now even the nice neighborhoods are getting shot up.

This town needs an enema!

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local...180768716.html

A man in his late 30s was sitting on his front porch in Brookside on Wednesday morning when he was shot to death, Kansas City police said.

Just after 8 a.m. police were summoned to the 200 block of West 66th Terrace, which is just east of Brookside and Wornall roads, on a shooting.

“It appears that our victim was sitting on his front porch of his residence when he was shot. The victim’s spouse heard something and came out and discovered her spouse on the ground,” said police spokeswoman Sgt. Kari Thompson.

Investigators are searching the area but have very limited suspect information. The shooting is not believed to have been random.

Police said they were looking for a white 1997 Chevrolet van with Missouri license 6FA 453. Anyone who sees the van is asked to call 911. Police warned people not to approach the van if they see it.

Police are speaking with the victim’s spouse to determine what happened. A car was heard speeding away immediately after the shooting. Investigators are also trying to determine if the victim had just walked his children to school prior to the shooting.

Police are canvassing the neighborhood.

“We’re hoping to get to the bottom of this and solve this case as we hope to solve every case,” Thompson said. “We need help. We can’t solve this alone.”

The death one of three homicides reported in Kansas City in the past 24 hours.

[cooper barrett]

Originally Posted by stumppy

Yea, You would think he'd appeal it. Who knows what runs through this guys head.

I do not know buy you must fulfill the judgement to appeal the case I have no idea where that stands...Looking into it this week.

My old traffic atty In KC (I should say one of...*) is a "Personal injury lawyer" who will give me the low down.

* not that i am a bad driver just have a tendency of making cops say "I didn't think i was going to catch up to you." which i always answered " catch up? how long have you been following me as I just got on the highway at the last exit.

I knew the tow guys by name...

[cooper barrett]

Stumppy... isn't that cute.
Did your mommy give you the nickname, one of the maternity nurses, or one of your boyfriends? Either way, you must hate hearing all the little cocktail weeny jokes being referenced in all the movies, tv shows, cuckold scenes and now being called a "Soy Boy" must really make you lash out sometimes. Just remember to take ALL of your meds.

I am sorry I missed you (smerk) but I am not a big fan of the cuckold scene (you creeps standing in the corner jacking off...) and I find that "Stumppy dick jokes are not all that funny.. OK Yes they are!!!! they are ****ing hilarious (stole that fro john Oliver)

Let's address your comments:

1- Here, "Here, let's just cut through all the crap. How about you suck on the snotty end of my **** stick."

It's not a stick it's a stem. You are like one of those dandelions that grow next to the ground. I hear the big dandelions call them "Stumppy".

It's a little long but the girth is dead on. Snot:Is that what the that one drop of milky stuff you get when you squeeze a dandelion is called? "Sweet'?



2-You should have showed up at home 10 minutes earlier last week. You would have got your chance. Sorry for wiping my dick off on your pillow.

Hmm, Where do I send my condolences? I was referring to my Ex-wife and she has been ****ing one of my friends i've known since the late 70's. I have to let him slide for ****ing my ex as I used to **** his first ex-wife too. She was a ginger, super cute, sexy, and had mouth skills that a shop vac couldn't compete with. He shouldn't have let her get away.

The ex told me that he is not only a small dicked cuckold, like you, but he's bi-sexual, sorta like you. I hear he invites the guys over a lot so I am not only glad for you but for him too. Did you sequel or giggle when he butt rushed you while you were trying to feel if you were ****ing my ex or just a wet spot on the pillow from the last guy. I bet you felt something warm in you socks when you left. That's my ex's dog, He must like you, he's a gay culkold too.





Stumppy (my ex's Stumppy) not only ****s my ex's old worn used pussy but he drives my ex's old worn out used car too. I sold it to him in a bars parking lot during the separation . She was ****ing livid as it was 2 towns over...

[cooper barrett]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You can't say wrong and then change the scenario. You're talking about something different than he is.

Jungerman's property was enclosed with a fence and security (barbed) wire. If you cut it to get in you are breaking and entering.

[cooper barrett]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

Cooper Barrett for n00b of the year.

If you need a headshot for banners and posters....

[JohnnyV13]

You guys don't know what you're talking about.

The basic, common law rule with respect to using deadly force is that you're only privileged to do so if:

1) self defense against a threat of great bodily harm
2) defense of another against threat of great bodily harm

You cannot use deadly force in defense of property. You also generally cannot shoot someone who is fleeing unless you have some reason to believe that they still remain a threat. That argument is going to be hard to make, but you might be able to win it if they are carrying a weapon and are running for cover from which they might shoot you.

BTW, a legal privilege is an act that would otherwise violate the law that is allowed under specific circumstances.

1. Jungerman wasn't on the property when it was invaded, he came to his business in response to an alarm.
2. Jungerman came armed
3. Evidence showed that the plaintiff was shot in the back of the leg.
4. Jungerman claimed that the plaintiff rushed him (but, if the plaintiff was rushing him, how is he shot in the back of the leg)?
5. Evidence presented at trial showed defendant controlled a $50 million trust.

Jungerman's problem is that if he arrived on the scene and saw the plaintiff burgling his property, he's not under threat of great bodily harm. Under most circumstances, you'd think he'd keep his distance and simply call the police.

However, Jungerman claimed the plaintiff rushed him, which would give him reason to believe he was at risk of harm. Yet, because the plaintiff suffered wounds that entered from the back of the leg, apparently the jury didn't buy his story. Probably didn't help that Jungerman was using an AR-15 from what I've read.

Add in evidence of three other incidents admitted at trial of Jungerman at least brandishing firearms in public, and the jury must have concluded that he was a cowboy. Admitting this evidence wasn't a crazy decision, as it could be construed as "pattern evidence" (an individual acting in accordance with a pattern of prior behavior). Whether this evidence comes in or not is a judgment call. That one of these incidents happened AFTER this shooting doesn't matter since you're using it as pattern evidence. The defense likely argued that the "prejudicial effect" outweighs the "probative value". Meaning, the evidence would make the jury decide on emotions rather than facts to the point that it overwhelms the value of the evidence. Judge Fahnestock decided to allow it.

Jury awarded $750k in actual and $5 million in punitive damages. The $50 million trust is key evidence here, b/c punitive damages are an award designed to deter "outrageous" conduct. In this case, 10% of Jungerman's net worth isn't a crazy amount. If you awarded, say, $250k in punitive damages Jungerman would consider it a parking ticket.

BTW, Judge Fahnestock couldn't just "throw out" the case. Judges CAN order what is known as a directed verdict IF the plaintiff fails to offer credible evidence for every element of an actionable case. Here you have all the elements for common law assault and battery.

Whether the privilege of self-defense applies is a jury issue and here the jury not only denied it, they also found the defendant's conduct "outrageous" which supported a punitive damages award. Apparently, the jury believed that Jungerman came to his property notified by an alarm, saw the plaintiff stealing from his business, and then shot him as he fled.

The Judge has some discretion to find a jury award "unreasonable". Essentially, it would be a finding that no reasonable jury could make such an award given the evidence presented at trial. But, that's a limited power. The defense could also appeal on such grounds.

An example here would be if the evidence showed that Jungerman was worth $10 million and the jury awarded the plaintiff $50 million in punitive damages.

However, with the Jury awarding 10% of Jungerman's net worth, she really couldn't make such a ruling.

BTW, Judge Fahnestock isn't an idiot. I went to law school with her.

[Fansy the Famous Bard]

Originally Posted by JohnnyV13

BTW, Judge Fahnestock isn't an idiot. I went to law school with her.

Glad we cleared that up.

[stumppy]

Originally Posted by cooper barrett

Stumppy... isn't that cute.
Did your mommy give you the nickname, one of the maternity nurses, or one of your boyfriends? Either way, you must hate hearing all the little cocktail weeny jokes being referenced in all the movies, tv shows, cuckold scenes and now being called a "Soy Boy" must really make you lash out sometimes. Just remember to take ALL of your meds.

I am sorry I missed you (smerk) but I am not a big fan of the cuckold scene (you creeps standing in the corner jacking off...) and I find that "Stumppy dick jokes are not all that funny.. OK Yes they are!!!! they are ****ing hilarious (stole that fro john Oliver)

Let's address your comments:

1- Here, "Here, let's just cut through all the crap. How about you suck on the snotty end of my **** stick."

It's not a stick it's a stem. You are like one of those dandelions that grow next to the ground. I hear the big dandelions call them "Stumppy".

It's a little long but the girth is dead on. Snot:Is that what the that one drop of milky stuff you get when you squeeze a dandelion is called? "Sweet'?



2-You should have showed up at home 10 minutes earlier last week. You would have got your chance. Sorry for wiping my dick off on your pillow.

Hmm, Where do I send my condolences? I was referring to my Ex-wife and she has been ****ing one of my friends i've known since the late 70's. I have to let him slide for ****ing my ex as I used to **** his first ex-wife too. She was a ginger, super cute, sexy, and had mouth skills that a shop vac couldn't compete with. He shouldn't have let her get away.

The ex told me that he is not only a small dicked cuckold, like you, but he's bi-sexual, sorta like you. I hear he invites the guys over a lot so I am not only glad for you but for him too. Did you sequel or giggle when he butt rushed you while you were trying to feel if you were ****ing my ex or just a wet spot on the pillow from the last guy. I bet you felt something warm in you socks when you left. That's my ex's dog, He must like you, he's a gay culkold too.





Stumppy (my ex's Stumppy) not only ****s my ex's old worn used pussy but he drives my ex's old worn out used car too. I sold it to him in a bars parking lot during the separation . She was ****ing livid as it was 2 towns over...

Didn't mean to trigger you snowflake. The part about you swapping juices between you, you ex, your buddy and his ex really is TMI. But hey, if that's your thing then go for it.
I'll leave you alone for now. Take a breath, calm down. Word of advice, don't let everyone on the board know about you're swapping cum, via your ex, with one of your buddies. Some people on here will never let that go.

Remember, deep breaths.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by cooper barrett

The jury gave that to him Dumb****. You just proved that you do not know shit about the law. You really should stop now, while you're only knee deep in your own bullshit. Junderman was not sued for 5 million but you need to figure it out for you. YOU ****ING NEED TO LEARN. I hope you get charged with something and some defense atty bends you over and takes the deed on your house, your 401k, afterwhile your ass rots in jail ****s your wife like it's never been done before under the pretense that he is going to help you.

Oh and I bet you have family who are criminals but not from shooting someone who is inside your home, who did not have your consent. If i found you Porking my wife I can shoot you both dead and walk!!!!! shoot your dick off and you can sue me and some liberal jury can give you $5M.

LOL.. no. Not even capital "P" porking..

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

You're defending a homeless piece of shit criminal and a scum-sucking lawyer who tried to **** a taxpaying American for a payday.

You're the ****ing idiot.

I disagree, Clayton.

Read my analysis of how I think the jury arrived at their verdict. I don't have any problem with the actions of the plaintiff's legal team. Under the law, the case is valid.

If you have a problem with this outcome, it's probably due disagreeing with either:

1) how the traditional common law rule for self-defense values life over property

2) the jurisprudence behind the whole concept of punitive damage awards in tort cases

Or perhaps both.

You seem to be approaching this case like because P did a bad act, P is a bad guy and deserves whatever harm Jungerman wants to inflict on him. The problem with this position is you aren't expecting Jungerman to make a proportional response. Or, you just think that attempted theft deserves death.

Tell me Clayton, have either you or one of your friends attempted to shop lift when you were a kid? If so, should the store owner have been able to pull a gun and blow you away at their whim? If your answer is different, is it because you presume that the plaintiff in the Jungerman case was a "a piece of crap" while you (or your friends) were "just kids"?

If Police catch a burglar or a thief, should the Judge be able to sentence them to death? I suspect if the question came up in the context of whether or not you like Sharia Law, you'd think the traditional Muslim rule of cutting off the hand of the thief was barbaric. If that rule is barbaric, why should Jungerman be able to kill a burglar on his property if his life wasn't under immediate threat?

[Fansy the Famous Bard]

Originally Posted by JohnnyV13

have either you or one of your friends attempted to shop lift when you were a kid? If so, should the store owner have been able to pull a gun and blow you away at their whim? If your answer is different, is it because you presume that the plaintiff in the Jungerman case was a "a piece of crap" while you (or your friends) were "just kids"?

At its essence, no.... the problem here is that our society has perpetuated this belief of entitlement through the generations to the point that Low-life mother****ers use this victimized approach to everything because the law protects them.

They can poop on your lawn, but you cannot kick their ass because you'll go to jail.

A bully can pester you and treat you like shit, when you stand up for yourself you get in trouble.

It's what our culture has become.

Here is my example: Guy cuts in line of the fastfood restaurant, there are 4 cars behind me and he goes around and jumps into the furthest lane of the "split".. I honk and throw my hands up. Dude starts jawing at me... I make another gesture with a single finger. He jumps out of his car and storms at me. He walks up to my cardoor and threatens to woop me... I open the cardoor pushing him away and get out after he hits my window and starts going back to his car... he turns back around and takes a step at me... he's next laying on the ground.

Guess who got in trouble? Not him.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by JohnnyV13

You guys don't know what you're talking about.

The basic, common law rule with respect to using deadly force is that you're only privileged to do so if:

1) self defense against a threat of great bodily harm
2) defense of another against threat of great bodily harm

You cannot use deadly force in defense of property.

Then why wasn't Jungerman CONVINCTED OF A CRIME and PUT IN JAIL?

The whole thing is a clown show. A couple of clowns trying to **** a guy for six million dollars.

You reap what you sow.

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by fahrenheit

At its essence, no.... the problem here is that our society has perpetuated this belief of entitlement through the generations to the point that Low-life mother****ers use this victimized approach to everything because the law protects them.

They can poop on your lawn, but you cannot kick their ass because you'll go to jail.

A bully can pester you and treat you like shit, when you stand up for yourself you get in trouble.

It's what our culture has become.

Here is my example: Guy cuts in line of the fastfood restaurant, there are 4 cars behind me and he goes around and jumps into the furthest lane of the "split".. I honk and throw my hands up. Dude starts jawing at me... I make another gesture with a single finger. He jumps out of his car and storms at me. He walks up to my cardoor and threatens to woop me... I open the cardoor pushing him away and get out after he hits my window and starts going back to his car... he turns back around and takes a step at me... he's next laying on the ground.

Guess who got in trouble? Not him.

It sounds like your fundamental problem is that the outcome leaves a piece of crap plaintiff with $5 million in punitive damages--which is wealth beyond anything they would likely have been able to earn--- as a reward for doing something wrong.

This issue goes to the logic behind punitive damage awards.

Meaning, rewarding the plaintiff isn't the only possible outcome. The law could, for example, allow the $5 million penalty---but not give it to plaintiff. Instead, you could have the state collect it, and give the plaintiff nothing more than actual damages to compensate for his messed up leg.

You could then use the $5 million to defray costs of policing instead of using tax dollars. Or, you could set up a fund to help benefit crime victims. Or all kinds of other useful public purposes.

The ethical argument against that is you'd then create a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client. Meaning, the lawyer might want to chase the punitive damages award (b/c presumably they get a cut). If the client, however, gets NOTHING from pursuing such a case, you'd have a lawyer potentially advising the client to act against their interest. Then you have clients who don't trust their lawyers. That might cause client to lie to their own lawyers, which could result in the clients suffering bad legal outcomes because they don't tell their lawyers the truth.

If the lawyer didn't get any cut from pursuing the punitive damage case, why would anyone ever research and attempt to enforce these penalties? I suppose you could assign the state to bringing such a case (such as a judge recognizing the action), but then you'd have a judge sitting on the action that isn't objective (because, now the state has a stake in the outcome).

that's why our system rewards the plaintiff. BY doing that, you punish bad behavior, while avoiding all of the above conflicts of interest. While the plaintiff may end up with a disproportionate windfall, they at least are a damaged party.

Of course, I'm also aware that this works out rather conveniently for the legal profession, since both the plaintiff and defense lawyers end up with some rather lucrative paydays.

I point all of this out to show that pretty much anyway you structure the law, you're going to have some less than optimal outcomes.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

Then why wasn't Jungerman CONVINCTED OF A CRIME and PUT IN JAIL?



The whole thing is a clown show. A couple of clowns trying to **** a guy for six million dollars.



You reap what you sow.

Because the burden of proof for criminal procedures is higher than it is for civil proceedings.

In a criminal proceeding, all the defense needs to establish is reasonable doubt. The prosecutor and police must have deemed that the facts of the case weren't strong enough to warrant proceeding with charges, probably due to the self-defense component of the law.

This is not unusual. You remember the Independence mall shooting from about 4-5 years ago? The perpetrator in that case avoided conviction on the most severe charges because his defense was able to interject enough self-defense component to establish reasonable doubt on attempted murder (and remember, this is a guy who catcalled a girl, lost a brief fist fight with the girl's boyfriend, went to his car, got a handgun, went back inside and found the girl/boyfriend, and then fired multiple shots, including one that struck the boyfriend in the leg).

Of course, in that case, judge Jim Kanatzar used his latitude to ensure the charges on which the perp was convicted WERE equivalent to being convicted of attempted murder, but that's another issue.

In a civil proceeding, the burden of proof is lower.

The victim in the robbery/alleged murderer of the lawyer made choices.

He chose to attend the robbery in person, armed with a rifle, rather than allowing the police to handle it.

He chose to fire at the robbers as they fled.

Thank the gods the bullets from that fire didn't injure anyone else.

The civil jury handed him some consequences as a result. Boo ****ing hoo for him.

That doesn't make the lawyer a piece of shit. Far from it. If you research the guy, you see he was someone involved in the community and trying to do a lot of good.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

Then why wasn't Jungerman CONVINCTED OF A CRIME and PUT IN JAIL?

The whole thing is a clown show. A couple of clowns trying to **** a guy for six million dollars.

You reap what you sow.

I'm not really sure, b/c I don't know what happened in the criminal case.

However, I can point out that the standard of proof for criminal law is beyond a reasonable doubt, while the standard of proof in tort is more likely than not.

In practical terms, the tort standard is the jury can find for the plaintiff if they're only 51% sure, whereas in criminal they're supposed to be something like 99% sure. That's not really precise, but good enough to give you a rough sense of the difference.

Thus, if ONE juror of 12 in the criminal case is not 99% sure then you lose. Civil juries can be smaller (as few as 6). In some state law cases, you only need a majority. But, that isn't likely to apply here b/c that's only for relatively small awards. Still, it's much easier to get 6 jurors who are 51% sure than 12 jurors who are 99% sure.

Prosecutors are often judged by their peers on their conviction rates, so they don't like bringing cases which they're likely to lose. Consider your reaction to this case. If only ONE of 12 jurors reacts like you, I'm going to lose my case. Why bother spending state money pursuing something you're highly likely to lose, while harming your own career prospects?

[Hammock Parties]

The only reason Jungerman lost this case is because he was an idiot and defended himself.

Once Pickert saw that his eyes probably lit up. He knew he could **** him big time and get a huge payday.

This wasn't about justice. It was about stealing $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from a guy who was just trying to defend his property from criminal scum.

I can't believe that doesn't sicken more of you.