View Full Version : Friend walked in on a burglary.
So I saw my buddy post on FB about how criminals shouldn't break into a house with Pro 2A signs, ADT signs, etc. I called him up to see what happened and here's the story:
He got a call from ADT at work saying that the alarm was going off, they coudn't hear anything but a dog barking and should they call the cops? He told them to alert the cops and he headed home. He got there before the cops and could hear his dog barking upstairs. Fortunately, he had his 9mm with him. He went into the house slowly and since he left music playing (for his dog), the perps didnt even hear him come in. Caught them piling his movies, PS3, etc into a bag. He instructed them to get on the floor at which point, one started crying (17 yr old and 18 yr old). As they waited for the cops to arrive, he made them take their cell phones out, put it on speaker and call their parents. LOL! Cops showed up, he told them the that parents were on their way which amused the cops, to say the least.
Once the parents showed up, one assured my friend this wouldn't happen again. "I didn't raise my child to be like this" type response. The other parent called him a racist, violent asshole. Yup, that's right. No charges pressed because nothing was stolen and nothing was broken. But he was the "bad guy" according to the parent. I tell ya...some kid's parents.
Stay safe out there people.
RCCrawler
06-18-2013, 17:30
No charges pressed? That'll teach them.
Chad4000
06-18-2013, 17:35
um why didnt youre friend press charges again?
BushMasterBoy
06-18-2013, 17:36
What? No charges? No laws broken? This country is broken! Has the law enforcement community gone insane? Sorry, I forgot Obama is in charge...
B&E. Especially after the parent comment crap.
P.S. He should expect a summons very soon from that cumb dunt.
ANADRILL
06-18-2013, 17:38
dumb, should have sent them to jail.
He just mentioned that he didn't want to have to deal with court and stuff. :shrugs:
My guess is the kid whose parent called him racist is the leader and probably the older one. The younger one is probably the one that started crying and was just trying to be cool. This is the second time his house has been broken into since he's lived there. I'd be looking for a new place to live.
sabot_round
06-18-2013, 17:42
No charges pressed? That'll teach them.
Exactly!! Those little dirtbags will do it again "cause nothing happened"!!! I'm afraid that this will be the cycle of life from now on. The next time, please press charges on these SOB's so that the rest of us don't have to deal with them in the future.
bobbyfairbanks
06-18-2013, 17:49
Should have shot them.
Great-Kazoo
06-18-2013, 17:52
Next time the B&E his place they're going straight for the gun collection. Who needs cd's and stereo when we gotz 9mm Yo
FWIW: His first mistake was entering an unknown scenario. Two kids in view where was #3 or 4? Not knowing the situation, wait outside. Hero's usually end up injured or dead.
What's this shit with ADT asking him if he want's them to call the cops. WTF he paying them for?
Wtf! He should have pressed charges after he shot them. JK! At a minimum he should have pressed charges.
How did they get in if nothing was broken? Did he inform the 911 operator or responding officer that he had the BGs held at gunpoint?
Do I know this person?
What's this shit with ADT asking him if he want's them to call the cops. WTF he paying them for?
Most alarm companies ask. Mine knows what sensor is tripped and asks if they should call the cops. I've forgot to lock up the dogs and they tripped the main level motion. So I told them it was the dogs since no exterior doors or glass breakage was detected. Plus I was just down the street.
kidicarus13
06-18-2013, 18:27
House broken into twice. No charges pressed. Sounds like your friend gets what he deserves for B&E #3
Your friend needs to be slapped, and needs to get a new dog.... This only taught the kids that they *can* get away with this shit. He did no one any good. It was probably the same people who did it the first time. I also wouldn't be surprised if his house was hit a third time at this point, especially by the kids that know he won't shoot them, and know the dog is worthless. FAIL
DingleBerns
06-18-2013, 18:42
Clearly a 2nd degree burglary took place, did the victim not want to press charges or did the police make that decision?
battle_sight_zero
06-18-2013, 18:44
He should have filed a police report and requested the DA to file charges. He could have then worked with the DA for diversion if they were eligible. Also covers his ass more if the parents come back to sue. Been down this road for different but similar situations. When you use any force CYA. What we think is cut in dry proper may not be in a judges mind. Hit both bozo parents in the pocket book. Diversion is not cheap that is if they are eligible. If they cant get diversion then they are douches eho have made other mistakes. Id suspect the kid with the dad throwing out the racecard falls in the douche catecory. Dad has given him excuses for his criminal behaviour.
i dont think its too late to file charges
Your friend needs to be slapped, and needs to get a new dog.... This only taught the kids that they *can* get away with this shit. He did no one any good. It was probably the same people who did it the first time. I also wouldn't be surprised if his house was hit a third time at this point, especially by the kids that know he won't shoot them, and know the dog is worthless. FAIL
^^^ THIS.
Great-Kazoo
06-18-2013, 18:49
He just mentioned that he didn't want to have to deal with court and stuff. :shrugs:
My guess is the kid whose parent called him racist is the leader and probably the older one. The younger one is probably the one that started crying and was just trying to be cool. This is the second time his house has been broken into since he's lived there. I'd be looking for a new place to live.
Clearly a 2nd degree burglary took place, did the victim not want to press charges or did the police make that decision?
^^^^^Response # 7.^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm confused (Surprise) He's a gun owner, has a security system THEN DOESN'T WANT THE HASSLE OF COURT AND STUFF??[facepalm]Might want to fill him in on what happens If he needs to use that shootin iron of his. Doesn't want the hassle he might as well cancel the ADT and sell his gun. He ain't seen hassles yet. ESPECIALLY now they know he has guns.
Yep, when #3 happens the kids will have reinforcements, possibly one of the parents as well.
Time for him to move out of Aurora, think i might slap him for not pressing charges!
So I saw my buddy post on FB about how criminals shouldn't break into a house with Pro 2A signs. You mean those "FREE GUNS INSIDE" signs?
JMBD2112
06-18-2013, 20:28
Should have shot them.
House broken into twice. No charges pressed. Sounds like your friend gets what he deserves for B&E #3
Your friend needs to be slapped, and needs to get a new dog.... This only taught the kids that they *can* get away with this shit. He did no one any good. It was probably the same people who did it the first time. I also wouldn't be surprised if his house was hit a third time at this point, especially by the kids that know he won't shoot them, and know the dog is worthless. FAIL
^^^^^^ ALL OF THIS!
BushMasterBoy
06-18-2013, 21:37
Your friend should read this article. Soldier and his pregnant wife killed by teen during a burglary. http://gazette.com/teen-sought-in-killing-of-carson-soldier-wife/article/149809
lowspeed_highdrag
06-18-2013, 21:44
Sounds alot like BS to me...
KevDen2005
06-18-2013, 21:49
Several laws were broken. Should have pursued charges. It wasn't their first time. It won't be their last.
battle_sight_zero
06-18-2013, 22:03
Here is a recent event where the suspects got less charges that the person who caught them in the act. http://m.now.msn.com/jesse-daniels-arrested-for-locking-vandals-in-closet
His word against their word.
He didn't want to deal with court? All he would have had to do was show up, and say "yep, I caught them". Case closed. I completely forgot about what happened with my friend (posted it a while back) till I was tellin my wife about your retarded friend, and she brought up mine. He was an Army Ranger, random guy forced entry when his buddy was there with him, the gave the guy a beating he will never forget. Anyway, it was a couple hours in court, the guy went to jail. Case closed. The more I think about it, this had better be some made up shit, because people as stupid as your friend really piss me off....
Shootersfab
06-18-2013, 22:12
thats bullshit! PRESS CHARGES! What the hell is wrong with people????? Might as well give em keys to your house cause now they think they are untouchable
Great-Kazoo
06-18-2013, 22:26
He didn't want to deal with court? All he would have had to do was show up, and say "yep, I caught them". Case closed. I completely forgot about what happened with my friend (posted it a while back) till I was tellin my wife about your retarded friend, and she brought up mine. He was an Army Ranger, random guy forced entry when his buddy was there with him, the gave the guy a beating he will never forget. Anyway, it was a couple hours in court, the guy went to jail. Case closed. The more I think about it, this had better be some made up shit, because people as stupid as your friend really piss me off....
See my replies. The guy has a gun on them, hold till LE arrival then puss's out because he "didn't want the hassle"
I doubt Dave_L is tossing out shit. Perhaps a "Link" to the FB page. Then all you social media folks can razz his friends ass there.
Goodburbon
06-18-2013, 22:38
Soooooo much fail in this one.
1. Rushed in on crime in progress.
2. Called parents. While this may seem funny, or like a sweet revenge, it sounds like a mistake to me. What sort of parents would you expect them to be? You are inviting an altercation, vandalism, revenge, etc.
3. Didn't press charges. You think this experience will change them? Not a chance.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Richard K
06-18-2013, 22:44
Didn't read th whole thread but what about felony 1st degree criminal tresspass? Nothing needs to have been taken. Or burglary, unlawfull entry with the intent to commit a crime therein. Sounds bogus. Also It's not up to him if charges are pressed on the juvenile.
hghclsswhitetrsh
06-18-2013, 22:51
He sure showed them!
/sarcasm. Fucking fail all the way around. What a dumbass. My guess they'll be back.
netsecsys
06-18-2013, 22:58
Should have shot them.
+1 (hurts a little more than a non-harsh talking to...)
Should have shot them.
+1 (hurts a little more than a non-harsh talking to...)
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. My meter is busted today.
Wow no way I wouldn't press charges.
BPTactical
06-19-2013, 05:25
No big deal at all.
Instead of an hour or so in court the next thing he gets to deal with is an armed home invasion.
What could go wrong?
Shoot the kids? No, they still have a chance at becoming productive citizens.
Now the parent that called him a "Racist" is another matter though.......
Definitely should have pressed charges. Get the little shits turned around or locked up.
As for the pup...not every dog is a protection K-9.
buffalobo
06-19-2013, 06:15
Hope Dave's buddy is full of BS, if he is not then he is another good example of why our country and society are failing.
Pretty sad when a small amount of our time is too expensive to stand up.
Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2
netsecsys
06-19-2013, 06:15
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. My meter is busted today.
yeah..too lazy for an emoticon...
Byte Stryke
06-19-2013, 06:15
Burglary/B&E at a Minimum...
DingleBerns
06-19-2013, 06:18
Didn't read th whole thread but what about felony 1st degree criminal tresspass? Nothing needs to have been taken. Or burglary, unlawfull entry with the intent to commit a crime therein. Sounds bogus. Also It's not up to him if charges are pressed on the juvenile.
Uh, yes it is his choice.
RblDiver
06-19-2013, 09:18
I could perhaps understand not pressing charges against the one whose parent was remorseful, but the other? Heck no, throw the book at him!
spqrzilla
06-19-2013, 09:22
The other parent called him a racist, violent asshole. Yup, that's right. No charges pressed because nothing was stolen and nothing was broken. But he was the "bad guy" according to the parent. I tell ya...some kid's parents.
This is why that kid is a felon already. The parents likely are too.
spqrzilla
06-19-2013, 09:25
And yep, there is a good chance that these scum will be back.
Hey, sorry fellas. I don't get online much at night. No BS. This is from a long time friend. I know it's not how most people on this board would have done things. To each their own. I would have pressed charges also. Eff anyone that thinks they can go into my house. He mentioned that the cops have the kids names so if anything comes up again, they're first on the list. Not that it matters much after the fact anyways. Apparently, he didn't lock his back door. I have no idea why you don't lock your house but again, to each their own. The dog was in a kennel hence why it didn't attack the intruders or anything.
My friend is a good guy and is hoping that this is enough of a wake up call for the kids. One started crying and the other started stuttering as soon as he confronted them. However, as some have said, once the parent called me anything but awesome, I would have done everything I can to show her how much of an asshole I could be. I do fear that this isn't over for him. I told him he should probably move but he said he doesn't feel at risk. I don't know how you can say that after multiple break in's. I'll do some more encouraging to him but each person will only do what they feel they should. All his guns are secure but If it were me, I'd probably just move them completely out of the house for a while minus my carry weapon.
generalmeow
06-19-2013, 10:15
I was driving down the street once and BANG! something hits my car. I look up on a hill and see these (4) 13-14 year old kids running away. I thought they threw a rock at my car.
I had never been in the neighborhood but I saw the direction they were headed. I rushed over to where I approximated they would be, saw them, jumped out of my car, and sprinted after them. I caught 3 of the fuckers. I don't know how, I guess I'm really fast and agile when I'm seeing red. I bunched them all together and grabbed the collars of all their shirts with one hand, while I called the cops with the other hand.
After about 5 minutes they were saying I was hurting them and asking if they could sit down. They were all whimpering, and face to face because I had them by the shirt collars. It must have looked ridiculous. I wasn't about to release my death grip on them. The cops showed up, and we went back to my car. They had thrown a full pudding cup at me and hit the roof right above the windshield. It didn't do any damage to the car.
The cop asked me if I wanted to press charges, or just scare them. I said just scare them. I'm sure they got in big trouble with their parents. If there had been damage to the car I would have pressed charges. It was dumb of them, and I'm sure they didn't see getting off the hook with the cops as opportunity to go out and do it again.
B&E is way different though. There is zero chance that I wouldn't have pressed charges.
It's a judgement call he needed to make, and I'm sure he felt he was doing the right thing. Dealing with a 13 year old who walked through an unlocked door and cries when he's caught is a bit different from walking in on a 17 year old gang member who kicked the door off its hinges or crawled through a 2nd floor window. Apparently they didn't hurt the dog or trash the place. He thought calling the parents was a good idea, but it turned out that one of the parents was a bigger shitbag than his kid. Maybe the other parent will beat the hell out of his own kid and tell him not to hang out with shitbag junior anymore. Little hope for shitbag junior, but maybe the other kid will turn his life around and choose not to go down that path.
Pressing felony charges SEEMS like the right thing to do . . . but if they're 13 year olds who live on the same block as you, that complicates things a bit. Now instead of being the white guy who threw two junior high kids in juvie for being stupid, he's the guy who COULD'VE pressed charges but didn't. This will make the kids' families, friends, and associates hate him less, and be less likely to do things to his house and vehicles in the future. Besides, the felony burglary probably would've been reduced to misdemeanor criminal trespass with no jail time and they'd just need to see a probation officer once a month and have their Youthful Offender record sealed. If he likes the house and wants to keep living in that neighborhood, I can understand why he did what he did. NOW he just needs to lock his fucking doors when he leaves the house and let his dog out of the kennel crate.
BREATHER
06-19-2013, 11:49
Did it happen in Colorado ??? If it did Govenor Pussylooper would have given them a medal and a joint.... Fuck LIBTARDS...
but if they're 13 year olds who live on the same block as you, that complicates things a bit. Now instead of being the white guy who threw two junior high kids in juvie for being stupid, he's the guy who COULD'VE pressed charges but didn't. This will make the kids' families, friends, and associates hate him less, and be less likely to do things to his house and vehicles in the future.
Say what? "I hate you because I robbed you and you put me in jail." Think about how stupid that sounds. I couldn't care less if my thieving neighbors hated me or not, if you break the law you really have no right to be pissed off at someone else. To hell with those kids, they need to be taught a swift, harsh, and tough lesson... If that involves them going to jail, so be it, they made that bed, they can't bitch that it's not to their liking.
Great-Kazoo
06-19-2013, 13:26
It's a judgement call he needed to make, and I'm sure he felt he was doing the right thing. Dealing with a 13 year old who walked through an unlocked door and cries when he's caught is a bit different from walking in on a 17 year old gang member who kicked the door off its hinges or crawled through a 2nd floor window. Apparently they didn't hurt the dog or trash the place. He thought calling the parents was a good idea, but it turned out that one of the parents was a bigger shitbag than his kid. Maybe the other parent will beat the hell out of his own kid and tell him not to hang out with shitbag junior anymore. Little hope for shitbag junior, but maybe the other kid will turn his life around and choose not to go down that path.
Pressing felony charges SEEMS like the right thing to do . . . but if they're 13 year olds who live on the same block as you, that complicates things a bit. Now instead of being the white guy who threw two junior high kids in juvie for being stupid, he's the guy who COULD'VE pressed charges but didn't. This will make the kids' families, friends, and associates hate him less, and be less likely to do things to his house and vehicles in the future. Besides, the felony burglary probably would've been reduced to misdemeanor criminal trespass with no jail time and they'd just need to see a probation officer once a month and have their Youthful Offender record sealed. If he likes the house and wants to keep living in that neighborhood, I can understand why he did what he did. NOW he just needs to lock his fucking doors when he leaves the house and let his dog out of the kennel crate.
By 13 most gang bangers have been in the mix for 5 years. 13's the new 21. First as look outs (FIVE OH) and runners, graduating up to B&E's, ATM attacks and high end vandalism. By 18 they've done 2-5 in juvy, if not tried already having 1 charge as an adult.
Excusing the crime / criminal especially after the "Racist" accusations demands shows the apple has not fallen far from the tree.
funkymonkey1111
06-19-2013, 13:44
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. My meter is busted today.
why would you think these are sarcastic replies? the man should've put them in the ground.
why would you think these are sarcastic replies? the man should've put them in the ground.
Property crimes, excepting arson, which do not immediately threaten your or another person's life do not justify ending someone.
RblDiver
06-19-2013, 16:25
Property crimes, excepting arson, which do not immediately threaten your or another person's life do not justify ending someone.
"What about their legs? They don't need those!" -Goblins, LoTR:TTT
It's a judgement call he needed to make, and I'm sure he felt he was doing the right thing. Dealing with a 13 year old who walked through an unlocked door and cries when he's caught is a bit different from walking in on a 17 year old gang member who kicked the door off its hinges or crawled through a 2nd floor window. Apparently they didn't hurt the dog or trash the place. He thought calling the parents was a good idea, but it turned out that one of the parents was a bigger shitbag than his kid. Maybe the other parent will beat the hell out of his own kid and tell him not to hang out with shitbag junior anymore. Little hope for shitbag junior, but maybe the other kid will turn his life around and choose not to go down that path.
Pressing felony charges SEEMS like the right thing to do . . . but if they're 13 year olds who live on the same block as you, that complicates things a bit. Now instead of being the white guy who threw two junior high kids in juvie for being stupid, he's the guy who COULD'VE pressed charges but didn't. This will make the kids' families, friends, and associates hate him less, and be less likely to do things to his house and vehicles in the future. Besides, the felony burglary probably would've been reduced to misdemeanor criminal trespass with no jail time and they'd just need to see a probation officer once a month and have their Youthful Offender record sealed. If he likes the house and wants to keep living in that neighborhood, I can understand why he did what he did. NOW he just needs to lock his fucking doors when he leaves the house and let his dog out of the kennel crate.
WTF?
The OP says 17 and 18 year old.
Burglary is burglary whether the door is locked or kicked in.
They also didn't rape the cat or flood the basement - so what?
Where does it say 13 year old living on the same block as the victim?
WTF Over?
funkymonkey1111
06-19-2013, 17:05
Property crimes, excepting arson, which do not immediately threaten your or another person's life do not justify ending someone.
sure, when you're dealing with someone stealing a toolbox out of the back of your truck. these were two intruders inside the man's home. that transcends "property crime."
sure, when you're dealing with someone stealing a toolbox out of the back of your truck. these were two intruders inside the man's home. that transcends "property crime."
He was not present when they entered and therefore not endangered. He chose to enter prior to the Police arriving. How exactly does one defend one's actions in this case, if he "put them in the ground?"
funkymonkey1111
06-19-2013, 17:31
He was not present when they entered and therefore not endangered. He chose to enter prior to the Police arriving. How exactly does one defend one's actions in this case, if he "put them in the ground?"
It's quite simple--they were in his house. Please show me where there's an exception for defending yourself in your house because you weren't there when someone entered it, because I'd really like to see that. Please, not some internet BS, but actual legal authority in Colorado that precludes personal defense in your home because you were not there when someone broke into your home.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-19-2013, 17:38
It's quite simple--they were in his house. Please show me where there's an exception for defending yourself in your house because you weren't there when someone entered it, because I'd really like to see that. Please, not some internet BS, but actual legal authority in Colorado that precludes personal defense in your home because you were not there when someone broke into your home.
You're not going to win this... I'd give up now.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
funkymonkey1111
06-19-2013, 17:44
You're not going to win this... I'd give up now.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
It's not about me "winning" anything. The law is clear, and it is simple. For those that don't know:
§ 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704 (http://www.ar-15.co/research/buttonTFLink?_m=d6491ffd26ed567f1cb6169dc84303fd&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2018-1-704.5%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=2&_butInline=1&_butinfo=COCODE%2018-1-704&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzB-zSkAb&_md5=541613e068a13f1b5efff4235e79781a), any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
UrbanWolf
06-19-2013, 17:48
Tell him to add a fire sprinkler system soon, I fear next time it's not gonna B&E but arson.
It's quite simple--they were in his house. Please show me where there's an exception for defending yourself in your house because you weren't there when someone entered it, because I'd really like to see that. Please, not some internet BS, but actual legal authority in Colorado that precludes personal defense in your home because you were not there when someone broke into your home.
I've got better things to do at the moment than try to convince you you're wrong on this. My wings are getting cold and my beer is getting warm.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
Great-Kazoo
06-19-2013, 17:49
You're not going to win this... I'd give up now.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
And he's not going to give up defending his position either. WE know he's incorrect, why waste time or energy.
The owner DID not believe he was in imminent DANGER.
IF KEY WORD IF he felt there was a potential THREAT / Imminent Danger to him. He should have never entered the House. Any prosecutor would have a field day with this.
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder/ Make My Day Law
1: The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
2: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
3: Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
4: Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
18
-
1
-
705
Use
Of
Physical
Force
In
Defense
Of
Premises
A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises
. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18
Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of Property
A person is justified in using reasonably and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18
Again he did not feel there was an Imminent Threat to himself.
-
JM Ver. 2.0
06-19-2013, 17:51
It's not about me "winning" anything. The law is clear, and it is simple. For those that don't know:
§ 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder
(1)
The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2)
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704 (http://www.ar-15.co/NLLXML/getcode.asp?userid=GUEST9&interface=&statecd=CO&codesec=18-1-704&sessionyr=2012&Title=18&datatype=S&noheader=1&nojumpmsg=0), any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3)
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4)
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
You also can't put yourself in a situation where deadly force could be used.
The argument would be that he knew people were in there and he put himself in the situation. He shouldn't have even entered the house to be honest. He should have waited for the police.
The person in this story did a few stupid things.
1. Entered the house.
2. Drew down on them.
3. Didn't press charges.
Only smart thing he did is not shoot them.
He's probably going to be sued, and sadly, probably going to lose.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
They are certainly lucky it was his house and not mine.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-19-2013, 17:56
They are certainly lucky it was his house and not mine.
And so are you.
What do you people not get? You'd spend life in prison if you shot them.
You're all starting to scare me.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
And so are you.
What do you people not get? You'd spend life in prison if you shot them.
No you wouldn't, and you are a twit.
Cameron
UrbanWolf
06-19-2013, 18:02
No you wouldn't, and you are a twit.
Cameron
What about George Zimmerman?
Great-Kazoo
06-19-2013, 18:05
No you wouldn't, and you are a twit.
Cameron
Um yes you would. Unless you have an airtight story [ told by your attorney] you cannot beat forensic science. The Court of Public Opinion especially with parents as described will crucify you. . Ask this white hispanic in FL, named Zimmerman how that shooting is playing out.
IF, IF YOU BELIEVE there is someone in your home and you enter while LE is in route AND use deadly force you're screwed. Like i said, Justifying Use of deadly force when LE is on the way puts you in a very tough to defend position.
The first question asked by any 1/2 ass investigator would be Why did you Call the Police / Dial 911, THEN enter your home....... OOPS.
funkymonkey1111
06-19-2013, 18:06
What about George Zimmerman?
right on point there-- a fight outside a home in a common area of a neighborhood. Here, we're talking about two folks inside a man's home.
funkymonkey1111
06-19-2013, 18:08
And he's not going to give up defending his position either. WE know he's incorrect, why waste time or energy.
The owner DID not believe he was in imminent DANGER.
IF KEY WORD IF he felt there was a potential THREAT / Imminent Danger to him. He should have never entered the House. Any prosecutor would have a field day with this.
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder/ Make My Day Law
1: The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
2: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
3: Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
4: Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
18
-
1
-
705
Use
Of
Physical
Force
In
Defense
Of
Premises
A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises
. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18
Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of Property
A person is justified in using reasonably and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18
Again he did not feel there was an Imminent Threat to himself.
-
That's some great armchair lawyering, Jim. Of course, 18-1-705 talks about defense of a premises, which is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about being confronted by two intruders inside your home, which is governed by 18-1-704.5.
How is Zimmerman relevant?
I received a call that my alarm has been tripped and my dog is barking.
I went home thinking it was probably a false alarm (statistically probably 20 to 1 that the alarm was false).
I went inside and to my horror was confronted by two men who had been burglarizing my home appeared to have a similar desire to take my life in the same way they were stealing my property.
In fear for my life I was forced to shoot them both in self defense.
I would like to speak to my attorney.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-19-2013, 18:11
No you wouldn't, and you are a twit.
Cameron
You can call me all the names you want now. But when you come through the back door or the jail on murder charges, I expect to be called "sir".
Oh, and good try on baiting me into doing something stupid resulting in a ban. Sorry it didn't work, bro.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
Um yes you would. Unless you have an airtight story [ told by your attorney] you cannot beat forensic science. The Court of Public Opinion especially with parents as described will crucify you. . Ask this white hispanic in FL, named Zimmerman how that shooting is playing out.
IF, IF YOU BELIEVE there is someone in your home and you enter while LE is in route AND use deadly force you're screwed. Like i said, Justifying Use of deadly force when LE is on the way puts you in a very tough to defend position.
The first question asked by any 1/2 ass investigator would be Why did you Call the Police / Dial 911, THEN enter your home....... OOPS.
Do you have ANY Colorado case law that backs up anything you have written?
I HAVE had this situation and I DID arrive before the police and I did enter MY HOME and I would have used any force I deemed necessary to protect myself. You are making a massive number of assumptions that are illogical and not reality based.
Cameron
UrbanWolf
06-19-2013, 18:13
right on point there-- a fight outside a home in a common area of a neighborhood. Here, we're talking about two folks inside a man's home.
Still that doesnt stop from the families suing him.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-19-2013, 18:13
That's some great armchair lawyering, Jim. Of course, 18-1-705 talks about defense of a premises, which is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about being confronted by two intruders inside your home, which is governed by 18-1-704.5.
The point is, there would have never been a confrontation if he would have done the right thing and waited for the police.
I'm done now. I'll watch from the sidelines and giggle to myself now.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
You can call me all the names you want now. But when you come through the back door or the jail on murder charges, I expect to be called "sir".
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
Do you have ANY case where someone entered their own home confronted a criminal committing a crime, killed them and is now doing life?
Cameron
JM Ver. 2.0
06-19-2013, 18:16
Do you have ANY case where someone entered their own home confronted a criminal committing a crime, killed them and is now doing life?
Cameron
:: sigh ::
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
BushMasterBoy
06-19-2013, 18:17
If I shot them, I wouldn't say shit to the police. I'd want a lawyer representing me, before I talk to any DA, cop, deputy etc. Been through this crap before, cops and DA count their success by the number of "criminals" they convict...anything anybody says to the contrary is just plain naïve!
:: sigh ::
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
I didn't think so. Where did you go to Law School?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-19-2013, 18:20
If I shot them, I wouldn't say shit to the police. I'd want a lawyer representing me, before I talk to any DA, cop, deputy etc. Been through this crap before, cops and DA count their success by the number of "criminals" they convict...anything anybody says to the contrary is just plain naïve!
I had something to say but it's not the best thing.
I'll just say not all DAs are out for blood. Some actually care about the right person going to jail.
Didn't I say I was done? Done now.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
I think some of you need to understand the term "Occupant."
You also cannot provoke the intruder's threat of deadly force. By entering the home knowing there are intruders, you are provoking the intruder.
You can make up all the shit you want but if someone determined you entered the home AFTER the intrusion, you're fucked.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-19-2013, 19:05
I think some of you need to understand the term "Occupant."
You also cannot provoke the intruder's threat of deadly force. By entering the home knowing there are intruders, you are provoking the intruder.
You can make up all the shit you want but if someone determined you entered the home AFTER the intrusion, you're fucked.
I think someone said that a few posts ago...
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
I think someone said that a few posts ago...
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
Yea, catching up and switching from tapatalk to a 'puter. I also felt it necessary to clarify, in my own words, MY understanding of the law.
spqrzilla
06-19-2013, 19:26
Still that doesnt stop from the families suing him. Reread 18-1-704.5
spqrzilla
06-19-2013, 19:28
I think some of you need to understand the term "Occupant."
You also cannot provoke the intruder's threat of deadly force. By entering the home knowing there are intruders, you are provoking the intruder.
You can make up all the shit you want but if someone determined you entered the home AFTER the intrusion, you're fucked.[Bang]
So much fail.
[Bang]
So much fail.
Specifically?
JMBD2112
06-19-2013, 19:35
I'll leave this right here.....[Pop]
By the way,Welcome back J
JM Ver. 2.0
06-19-2013, 19:37
Specifically?
Being right is considered fail now...
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
Aloha_Shooter
06-19-2013, 19:56
I like pie. [Coffee]
JM Ver. 2.0
06-19-2013, 19:58
I like pie. [Coffee]
Mmmmmmmm. Pie.......
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 7. JUSTIFICATION AND EXEMPTIONS FROM CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
C.R.S. 18-1-704.5 (2012)
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704 (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=e8d2f1ea5155b2a50b9303cbf6745e4c&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2018-1-704.5%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=2&_butInline=1&_butinfo=COCODE%2018-1-704&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAb&_md5=a7626d3440a5c315f448d48ee33d80ec), any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
Had they in ANY WAY posed a threat, he would have been justified (legally) in using whatever force was necessary. If they had not immediately complied any move they made towards him could be easily interpreted as a threat.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-19-2013, 20:04
Had they in ANY WAY posed a threat, he would have been justified (legally) in using whatever force was necessary. If they had not immediately complied any move they made towards him could be easily interpreted as a threat.
Still wrong. But nice try.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
I think some of you need to understand the term "Occupant."
You also cannot provoke the intruder's threat of deadly force. By entering the home knowing there are intruders, you are provoking the intruder.
You can make up all the shit you want but if someone determined you entered the home AFTER the intrusion, you're fucked.
Do you have just ONE case that backs that up?
One?
I'll just say not all DAs are out for blood. Some actually care about the right person going to jail. Yeah, but "prosecutors are like a box of chocolates" . . . and you might get the nutty one.
I think some of you need to understand the term "Occupant."
You also cannot provoke the intruder's threat of deadly force. By entering the home knowing there are intruders, you are provoking the intruder.
You can make up all the shit you want but if someone determined you entered the home AFTER the intrusion, you're fucked.
So, you're saying that if you come home, enter your home, and are surprised by an intruder, that if you shoot that person, you are screwed? I hope that is not what you're saying, because it's happened, and the home owner's got off. It's the same shit. So?.....
JM Ver. 2.0
06-19-2013, 22:03
So, you're saying that if you come home, enter your home, and are surprised by an intruder, that if you shoot that person, you are screwed? I hope that is not what you're saying, because it's happened, and the home owner's got off. It's the same shit. So?.....
That's not the case here at all.
In your case you'd be covered.
In the story the op states the homeowner has already been told the police are on the way. That's the big issue here.
The alarm company asked and the HO approved the police dispatch. He should have waited for the police.
Had he shot the people knowing that police were en route he'd be on the fast track to prison.
You can't knowingly inject yourself into a situation where deadly force is authorized. Especially if you know the police are on the way.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
Total crap and sounds like LE folklore.
Do you have one case in which your premise played out?
Cameron
funkymonkey1111
06-19-2013, 22:28
Total crap and sounds like LE folklore.
Do you have one case in which your premise played out?
Cameron
I think you're supposed to call him "sir."
So, you're saying that if you come home, enter your home, and are surprised by an intruder, that if you shoot that person, you are screwed? I hope that is not what you're saying, because it's happened, and the home owner's got off. It's the same shit. So?.....
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said "surprised." I said "knowingly."
Different situation. And "surprise" does not necessarily mean threat, although a shoot in that situation would more likely be justified.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 06:40
Total crap and sounds like LE folklore.
Do you have one case in which your premise played out?
Cameron
Who are you, again?
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
Who are you, again?
I'm Cameron, I would have thought that was obvious. Let me ask again.
You have made the assertion that knowledge of LE notification in a burglary some how invalidates Colorado state law in regard to the protection of an occupant or home owner, specifically in regard to the use of force. Do you have ANY case law that backs up your premise? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
Cameron
funkymonkey1111
06-20-2013, 07:51
Who are you, again?
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
who are you? Seems like this guy is asking a question--you're spewing BS. I guess I just figured out who you are.
spqrzilla
06-20-2013, 08:03
brutal and JM ver 2.0
You two gentlemen are making statements that simply are not correct. Largely because you seem to take a specific point you want to make, that would perhaps even be arguable, and then turn it into huge sweeping generalizations that are flat out false.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 09:02
I'm Cameron, I would have thought that was obvious. Let me ask again.
You have made the assertion that knowledge of LE notification in a burglary some how invalidates Colorado state law in regard to the protection of an occupant or home owner, specifically in regard to the use of force. Do you have ANY case law that backs up your premise? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
Cameron
who are you? Seems like this guy is asking a question--you're spewing BS. I guess I just figured out who you are.
brutal and JM ver 2.0
You two gentlemen are making statements that simply are not correct. Largely because you seem to take a specific point you want to make, that would perhaps even be arguable, and then turn it into huge sweeping generalizations that are flat out false.
I'm going to slow it WAY down for you...
You CAN NOT enter your home if you KNOW that there could be a clear and present danger inside your home.
Being alerted by the alarm company that there could be a clear and present danger in your home means that you KNOW there is a clear and present danger.
If you enter your home KNOWING there could be a clear and present danger and you SHOOT THE PERSON IN THE HOUSE, you will be charged and you will be going to jail. Is it right? No. Is that the way it is? YES.
You have to understand the limitations of the law. You can't inject yourself into a life or death situation with the intention of using deadly force. "Oh hey, I'll just walk in on this burglary so I can shoot the asshole stealing my shit."
That WILL NOT FLY. EVER.
You weren't in any danger before you went into the house. You put yourself in danger by entering a situation which you knew could be deadly. That's YOUR BAD.
All of you that are saying, "he should have shot him" are insane. Do you have any idea how that is going to look to a jury?
Alarm company told you there was an alarm and possible intruder. Told you police were on the way. You entered the home anyway and shot the guy inside.
Looks like you said, "I'll teach this asshole to break into my house!" and entered the home with the intention of killing the guy inside.
NOW! If you come home to a wide open door, or even a closed door, and you encounter someone inside your home... That's a different story.
BUT, if you KNOW there might be someone in there, and you KNOW the police are on the way... You sit your happy little ass outside and wait for the police. Lest you sit your happy little ass in prison for the rest of your life.
That's the way it is. That's the way it'll happen. That's the way it'll always be. Is that the way it should be? Well, that's not up to us to decide, sadly.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 09:07
I'm Cameron, I would have thought that was obvious. Let me ask again.
You have made the assertion that knowledge of LE notification in a burglary some how invalidates Colorado state law in regard to the protection of an occupant or home owner, specifically in regard to the use of force. Do you have ANY case law that backs up your premise? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
Cameron
I feel the need to bring special attention to this part... Ya know, since you all keep looking past this...
You are in the occupant of the building in the situation in this thread. Therefor, you don't get any protection since you didn't occupy the building at the time it was broken into.
I feel the need to bring special attention to this part... Ya know, since you all keep looking past this...
You are in the occupant of the building in the situation in this thread. Therefor, you don't get any protection since you didn't occupy the building at the time it was broken into.
But are you still the "home owner?" http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/smiley-face-poke.gif
http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/13049/thumb_popcorn.gif
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 09:26
But are you still the "home owner?" http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/smiley-face-poke.gif
Yes. But in every part of the law the word used is OCCUPANT. See below.
Because you were not an occupant when they broke in, and made yourself an occupant AFTER you KNEW there could be a danger and that the police were en route, you're no longer protected under the law.
The key word is OCCUPANT.
oc·cu·pant /ˈäkyəpənt/
Noun
1. A person who resides or is present in a house, vehicle, etc., at a given time.
2. The holder of a position or office: "the first occupant of the Oval Office".
Because you were not an occupant at the given time, and you were aware a danger could be present, you have no protection under the law.
[mop] I'm done now.
Cameron, I'm sorry I didn't stoop to your level of name calling and actually gave you something logical. Your blatant attempt at baiting me into a confrontation by name calling was pretty childish. Sorry it didn't work.
Originally Posted by Colorado Revised StatutesTITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 7. JUSTIFICATION AND EXEMPTIONS FROM CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
C.R.S. 18-1-704.5 (2012)
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704 (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=e8d2f1ea5155b2a50b9303cbf6745e4c&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2018-1-704.5%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=2&_butInline=1&_butinfo=COCODE%2018-1-704&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAb&_md5=a7626d3440a5c315f448d48ee33d80ec), any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
I'm Cameron, I would have thought that was obvious. Let me ask again.
You have made the assertion that knowledge of LE notification in a burglary some how invalidates Colorado state law in regard to the protection of an occupant or home owner, specifically in regard to the use of force. Do you have ANY case law that backs up your premise? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
Cameron
Now you're talking out of your ass. There's nothing in the statute that says "home owner." What part of OCCUPANT don't you understand?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 09:38
Now you're talking out of your ass. There's nothing in the statute that says "home owner." What part of OCCUPANT don't you understand?
Don't steal my thunder.
Don't steal my thunder.
That's what I get for trying to post while on a conference call. I hate it when work distracts me from the important things.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 09:52
That's what I get for trying to post while on a conference call. I hate it when work distracts me from the important things.
[Beer] Least we're on the same page...
You have made the assertion that knowledge of LE notification in a burglary, or that you enter your premise after the intruder, it some how invalidates Colorado state law in regard to the protection of an occupant, specifically in regard to the use of force. Do you have ANY case law that backs up your premise? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
Cameron
You CAN NOT enter your home if you KNOW that there could be a clear and present danger inside your home.
Being alerted by the alarm company that there could be a clear and present danger in your home means that you KNOW there is a clear and present danger.
Say what!? Please tell me you're joking. And how does the alarm company notifying you that your alarm is going off (no determinate cause) mean that you KNOW there is a clear and present danger inside the dwelling? There may be, there is grounds to suspect, but knowing for sure.... yeah that won't stand up in court. And KNOW there COULD be, that's pretty thin. Please point out in the CRS where it says I cannot enter my own house if there is a potential possibility that there is a danger inside the home. This case, sounds to me like he got the call from ADT, alarm going off, shall we call the police? Yeah, better safe than sorry. Go home, check it out, no signs of forced entry, walk inside- by the way, who knows how long from the time the alarm went off to when this guy arrived at his house, one could assume any intruder(s) had come and gone by then- and oh here are the would-be burglars.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 10:00
You have made the assertion that knowledge of LE notification in a burglary, or that you enter your premise after the intruder, it some how invalidates Colorado state law in regard to the protection of an occupant, specifically in regard to the use of force. Do you have ANY case law that backs up your premise? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
Cameron
I'm going to assume it hasn't happened yet... But, why don't you give it a try and we'll use your case as case law?
Or has our logic somehow made you rethink wanting to be the test case?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 10:03
Say what!? Please tell me you're joking. And how does the alarm company notifying you that your alarm is going off (no determinate cause) mean that you KNOW there is a clear and present danger inside the dwelling? There may be, there is grounds to suspect, but knowing for sure.... yeah that won't stand up in court. And KNOW there COULD be, that's pretty thin. Please point out in the CRS where it says I cannot enter my own house if there is a potential possibility that there is a danger inside the home. This case, sounds to me like he got the call from ADT, alarm going off, shall we call the police? Yeah, better safe than sorry. Go home, check it out, no signs of forced entry, walk inside- by the way, who knows how long from the time the alarm went off to when this guy arrived at his house, one could assume any intruder(s) had come and gone by then- and oh here are the would-be burglars.
I'm not joking at all. That's the way it is.
funkymonkey1111
06-20-2013, 10:13
Yes. But in every part of the law the word used is OCCUPANT. See below.
Because you were not an occupant when they broke in, and made yourself an occupant AFTER you KNEW there could be a danger and that the police were en route, you're no longer protected under the law.
The key word is OCCUPANT.
Because you were not an occupant at the given time, and you were aware a danger could be present, you have no protection under the law.
[mop] I'm done now.
Cameron, I'm sorry I didn't stoop to your level of name calling and actually gave you something logical. Your blatant attempt at baiting me into a confrontation by name calling was pretty childish. Sorry it didn't work.
You seem to like to omit the words that disagree with your position. Here, it's "or." Your definition of occupant states "A person who resides or is present in a house....." In this case, the homeowner is always the occupant of the home. The use of the term "occupant" in the statute includes all who have the right to be in the home--a renter, a child that doesn't own the home, etc. -- so the right to defend one's self in the home is independent of ownership. You do not cease being an occupant of the home simply because you leave to go to work.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 10:16
The common-law doctrine of retreat to the wall has been modified and is applicable in this jurisdiction only to cases where the defendant voluntarily enters into a fight, or the parties engage in mutual combat, or the defendant, being the assailant, does not endeavor in good faith to decline any further struggle before firing the fatal shot, and possibly to other similar cases. Harris v. People, 32 Colo. 211, 75 P. 427 (1904); Enyart v. People, 67 Colo. 434, 180 P. 722 (1919).
In the OP's case his friend voluntarily entered into a dangerous situation. He entered into the fight on his own accord.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 10:19
You seem to like to omit the words that disagree with your position. Here, it's "or." Your definition of occupant states "A person who resides or is present in a house....." In this case, the homeowner is always the occupant of the home. The use of the term "occupant" in the statute includes all who have the right to be in the home--a renter, a child that doesn't own the home, etc. -- so the right to defend one's self in the home is independent of ownership. You do not cease being an occupant of the home simply because you leave to go to work.
If you want to go that route...
A landlord/homeowner is always an occupant. Therefor, they can make entry into the home you rent from them... Whenever they want... With or without your permission... Ya know, because they're the homeowner.
Would you like that?
Bailey Guns
06-20-2013, 10:22
I am astounded by some of the bullshit I'm reading in this thread.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 10:23
Ya know what... Fuck this. Let's do this...
I'm going to send an E-Mail to two head DAs and two detectives.
We'll settle this once and for all...
I'm not joking at all. That's the way it is.
Can you please cite the CRS that says if there is a de facto danger inside the house you cannot lawfully enter? And where does the burden of proof lie for proving that you knowingly entered your own home unlawfully due to a danger? I've never heard of this, ever. I've never read anywhere in CRS, case law, or anything that states I can't enter my own home (be it owned or occupied) if there is a *possible* danger. How does one prove with certainty that there is a danger or not for sure in there thus absolving them of any legal liability?
Ya know what... Fuck this. Let's do this...
I'm going to send an E-Mail to two head DAs and two detectives.
We'll settle this once and for all...
How about something even more simple. How about providing a case where someone was successfully prosecuted because they entered their property after the intruder and were convicted for their use of force, and are now serving life in prison?
Do you have a case like that you can use to prove your point?
You seem adamant you are right, yet you offer absolutely no evidence to back it up.
Cameron
Bailey Guns
06-20-2013, 10:45
So my wife and I are on the way home. We receive a phone call from the babysitter and she tells us there are two masked men attempting to gain entry into the home. I call 911 and report what the babysitter has told me. We pull into the driveway just in time to see two armed thugs kick in the front door and make entry into our home. Inside the home is the 15-year old neighbor girl babysitting for our 2 year old. You're trying to tell me that I'm going to be in trouble for entering my home and using force against the intruders, to protect the lives of innocent third parties against two armed intruders, simply because I wasn't inside the home at the time the intrusion occurred and because I'd already alerted the police? 100% nonsense.
There is NOTHING in the CRS to support the assertion that you cannot enter your home knowing there is a potential, or even known, threat inside the home.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 10:47
So my wife and I are on the way home. We receive a phone call from the babysitter and she tells us there are two masked men attempting to gain entry into the home. I call 911 and report what the babysitter has told me. We pull into the driveway just in time to see two armed thugs kick in the front door and make entry into our home. Inside the home is the 15-year old neighbor girl babysitting for our 2 year old. You're trying to tell me that I'm going to be in trouble for entering my home and using force against the intruders, to protect the lives of innocent third parties against two armed intruders, simply because I wasn't inside the home at the time the intrusion occurred and because I'd already alerted the police? 100% nonsense.
There is NOTHING in the CRS to support the assertion that you cannot enter your home knowing there is a potential, or even known, threat inside the home.
You totally changed the entire situation...
Bailey Guns
06-20-2013, 10:52
You totally changed the entire situation...
No, I didn't. You said:
I'm going to slow it WAY down for you...
You CAN NOT enter your home if you KNOW that there could be a clear and present danger inside your home.
Explain to me how my scenario has changed the situation?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 10:54
No, I didn't. You said:
Explain to me how my scenario has changed the situation?
In that case you're right. I could have added to that to further explain the "danger to a person" thing.
If you know the house is empty, and the only danger is to property... That's my view of it.
JM and brutal, do you have a case that resulted in a conviction to prove your point?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 10:59
JM and brutal, do you have a case that resulted in a conviction to prove your point?
You should get your record player fixed... I think it's stuck...
Wasn't there a case in Utah where the homeowner pulled up to his house and burglars were in the middle of robbing his house? He shot at them and then was having charges pressed or something? Since he was in no immediate danger, he was supposed to just let them rob his house and be a good witness.
I'm hoping some LE chime in on this because I think it'd truly depend on the jury. On one hand, he didn't know for sure if people were still in there or not and was just going home. On the other hand, he was aware there could be someone inside, was not in danger and no family was in danger yet he still proceeded to go inside "looking". I could easily see a jury convinced that he had "hero" syndrome and went looking for someone to shoot. Especially in today's world where MSM is preaching gun owners are trigger happy vigilantes that are dangerous to the public. Agree with it or not, it's the reality.
Bailey Guns
06-20-2013, 11:01
I would also tend to agree based on many definitions of the word "occupant" that a person not necessarily be at or in a particular place to be considered an "occupant". Here's one:
oc·cu·pant
[ok-yuh-puhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnt] Show IPA
noun 1. a person, family, group, or organization (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/organization) that lives in, occupies, or has quarters or space in or on something: the occupant of a taxicab; the occupants of the building.
2. a tenant of a house, estate, office, etc.; resident.
3. Law. a. an owner through occupancy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/occupancy).
b. one who is in actual possession (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/possession).
IIRC there is no statutory definition of "occupant" in Title 18. It's been a while.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 11:04
Wasn't there a case in Utah where the homeowner pulled up to his house and burglars were in the middle of robbing his house? He shot at them and then was having charges pressed or something? Since he was in no immediate danger, he was supposed to just let them rob his house and be a good witness.
I'm hoping some LE chime in on this because I think it'd truly depend on the jury. On one hand, he didn't know for sure if people were still in there or not and was just going home. On the other hand, he was aware there could be someone inside, was not in danger and no family was in danger yet he still proceeded to go inside "looking". I could easily see a jury convinced that he had "hero" syndrome and went looking for someone to shoot. Especially in today's world where MSM is preaching gun owners are trigger happy vigilantes that are dangerous to the public. Agree with it or not, it's the reality.
This is what I'm trying to get at...
JM and brutal, do you have a case that resulted in a conviction to prove your point?
No. Do you have a publicized event that proves yours?
It's my layman's interpretation of the law in this single, particular event.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
You should get your record player fixed... I think it's stuck...
Maybe if you would stop doing the Eric Holder dance and actually answer the question Cameron wouldn't have to constantly repeat himself... Or as Stephen the Irishman says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLEpZm957jk
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 11:19
Maybe if you would stop doing the Eric Holder dance and actually answer the question Cameron wouldn't have to constantly repeat himself... Or as Stephen the Irishman says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLEpZm957jk
Don't you have work to do?
Explain to me how my scenario has changed the situation?
Now flip it a little. A neighbor calls you while you and your entire family are at dinner and says "Hey, I saw 2 masked men break into your house. I've called the cops but wanted you to know, too". Now, if you leave dinner, drive home, enter your house and shoot the men, how does that play out? Difference being no human was in immediate danger, just your stuff. The first story had human lives at risk inside the home. It is different.
Bailey Guns
06-20-2013, 11:29
Doesn't change a thing. It's simply not illegal to enter your own home simply because there's an intruder inside whether you believe you might be in danger or not.
It might not be the smartest move from a safety perspective but it just isn't illegal and there is no statute you can cite that will support that position. You might not be doing yourself any favors if you call the police and say, "I just saw a guy go in my house while I was at the neighbor's house across the street. I'm going over to my house to kill the son-of-a-bitch! You better send the cops." But simply entering your home knowing there might be a threat to you or your property inside is not illegal.
Don't you have work to do?
Nice move, did you learn that from NYNCO- do what the liberals do and deflect and turn this around and try and make it about me... try and focus now, homeboy.
Now flip it a little. A neighbor calls you while you and your entire family are at dinner and says "Hey, I saw 2 masked men break into your house. I've called the cops but wanted you to know, too". Now, if you leave dinner, drive home, enter your house and shoot the men, how does that play out? Difference being no human was in immediate danger, just your stuff. The first story had human lives at risk inside the home. It is different.
Well first off that's pretty loaded. Confront perhaps, but shoot? Come on. Do you walk down the street and expect to shoot the first person who makes a threatening move toward you? No. Are you prepared to shoot someone who poses a danger to your life/safety? Yes. But hopefully you won't have to and the fact that your armed may deter them. So no, I won't enter my home with the express intent to shoot an intruder, but if threatened I will, it depends on the situation.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 11:38
Nice move, did you learn that from NYNCO- do what the liberals do and deflect and turn this around and try and make it about me... try and focus now, homeboy.
Well first off that's pretty loaded. Confront perhaps, but shoot? Come on. Do you walk down the street and expect to shoot the first person who makes a threatening move toward you? No. Are you prepared to shoot someone who poses a danger to your life/safety? Yes. But hopefully you won't have to and the fact that your armed may deter them. So no, I won't enter my home with the express intent to shoot an intruder, but if threatened I will, it depends on the situation.
Don't kid yourself, Ronin... I am in no way trying to make this about you.
I simply take exception to people making unqualified (layman's interpretation[facepalm]) blanket statements that make no sense and vaguely hint at some ethereal qualifications that give them some inside knowledge of the law... do any of that and you get a well deserved "twit" label. Then when asked to back up your unqualified blanket statement with any proof at all, you just ignore it, this then is getting you close to earning the "fuckwit" label...
Let's be very clear: JM and brutal assert that entering your own home, while knowing that LE have been notified of a potential intruder would mean you no longer are afford any protection from prosecution under state law 18-1-704.5. I believe that both JM and brutal as misinformed (or more likely completely uninformed) and simply request that they provide ANY evidence that gives some credibility to their claims, so in response they both provide....... (crickets chirping)..... absolutely nothing.
Please give us something so no one here calls you a fuckwit.
Cameron
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 11:49
I simply take exception to people making unqualified (layman's interpretation[facepalm]) blanket statements that make no sense and vaguely hint at some ethereal qualifications that give them some inside knowledge of the law... do any of that and you get a well deserved "twit" label. Then when asked to back up your unqualified blanket statement with any proof at all, you just ignore it, this then is getting you close to earning the "fuckwit" label...
Let's be very clear: JM and brutal assert that entering your own home, while knowing that LE have been notified of a potential intruder would mean you no longer are afford any protection from prosecution under state law 18-1-704.5. I believe that both JM and brutal as misinformed (or more likely completely uninformed) and simply request that they provide ANY evidence that gives some credibility to their claims, so in response they both provide....... (crickets chirping)..... absolutely nothing.
Please give us something so no one here calls you a fuckwit.
Cameron
As soon as I get an email back from the people that matter, the DAs that would be charging you, I'll post it here.
Until then you can keep the name calling to yourself. No one likes a name caller.
P.S.
He needs a new dog.
This was my first thought. My GSD would give them both something to cry about. I wouldn't want to be the poor bastard who entered my house.
It might not be the smartest move from a safety perspective but it just isn't illegal and there is no statute you can cite that will support that position. You might not be doing yourself any favors if you call the police and say, "I just saw a guy go in my house while I was at the neighbor's house across the street. I'm going over to my house to kill the son-of-a-bitch! You better send the cops." But simply entering your home knowing there might be a threat to you or your property inside is not illegal.
It may not be illegal but I bet you'll end up getting sued and potentially losing. While I understand that if, for any reason, you have to shoot someone, you'll probably end up in court. Firearms are such a hot button topic that the dems would be licking their chops if something like this happened, IMO. I guess that's where it becomes a personal choice. Proceed as you see fit and be ready for any repercussions. I wouldn't convict anyone for the above scenario but there's a lot of people that probably would. Your life wasn't in danger until YOU decided to enter the home. In the big picture, it's probably better to just stay outside and let the police do their thing. For safety's sake, liability's sake, etc.
Ronin, it definitely was a completely loaded question. That's the picture that could be painted should you get sued. Guarantee the prosecution would paint you as a trigger happy vigilante that was just waiting for a reason. After all, why else would anyone (that's not a professionally trained law enforcement officer) go into a house to check it out while the cops were on their way (outside of the situation where a human was in danger inside the home)? See what I'm getting at?
I think once someone breaks into your house, they should give up any/all rights but that's not how it always works these days, unfortunately.
BTW, the dog was in a kennel.
funkymonkey1111
06-20-2013, 11:51
If you want to go that route...
A landlord/homeowner is always an occupant. Therefor, they can make entry into the home you rent from them... Whenever they want... With or without your permission... Ya know, because they're the homeowner.
Would you like that?
Your stupidity astounds me. Do you read all the words in a post, or are you so transfixed with your sad attempt at being correct or need to be called "sir" that you simply cannot comprehend simple English? "In this instance....." means as it applies to this case--the man that went into the home and encountered an active burglary. He was the occupant of the home.
funkymonkey1111
06-20-2013, 11:53
It may not be illegal but I bet you'll end up getting sued and potentially losing. While I understand that if, for any reason, you have to shoot someone, you'll probably end up in court. Firearms are such a hot button topic that the dems would be licking their chops if something like this happened, IMO. I guess that's where it becomes a personal choice. Proceed as you see fit and be ready for any repercussions. I wouldn't convict anyone for the above scenario but there's a lot of people that probably would. Your life wasn't in danger until YOU decided to enter the home. In the big picture, it's probably better to just stay outside and let the police do their thing. For safety's sake, liability's sake, etc.
Ronin, it definitely was a completely loaded question. That's the picture that could be painted should you get sued. Guarantee the prosecution would paint you as a trigger happy vigilante that was just waiting for a reason. After all, why else would anyone (that's not a professionally trained law enforcement officer) go into a house to check it out while the cops were on their way (outside of the situation where a human was in danger inside the home)? See what I'm getting at?
I think once someone breaks into your house, they should give up any/all rights but that's not how it always works these days, unfortunately.
did you ever consider reading the applicable statute that's been posted here--you know the one that provides immunity from any civil liability for injuries or death from the use of such force?
ChunkyMonkey
06-20-2013, 11:53
Doesn't change a thing. It's simply not illegal to enter your own home simply because there's an intruder inside whether you believe you might be in danger or not.
It might not be the smartest move from a safety perspective but it just isn't illegal and there is no statute you can cite that will support that position. You might not be doing yourself any favors if you call the police and say, "I just saw a guy go in my house while I was at the neighbor's house across the street. I'm going over to my house to kill the son-of-a-bitch! You better send the cops." But simply entering your home knowing there might be a threat to you or your property inside is not illegal.
I have been trying to stay from the dumb argument LOL... but I agree with Bailey. I posted a break in thread almost 2 years ago. In that time, a meth head who was evicted broke back into the rental property. The neighbor called me, I called 911, told them I am armed and I am checking out the property. I was told by dispatch, not to, but I insisted as I thought he fled already. Dispatch told me it was ultimately my choice, but keep clear of the DPD. Dispatch asked for my description and detail of where about I was and hang up. Well DPD must be real busy that night, one officer showed up 45 min later.
After clearing the house, he came back out and chat with me. He was in a such hurry that he never asked for my ID or even my name. But I did get to ask him, what would have happened if I confronted the guy and I am forced to defend myself (sort of trick question). His answer was short "Meth head vs property owner? Property owner wins, just dont talk to anyone but your lawyer. With that, he took off to the next call.
Don't kid yourself, Ronin... I am in no way trying to make this about you.
"Don't you have work to do?" < That's a classic deflect and turn around on the person you disagree with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but yes, you did try an ad hominem type attack.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 11:55
Your stupidity astounds me. Do you read all the words in a post, or are you so transfixed with your sad attempt at being correct or need to be called "sir" that you simply cannot comprehend simple English? "In this instance....." means as it applies to this case--the man that went into the home and encountered an active burglary. He was the occupant of the home.
did you ever consider reading the applicable statute that's been posted here--you know the one that provides immunity from any civil liability for injuries or death from the use of such force?
Again with the name calling, hostility, and anger...
Just give up, bro. You're trying too hard. The heart trouble and blood pressure isn't worth it.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 11:58
"Don't you have work to do?" < That's a classic deflect and turn around on the person you disagree with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but yes, you did try an ad hominem type attack.
I guess everyone that says anything to you must be attacking you... [werdo]
I guess everyone that says anything to you must be attacking you... [werdo]
No... when did I imply that?
spqrzilla
06-20-2013, 12:31
JM ver 2.0, you continue to make over generalizations that are silly and wrong.
You also cannot provoke the intruder's threat of deadly force. By entering the home knowing there are intruders, you are provoking the intruder.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said "surprised." I said "knowingly."
Different situation. And "surprise" does not necessarily mean threat, although a shoot in that situation would more likely be justified.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
I simply take exception to people making unqualified (layman's interpretation) blanket statements that make no sense and vaguely hint at some ethereal qualifications that give them some inside knowledge of the law... do any of that and you get a well deserved "twit" label. Then when asked to back up your unqualified blanket statement with any proof at all, you just ignore it, this then is getting you close to earning the "fuckwit" label...
Let's be very clear: JM and brutal assert that entering your own home, while knowing that LE have been notified of a potential intruder would mean you no longer are afford any protection from prosecution under state law 18-1-704.5. I believe that both JM and brutal as misinformed (or more likely completely uninformed) and simply request that they provide ANY evidence that gives some credibility to their claims, so in response they both provide....... (crickets chirping)..... absolutely nothing.
Please give us something so no one here calls you a fuckwit.
Cameron
I never asserted what you claim. Read my words above. My opinion is that if you knowingly inject yourself into THIS situation where you provoke the intruder's threat of deadly force against you, having been informed by a third party, and having the police dispatched, you are going to have a problem with a prosecuting DA if you end said intruder. No amount of childish name calling can disuade my opinion. Whether it's right or wrong, it's my opinion and I'll stand by it until I see proof positive otherwise.
spqrzilla
06-20-2013, 12:39
brutal, you keep using the word "provoke" incorrectly in this situation.
I never asserted what you claim. Read my words above. My opinion is that if you knowingly inject yourself into THIS situation where you provoke the intruder's threat of deadly force against you, having been informed by a third party, and having the police dispatched, you are going to have a problem with a prosecuting DA if you end said intruder. No amount of childish name calling can disuade my opinion. Whether it's right or wrong, it's my opinion and I'll stand by it until I see proof positive otherwise.
Entering my own home is somehow seen as provoking an intruder?
Please explain.
airborneranger
06-20-2013, 12:40
JM ver 2.0, you continue to make over generalizations that are silly and wrong.
In the Army, we call that a "Barracks Lawyer". He claims to knows everything about everything, but in the end only knows jack and shit. I guess all of that knowledge comes from osmosis because last time I checked he was neither a cop or a lawyer.
Please call your DA or your detective for their "opinion" on the situation. Then, I will call my defense attorney and post his opinion. In the end, everyone will be arguing and no one is going to call you sir.
spqrzilla
06-20-2013, 12:45
airborneranger, yep. The thing is, JM ver 2.0 almost has a point but not in the OP's situation. You have to add "facts" to the scenario to end up to where someone would have gone beyond legitimate self-defense either within or without 704.5. There are certainly scenarios similar to OP's where I'd expect one to be charged if they turned into shoots. But just as easily small variations in the scenario that are perfectly good shoots within Colorado law.
JM ver 2.0 instead wants to make overbroad generalizations that are rightfully drawing hooting responses.
Entering my own home is somehow seen as provoking an intruder?
Please explain.
[LOL]That's what I was thinking... But it's YOUR house! So let's all go Chicago style and flip things around- now those law breaking intruders are victims forced to feed upon the aid of others, and us honest, gun owning folk that just want to live safely need to be prosecuted for going into our own homes and may encounter these "victims." [Bang]
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 13:54
In the Army, we call that a "Barracks Lawyer". He claims to knows everything about everything, but in the end only knows jack and shit. I guess all of that knowledge comes from osmosis because last time I checked he was neither a cop or a lawyer.
Please call your DA or your detective for their "opinion" on the situation. Then, I will call my defense attorney and post his opinion. In the end, everyone will be arguing and no one is going to call you sir.
it doesn't really matter what your defense attorney says. Hell, it doesn't even matter what the DA or Detective says. All that matters is what a judge and jury say. And I can say with almost 100% certainty that if you walked into the house and shot the two unarmed people in the house you would be going to jail for a long long time.
And, you don't know anything about me. Don't pretend like you do. It's rude.
airborneranger, yep. The thing is, JM ver 2.0 almost has a point but not in the OP's situation. You have to add "facts" to the scenario to end up to where someone would have gone beyond legitimate self-defense either within or without 704.5. There are certainly scenarios similar to OP's where I'd expect one to be charged if they turned into shoots. But just as easily small variations in the scenario that are perfectly good shoots within Colorado law.
JM ver 2.0 instead wants to make overbroad generalizations that are rightfully drawing hooting responses.
Even if you were legally justified in shooting the two people in the OP, you'd still spend a good chunk of time defending yourself in court. And then, you would forever be seen as the guy who had to "teach them a lesson."
If you want to go through all that just because you think you're right... Knock yourself out.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 14:01
[LOL]That's what I was thinking... But it's YOUR house! So let's all go Chicago style and flip things around- now those law breaking intruders are victims forced to feed upon the aid of others, and us honest, gun owning folk that just want to live safely need to be prosecuted for going into our own homes and may encounter these "victims." [Bang]
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57540638-504083/burglar-sues-calif-homeowner-90-who-returned-fire/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474025&in_page_id=1770
http://whostheass.com/2012/09/true-story-burglar-falls-through-a-roof-and-sues/
Who's the victim now?
This is the problem with all of you saying to shoot the guys...
JM, you need to relax... First off you're making these reaching statements- no one goes into their house and just shoots people. Stop reaching for straws, no one said just shooting intruders. If it's justified, regardless of the situation, then the homeowner/occupant should be good. Either way, if you use deadly force against a threat you should expect to have to defend yourself, that just goes with the territory.
BushMasterBoy
06-20-2013, 14:09
I still love the stories where grandma shoots punks...you can't take that from me!
airborneranger
06-20-2013, 14:09
And, you don't know anything about me. Don't pretend like you do. It's rude.
That is true, I have to agree with you on that.
Please continue providing us with your insightful comments concerning this matter because I need some humor when I wake up tomorrow.
Now, I will stop [beatdeadhorse]
We need a pissing contest smiley......
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 14:19
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57540638-504083/burglar-sues-calif-homeowner-90-who-returned-fire/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474025&in_page_id=1770
http://whostheass.com/2012/09/true-story-burglar-falls-through-a-roof-and-sues/
Who's the victim now?
This is the problem with all of you saying to shoot the guys...
And before you just my ass about these... This is a joke...
I've had to sit and listen to this dude's sob story for the last two years...
You haven't heard anything until you've heard it straight from the guy's mouth...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/jesse-dimmick-hostage-lawsuit_n_1211230.html
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 14:22
[facepalm]
I'm beginning to feel that way too... Only bright side is I've added about 30 posts to my post count... Gotta make up for the vacation some how.
Bailey Guns
06-20-2013, 14:24
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57540638-504083/burglar-sues-calif-homeowner-90-who-returned-fire/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474025&in_page_id=1770
http://whostheass.com/2012/09/true-story-burglar-falls-through-a-roof-and-sues/
Who's the victim now?
This is the problem with all of you saying to shoot the guys...
Couple of points. None of those links have anything to do with Colorado or 18-1-704.5. The other thing is no one is saying they'd just rush in and shoot someone. That's something you and brutal have made up in a lame attempt to support your incorrect position. You've made the assertion that a person entering his own home knowing an intruder is inside is some sort of violation of some law. That simply isn't the case.
You even have an attorney here telling you you're incorrect.
The "Make My Day" law is called a "Castle Doctrine" law for a reason. In simple terms it falls under a legal doctrine that says a man's home is his castle and he can do whatever is necessary to defend it...whether he's inside when the invasion occurs or arrives home and discovers it. You've provided absolutely ZERO proof other than your "opinion" to substantiate your claims. Please explain the legal doctrine you're using to come up with this ridiculous assertion. Because you and brutal are starting to look pretty silly.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 14:32
Couple of points. None of those links have anything to do with Colorado or 18-1-704.5. The other thing is no one is saying they'd just rush in and shoot someone. That's something you and brutal have made up in a lame attempt to support your incorrect position. You've made the assertion that a person entering his own home knowing an intruder is inside is some sort of violation of some law. That simply isn't the case.
You even have an attorney here telling you you're incorrect.
The "Make My Day" law is called a "Castle Doctrine" law for a reason. In simple terms it falls under a legal doctrine that says a man's home is his castle and he can do whatever is necessary to defend it...whether he's inside when the invasion occurs or arrives home and discovers it. You've provided absolutely ZERO proof other than your "opinion" to substantiate your claims. Please explain the legal doctrine you're using to come up with this ridiculous assertion. Because you and brutal are starting to look pretty silly.
You didn't scroll down far enough...
PugnacAutMortem
06-20-2013, 14:38
I thought JM said he was done on page 2 of this thread. Guess he can't help arguing his wrong point of view.
Oh and BTW JM and brutal...I would listen to spqrzilla. If he says you are making incorrect statements, I'd take that to the bank. Please refer to the about me tab at the following link:
http://www.ar-15.co/members/4247-spqrzilla
(http://www.ar-15.co/members/4247-spqrzilla)
Notice anything?
airborneranger
06-20-2013, 14:38
You didn't scroll down far enough...
Don't blame the victim!
Bailey Guns
06-20-2013, 14:39
You didn't scroll down far enough...
Where?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 14:53
Where?
And before you just my ass about these... This is a joke...
I've had to sit and listen to this dude's sob story for the last two years...
You haven't heard anything until you've heard it straight from the guy's mouth...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/jesse-dimmick-hostage-lawsuit_n_1211230.html
Right there.
Bailey Guns
06-20-2013, 14:57
You're right. I didn't read that.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 14:58
I thought JM said he was done on page 2 of this thread. Guess he can't help arguing his wrong point of view.
Oh and BTW JM and brutal...I would listen to spqrzilla. If he says you are making incorrect statements, I'd take that to the bank. Please refer to the about me tab at the following link:
http://www.ar-15.co/members/4247-spqrzilla
(http://www.ar-15.co/members/4247-spqrzilla)
Notice anything?
And mine says King Of Pantyland.... What's your point? Just because he's an attorney doesn't mean anything. I'm still telling you what's going to happen. Even if you beat back masses of bullshit you're still going to go through more suffering than it's worth.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 14:59
You're right. I didn't read that.
No hard feelings. I didn't think you had.
PugnacAutMortem
06-20-2013, 15:03
And mine says King Of Pantyland.... What's your point? Just because he's an attorney doesn't mean anything. I'm still telling you what's going to happen. Even if you beat back masses of bullshit you're still going to go through more suffering than it's worth.
Actually...if I understand the meaning of the word...him being an attorney means his comments are quite a bit more valuable to the discussion than yours. If he said you're wrong, then by golly you just might not be right.
And by the way, that's not the point you've been arguing this whole time. I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that if you shoot someone, even in your own home, that you're going to have to deal with a buttload of shit thrown your way. You have been arguing that you will go to prison FOREVER if you shot someone in your home (in this situation). That's the incorrect opinion you have.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 15:09
Actually...if I understand the meaning of the word...him being an attorney means his comments are quite a bit more valuable to the discussion than yours. If he said you're wrong, then by golly you just might not be right.
And by the way, that's not the point you've been arguing this whole time. I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that if you shoot someone, even in your own home, that you're going to have to deal with a buttload of shit thrown your way. You have been arguing that you will go to prison FOREVER if you shot someone in your home (in this situation). That's the incorrect opinion you have.
Whether it's right or wrong... You're probably going to end up in jail for a lot longer than it's worth. Zimmerman is a good example... Even if he was right in shooting the kid, he's still going through more than it's worth.
BushMasterBoy
06-20-2013, 15:10
You can Google "castle doctrine convictions" and get a ton of cases cited where folks are convicted and other cases where the conviction is overturned. Personally, I just prefer to let local law enforcement handle the bad guys. Let the cops shoot the fuckers if they get violent, this is the best return on tax dollar investment in my opinion! The state and its various employees have this "elitist" attitude towards the common citizens, claiming everything they do is to the letter of the law, but the truth is the state rarely punishes its own for lethal mistakes. Hey, we have the best justice system money can buy...
PugnacAutMortem
06-20-2013, 15:13
Whether it's right or wrong... You're probably going to end up in jail for a lot longer than it's worth. Zimmerman is a good example... Even if he was right in shooting the kid, he's still going through more than it's worth.
Zimmerman is actually a terrible example, because that has nothing to do with A) Colorado law and B) a dwelling of any kind. Come on now, I'm just trying to keep you on track here. Like I said, I don't think anyone would argue it would be a completely smooth process without any hiccups. What I would argue is that you would go to jail for the rest of your life...which means you would have been charged and convicted of 1st degree murder...in this situation. You still sticking by that opinion? Or are you going to keep redirecting?
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 15:18
Zimmerman is actually a terrible example, because that has nothing to do with A) Colorado law and B) a dwelling of any kind. Come on now, I'm just trying to keep you on track here. Like I said, I don't think anyone would argue it would be a completely smooth process without any hiccups. What I would argue is that you would go to jail for the rest of your life...which means you would have been charged and convicted of 1st degree murder...in this situation. You still sticking by that opinion? Or are you going to keep redirecting?
Actually it's a fine example of how the court BS would play out...
And no, I'm still sticking with you'd be charged with something.
Even if you beat back masses of bullshit you're still going to go through more suffering than it's worth.
Depends. I follow the doctrine that I won't use deadly force unless I'm threatened (life or serious injury), so what's worse, having to fight all that legal bullshit, or watch from heaven as your family mourns your passing? Like that old saying goes, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Here's the deal guys.
I made statements regarding my opinion related to the OP and subsequent poster's remarks to the effect of "shoot them dead" and, in my humble opinion, the lack of justification for a clean shoot in this case. I also do believe that if you "provoke," and I do mean provoke, someone into using deadly force against you, while you may possibly be in the right to end that person under very unique and consequential circumstances, you're going to have a shitstorm on your hands. Many other statements are being attributed to me that are completely false and misleading. I'm not going to carry on the discussion with all the 12 year old name calling and false attributions.
It's obvious that we're unable to come to any sort of agreement to disagree on this topic and I really do have better things to do.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 15:26
Depends. I follow the doctrine that I won't use deadly force unless I'm threatened (life or serious injury), so what's worse, having to fight all that legal bullshit, or watch from heaven as your family mourns your passing? Like that old saying goes, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
You have my entire argument wrong... Just like everyone else in this thread... Even the attorney doesn't have it right.
hurley842002
06-20-2013, 15:27
I don't care which side of the argument you are on, if you are of the mindset that "because the law states THIS, then THIS is what will happen", you are wrong. There are way too many variables in self defense, and use of force scenarios to try and predict what will happen. Hell, I don't care if you are a 30 year veteran judge, unless you are a mind reader, you cannot predict the outcome of a court case.
With that said, if you have ever had any formal "use of force" instruction, you have likely heard the term "totality of circumstance". Your decisions in this particular scenario, are going to be based solely on the "totality of circumstances". If you are notified of a criminal entering your home, and you KNOW your child is at home with the babysitter, if you get home before the police are there, you are likely going to enter the home, and be completely justified in whatever actions are necessary.
Flip the script, you get notification while you are at the park with your wife and child, of a burglary in progress at your residence, you or ADT have notified the police, and they are on the way, but you beat them to the scene. What reason do you truly have, to enter the residence? Ultimately, the only reason you should ever use lethal force, or enter into a situation where you could potentially have to use lethal force, is to protect life or limb.
In the end it is up to you to determine if your property is worth having your life turned upside down over. For me unless my family is at risk, it is not worth it, i'll wait for the police. I wish we could live in a world where criminals are held accountable, however we don't, and the criminals are treated as the victims, so I will do whatever I have to do, to ensure I spend many more days with my family.
Chad4000
06-20-2013, 15:31
ahhhhhhh but what if you go in even though you know bad guys are in there because you want to make a citizens arrest!!!!! boom /thread!
lol jk
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 15:35
So I saw my buddy post on FB about how criminals shouldn't break into a house with Pro 2A signs, ADT signs, etc. I called him up to see what happened and here's the story:
He got a call from ADT at work saying that the alarm was going off, they coudn't hear anything but a dog barking and should they call the cops? He told them to alert the cops and he headed home. He got there before the cops and could hear his dog barking upstairs. Fortunately, he had his 9mm with him. He went into the house slowly and since he left music playing (for his dog), the perps didnt even hear him come in. Caught them piling his movies, PS3, etc into a bag. He instructed them to get on the floor at which point, one started crying (17 yr old and 18 yr old). As they waited for the cops to arrive, he made them take their cell phones out, put it on speaker and call their parents. LOL! Cops showed up, he told them the that parents were on their way which amused the cops, to say the least.
Once the parents showed up, one assured my friend this wouldn't happen again. "I didn't raise my child to be like this" type response. The other parent called him a racist, violent asshole. Yup, that's right. No charges pressed because nothing was stolen and nothing was broken. But he was the "bad guy" according to the parent. I tell ya...some kid's parents.
Stay safe out there people.
Should have shot them.
why would you think these are sarcastic replies? the man should've put them in the ground.
Those two posts are what I'm talking about. You can't just walk in and shoot someone. You have to feel you're in danger.
If the two kids put their hands up and said, "we'll leave" and you shot them... Prison.
If they started to walk towards the door and you shot them... Prison.
If you shot them in the back... Prison.
Now, if they threatened you. Sure, shoot away if you want. But you're still going to be in a shit storm for going into the house knowing there could be someone inside.
I don't care which side of the argument you are on, if you are of the mindset that "because the law states THIS, then THIS is what will happen", you are wrong. There are way too many variables in self defense, and use of force scenarios to try and predict what will happen. Hell, I don't care if you are a 30 year veteran judge, unless you are a mind reader, you cannot predict the outcome of a court case.
With that said, if you have ever had any formal "use of force" instruction, you have likely heard the term "totality of circumstance". Your decisions in this particular scenario, are going to be based solely on the "totality of circumstances". If you are notified of a criminal entering your home, and you KNOW your child is at home with the babysitter, if you get home before the police are there, you are likely going to enter the home, and be completely justified in whatever actions are necessary.
Flip the script, you get notification while you are at the park with your wife and child, of a burglary in progress at your residence, you or ADT have notified the police, and they are on the way, but you beat them to the scene. What reason do you truly have, to enter the residence? Ultimately, the only reason you should ever use lethal force, or enter into a situation where you could potentially have to use lethal force, is to protect life or limb.
In the end it is up to you to determine if your property is worth having your life turned upside down over. For me unless my family is at risk, it is not worth it, i'll wait for the police. I wish we could live in a world where criminals are held accountable, however we don't, and the criminals are treated as the victims, so I will do whatever I have to do, to ensure I spend many more days with my family.
^This.
I don't care which side of the argument you are on, if you are of the mindset that "because the law states THIS, then THIS is what will happen", you are wrong. There are way too many variables in self defense, and use of force scenarios to try and predict what will happen. Hell, I don't care if you are a 30 year veteran judge, unless you are a mind reader, you cannot predict the outcome of a court case.
With that said, if you have ever had any formal "use of force" instruction, you have likely heard the term "totality of circumstance". Your decisions in this particular scenario, are going to be based solely on the "totality of circumstances". If you are notified of a criminal entering your home, and you KNOW your child is at home with the babysitter, if you get home before the police are there, you are likely going to enter the home, and be completely justified in whatever actions are necessary.
Flip the script, you get notification while you are at the park with your wife and child, of a burglary in progress at your residence, you or ADT have notified the police, and they are on the way, but you beat them to the scene. What reason do you truly have, to enter the residence? Ultimately, the only reason you should ever use lethal force, or enter into a situation where you could potentially have to use lethal force, is to protect life or limb.
In the end it is up to you to determine if your property is worth having your life turned upside down over. For me unless my family is at risk, it is not worth it, i'll wait for the police. I wish we could live in a world where criminals are held accountable, however we don't, and the criminals are treated as the victims, so I will do whatever I have to do, to ensure I spend many more days with my family.
^^^^^THIS!
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 15:38
I don't care which side of the argument you are on, if you are of the mindset that "because the law states THIS, then THIS is what will happen", you are wrong. There are way too many variables in self defense, and use of force scenarios to try and predict what will happen. Hell, I don't care if you are a 30 year veteran judge, unless you are a mind reader, you cannot predict the outcome of a court case.
With that said, if you have ever had any formal "use of force" instruction, you have likely heard the term "totality of circumstance". Your decisions in this particular scenario, are going to be based solely on the "totality of circumstances". If you are notified of a criminal entering your home, and you KNOW your child is at home with the babysitter, if you get home before the police are there, you are likely going to enter the home, and be completely justified in whatever actions are necessary.
Flip the script, you get notification while you are at the park with your wife and child, of a burglary in progress at your residence, you or ADT have notified the police, and they are on the way, but you beat them to the scene. What reason do you truly have, to enter the residence? Ultimately, the only reason you should ever use lethal force, or enter into a situation where you could potentially have to use lethal force, is to protect life or limb.
In the end it is up to you to determine if your property is worth having your life turned upside down over. For me unless my family is at risk, it is not worth it, i'll wait for the police. I wish we could live in a world where criminals are held accountable, however we don't, and the criminals are treated as the victims, so I will do whatever I have to do, to ensure I spend many more days with my family.
That's been my whole point...
Those two posts are what I'm talking about. You can't just walk in and shoot someone. You have to feel you're in danger.
Agree
If the two kids put their hands up and said, "we'll leave" and you shot them... Prison.
Maybe - if they live to testify against you
If they started to walk towards the door and you shot them... Prison.
Maybe - if they live to testify against you
If you shot them in the back... Prison.
Maybe - if they live to testify against you
Now, if they threatened you. Sure, shoot away if you want. But you're still going to be in a shit storm for going into the house knowing there could be someone inside.
Partially disagree. Yes, you will have issues to deal with whenever you shoot someone. However, just the fact I know someone was inside, I do not believe will have bearing on the case. I have a legal (and natural) right to defend my "castle." This is the part of your argument I do not understand.
Here's the deal guys.
I made statements regarding my opinion related to the OP and subsequent poster's remarks to the effect of "shoot them dead" and, in my humble opinion, the lack of justification for a clean shoot in this case. I also do believe that if you "provoke," and I do mean provoke, someone into using deadly force against you, while you may possibly be in the right to end that person under very unique and consequential circumstances, you're going to have a shitstorm on your hands. Many other statements are being attributed to me that are completely false and misleading. I'm not going to carry on the discussion with all the 12 year old name calling and false attributions.
It's obvious that we're unable to come to any sort of agreement to disagree on this topic and I really do have better things to do.
I don't care which side of the argument you are on, if you are of the mindset that "because the law states THIS, then THIS is what will happen", you are wrong. There are way too many variables in self defense, and use of force scenarios to try and predict what will happen. Hell, I don't care if you are a 30 year veteran judge, unless you are a mind reader, you cannot predict the outcome of a court case.
With that said, if you have ever had any formal "use of force" instruction, you have likely heard the term "totality of circumstance". Your decisions in this particular scenario, are going to be based solely on the "totality of circumstances". If you are notified of a criminal entering your home, and you KNOW your child is at home with the babysitter, if you get home before the police are there, you are likely going to enter the home, and be completely justified in whatever actions are necessary.
Flip the script, you get notification while you are at the park with your wife and child, of a burglary in progress at your residence, you or ADT have notified the police, and they are on the way, but you beat them to the scene. What reason do you truly have, to enter the residence? Ultimately, the only reason you should ever use lethal force, or enter into a situation where you could potentially have to use lethal force, is to protect life or limb.
In the end it is up to you to determine if your property is worth having your life turned upside down over. For me unless my family is at risk, it is not worth it, i'll wait for the police. I wish we could live in a world where criminals are held accountable, however we don't, and the criminals are treated as the victims, so I will do whatever I have to do, to ensure I spend many more days with my family.
Point of clarity for both of these statements:
1- Just entering YOUR residence is not grounds for "provocation" of the intruder. Can we not muddy the waters on that one.
2- Simply stated, some were claiming it was illegal to enter your own house if you know there are unlawful intruders *POSSIBLY* inside. ADT calling you to inform you that your alarm is going off is not 100% proof positive that a burglar is inside your home- technology malfunctions all the time. Enter the house at your own discretion. I personally wouldn't, in case they are still there, or I wouldn't want to disturb a crime scene if things were stolen. But again, scenario dependent and as we all know (or I hope we all know by now) every situation is different and there is no one size fits all way to approach it. But what I'm stating is that there is no law that says if there is reasonable suspicion that some criminal is inside your home you can't enter. That's just silly talk right there.
ETA: Davsel, your response is hilarious! Garr, dead men tell no tales! [ROFL1]
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 15:52
Davsel,
This is totally off the topic but it kind of applies. If you could lie to yourself, your family, the courts, and the family of the people you shot, when you say they "threatened you" then you've got some iron clad balls and a heart of rock solid ice... I couldn't live with myself knowing I lied about something just so I could shoot someone. If I'm going to shoot someone, there's going to be a damn good reason for it. And it's not going to be a technicality that allows me to do it.
My argument with the last part is this... bear with me..
Prosecution/Attorney for the guy you shot: Mr. D, why did you enter the home, knowing that entering the home could put you in danger, on the night in question? Why did you put yourself in danger? If you would have just waited for the police these two innocent children would still be alive today. These kids meant no harm to you. But you ran in and played hero, gunning down two unarmed innocent children!!!!!!!
How are you going to answer that and NOT sound like a raging lunatic to the jury?
Davsel,
This is totally off the topic but it kind of applies. If you could lie to yourself, your family, the courts, and the family of the people you shot, when you say they "threatened you" then you've got some iron clad balls and a heart of rock solid ice... I couldn't live with myself knowing I lied about something just so I could shoot someone. If I'm going to shoot someone, there's going to be a damn good reason for it. And it's not going to be a technicality that allows me to do it.
My argument with the last part is this... bear with me..
Prosecution/Attorney for the guy you shot: Mr. D, why did you enter the home, knowing that entering the home could put you in danger, on the night in question? Why did you put yourself in danger? If you would have just waited for the police these two innocent children would still be alive today. These kids meant no harm to you. But you ran in and played hero, gunning down two unarmed innocent children!!!!!!!
How are you going to answer that and NOT sound like a raging lunatic to the jury?
The previous post was meant to be "tongue-in-cheek." I hope to never take another life unless I have a damn good reason. Even then, I expect it will possibly haunt me till the day I die.
As for answering the prosecutor, "why did you enter the home, knowing that entering the home could put you in danger" I'd have to remind him that I am not a pussy, and take it from there.
Prosecution/Attorney for the guy you shot: Mr. D, why did you enter the home, knowing that entering the home could put you in danger, on the night in question? Why did you put yourself in danger? If you would have just waited for the police these two innocent children would still be alive today. These kids meant no harm to you. But you ran in and played hero, gunning down two unarmed innocent children!!!!!!!
How are you going to answer that and NOT sound like a raging lunatic to the jury?
Your attorney- if he was any good- would have said "Objection- the individuals inside the home were not innocent, they were breaking and entering and in the process of a burglary, and leading the witness, we can't know if they meant him no harm or not."
Chad4000
06-20-2013, 16:07
why so much empathy for the fuckheads who broke into the guys house??? regardless of any of this nonsense, those kids got lucky. sounds like there are enough of us out there who, when there is an intruder in the house, our default could include violence, (justified or not) that these kids got flat out lucky.. even luckier that they dont even have to deal with charges. why thats still something that can be opted out of is beyond me.
I have touched on this thought before, but guys, when the people dont stand up, we are fucked... that includes the day and age of the "lawyer".... we need to take control of our society....
PugnacAutMortem
06-20-2013, 16:07
Prosecution/Attorney for the guy you shot: Mr. D, why did you enter the home, knowing that entering the home could put you in danger, on the night in question? Why did you put yourself in danger? If you would have just waited for the police these two innocent children would still be alive today. These kids meant no harm to you. But you ran in and played hero, gunning down two unarmed innocent children!!!!!!!
These "children" are not "innocent" and I couldn't possibly have known that they "meant no harm" to me.
That's if you could even get far enough to open your mouth before your lawyer objected to the question (I assume anyways).
I think "barracks lawyer" should be your new title.
Edit: Damn it...wasn't fast enough. Good work Ronin.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 16:12
The previous post was meant to be "tongue-in-cheek." I hope to never take another life unless I have a damn good reason. Even then, I expect it will possibly haunt me till the day I die.
As for answering the prosecutor, "why did you enter the home, knowing that entering the home could put you in danger" I'd have to remind him that I am not a pussy, and take it from there.
Fair enough.
Your attorney- if he was any good- would have said "Objection- the individuals inside the home were not innocent, they were breaking and entering and in the process of a burglary, and leading the witness, we can't know if they meant him no harm or not."
By that time the damage is done. Even if they tell the jury to ignore the statement, they can't unhear what they just heard.
But either way, I still want to know what your answer would be.
why so much empathy for the fuckheads who broke into the guys house??? regardless of any of this nonsense, those kids got lucky. sounds like there are enough of us out there who, when there is an intruder in the house, our default could include violence, (justified or not) that these kids got flat out lucky.. even luckier that they dont even have to deal with charges. why thats still something that can be opted out of is beyond me.
I have touched on this thought before, but guys, when the people dont stand up, we are fucked... that includes the day and age of the "lawyer".... we need to take control of our society....
No empathy. The "empathy" I think you're talking about isn't my view.
The kids deserved charges at the least, and a good solid parental ass whooping would be more than justified. But death? That's a bit much.
In order for there to be a crime there has to be a victim... Whether it be society or another person.
Since society can't be the victim of burglary in this case there's only one option left... When that person declines to be the victim... There's no longer a crime.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 16:13
These "children" are not "innocent" and I couldn't possibly have known that they "meant no harm" to me.
That's if you could even get far enough to open your mouth before your lawyer objected to the question (I assume anyways).
I think "barracks lawyer" should be your new title.
Edit: Damn it...wasn't fast enough. Good work Ronin.
I didn't ask you what your attorney would say... I asked what you would say.
PugnacAutMortem
06-20-2013, 16:22
I didn't ask you what your attorney would say... I asked what you would say.
...
These "children" are not "innocent" and I couldn't possibly have known that they "meant no harm" to ME.
...
[dig]
Edit: Also...[facepalm]and a little bit of [Bang]
Edit 2: [Kick3]just because this one makes me laugh.
Chad4000
06-20-2013, 16:24
No empathy. The "empathy" I think you're talking about isn't my view.
The kids deserved charges at the least, and a good solid parental ass whooping would be more than justified. But death? That's a bit much.
In order for there to be a crime there has to be a victim... Whether it be society or another person.
Since society can't be the victim of burglary in this case there's only one option left... When that person declines to be the victim... There's no longer a crime.
except for DV or prositution right? my greater point is how come the cops come, they obviously see what happened, and there is still a choice for somebody to be like "nah it's cool these folks broke the law, don't worry about it cops, they're with me"
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 16:26
except for DV or prositution right? my greater point is how come the cops come, they obviously see what happened, and there is still a choice for somebody to be like "nah it's cool these folks broke the law, don't worry about it cops, they're with me"
DV is a different beast. Prostitution the victim is society.
And because there has to be a victim.
Example: Your wife takes your credit card, without you knowing, to King Soopers and buys food. The store clerk calls the police. They come and see your wife, Sally Joe Chad4000, has your card... Your name, Hill Billy Chad4000, is on the card not Sally Joe Chad4000.
She has broken the law, technically. Now I'm going to assume you don't want pretty little Sally Joe Chad4000 going to jail... So you say it's all good, decline to press charges, and everyone is happy.
If you didn't have that option, little Sally Joe Chad4000 is going to the pokey.
Chad4000
06-20-2013, 16:41
DV is a different beast. Prostitution the victim is society.
And because there has to be a victim.
Example: Your wife takes your credit card, without you knowing, to King Soopers and buys food. The store clerk calls the police. They come and see your wife, Sally Joe Chad4000, has your card... Your name, Hill Billy Chad4000, is on the card not Sally Joe Chad4000.
She has broken the law, technically. Now I'm going to assume you don't want pretty little Sally Joe Chad4000 going to jail... So you say it's all good, decline to press charges, and everyone is happy.
If you didn't have that option, little Sally Joe Chad4000 is going to the pokey.
yeah yeah.. I get it for sure. common sense has to prevail. and yes I know that you cant rely on cops having common sense,[Poke](lol jk)
but what I would like to see happen, is in a case like this: the guy whos house was broken into doesnt need to be a part of the conviction. meaning he wouldnt have to decline pressing charges (or better yet, wouldnt have to at all is what I really mean) because he is worried about having to be a part of the process which is also run by retards, and will take a hundred years..
I would certainly argue that letting these criminals go after burglarizing somebody creates victims. Like everyone else in the neighborhood. society has been victimized (in much the same way that it is on prostitution) when burglaries are allowed to go unpunished. again there has to be some degree of common sense etc... these kids broke into somebodies home.... gosh they got lucky....
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 16:49
yeah yeah.. I get it for sure. common sense has to prevail. and yes I know that you cant rely on cops having common sense,[Poke](lol jk)
but what I would like to see happen, is in a case like this: the guy whos house was broken into doesnt need to be a part of the conviction. meaning he wouldnt have to decline pressing charges (or better yet, wouldnt have to at all is what I really mean) because he is worried about having to be a part of the process which is also run by retards, and will take a hundred years..
I would certainly argue that letting these criminals go after burglarizing somebody creates victims. Like everyone else in the neighborhood. society has been victimized (in much the same way that it is on prostitution) when burglaries are allowed to go unpunished. again there has to be some degree of common sense etc... these kids broke into somebodies home.... gosh they got lucky....
I agree with you 100%. Charges NEEDED to be pressed and society has suffered because of the lack of charges.
But ultimately it's his choice to make.
But like you said, common sense.
I've taken care of Monky's house before. It would suck if Monky had no choice to say not to charge me with burglary if his neighbor, who is weird as fuck, called the police on me.
I received a call at my office that my home alarm had gone off but the monitoring company could only hear music and my dog barking. They said they had also notified law enforcement. I thought that it was most likely a false alarm and probably caused by my dog. So I headed home to make sure and let the cops in if necessary.
When I arrived nothing seemed amiss and the police were nowhere to be seen. I thought that perhaps they had been called off or maybe had something more important to attend to...
Anyway I walked in to MY HOME expecting to see my dog lose and chewing up the couch, it wasn't until in walked into my living room that I saw two men stuffing my property into a bag. When they saw me they immediately turned towards me.
I was so shocked that it wasn't a false alarm and that I was now standing just a few feet from these two intimidating men that I was terrified that they would kill me!
I took two quick steps back and drew my concealed handgun, that is when I heard one of them say "Get him!"
As they both moved to attack me I managed to get off a few shots before they could both reach me.
It was terrifying, a still have nightmares about people breaking into my house and assaulting me....
Your witness.
RblDiver
06-20-2013, 16:51
Prosecution/Attorney for the guy you shot: Mr. D, why did you enter the home, knowing that entering the home could put you in danger, on the night in question? Why did you put yourself in danger? If you would have just waited for the police these two innocent children would still be alive today. These kids meant no harm to you. But you ran in and played hero, gunning down two unarmed innocent children!!!!!!!
"I strongly object to referring to these two as 'innocent children.' First, they stopped being innocent the moment they engaged in burglary. Second, one is legally an adult, and the other only slightly younger. Third, everyone has the right to defend themselves and their property. Having no idea when police would respond, I re-entered my property to ascertain whether or not it was secure. I was accosted by the two, and, fearing for my safety and that of my family, I took appropriate measures to secure my safety." (I'd have a bit more I'd add, but it'd be "Objection - Supposition"ed :P)
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 16:56
I received a call at my office that my home alarm had gone off but the monitoring company could only hear music and my dog barking. They said they had also notified law enforcement. I thought that it was most likely a false alarm and probably caused by my dog.
So I headed home to make sure and let the cops in if necessary.
When I arrived nothing seemed amiss and the police were nowhere to be seen. I thought that perhaps they had been called off or maybe had something more important to attend to... Anyway I walked in to MY HOME expecting to see my dog lose and chewing up the couch, it wasn't until in walked into my living room that I saw two men stuffing my property into a bag. When they saw me they immediately turned towards me.
I was so shocked that it wasn't a false alarm and that I was now standing just a few feet from these two intimidating men that I was terrified I took two quick steps back and drew my concealed handgun, that is when I heard one of them said "Get him!"
As they both moved to attack me I was able to shoot each of then 5-6 times.
"I strongly object to referring to these two as 'innocent children.' First, they stopped being innocent the moment they engaged in burglary. Second, one is legally an adult, and the other only slightly younger. Third, everyone has the right to defend themselves and their property. Having no idea when police would respond, I re-entered my property to ascertain whether or not it was secure. I was accosted by the two, and, fearing for my safety and that of my family, I took appropriate measures to secure my safety." (I'd have a bit more I'd add, but it'd be "Objection - Supposition"ed :P)
[Score] Those were both better than I expect. I would actually buy that if I was on a jury. You've changed my mind.
RblDiver
06-20-2013, 17:00
[Score] Those were both better than I expect. I would actually buy that if I was on a jury. You've changed my mind.
Glad to have done so! (Granted, I'd have to ask "Mr Judge Sir, could I please have a laptop to type on and a moment to compose my thoughts?" Otherwise, it'd come out "Um, uh, er, 'cause they were bad, mmkay? [Coffee])
spqrzilla
06-20-2013, 18:03
Even if you were legally justified in shooting the two people in the OP, you'd still spend a good chunk of time defending yourself in court. And then, you would forever be seen as the guy who had to "teach them a lesson."
If you want to go through all that just because you think you're right... Knock yourself out.
Ooooo, you beat the livin' hell out of that strawman.
I've never claimed that a "good shoot" was somehow a magical fairy land of friendly police, helpful District Attorneys', and fawning media coverage.
Hmmmm, maybe because I've had some peripheral involvement in a self defense shooting legal case? Naaaaaa.
spqrzilla
06-20-2013, 18:05
I thought JM said he was done on page 2 of this thread. Guess he can't help arguing his wrong point of view.
Oh and BTW JM and brutal...I would listen to spqrzilla. If he says you are making incorrect statements, I'd take that to the bank. Please refer to the about me tab at the following link:
http://www.ar-15.co/members/4247-spqrzilla
(http://www.ar-15.co/members/4247-spqrzilla)
Notice anything?
Notice that I didn't wave my Colorado bar card around in this discussion. The fact remains that JM ver 2.0 comments - which really approach trolling IMO - stop short of being a legitimate argument specifically because of his over-broad generalizations.
JM Ver. 2.0
06-20-2013, 18:08
Notice that I didn't wave my Colorado bar card around in this discussion. The fact remains that JM ver 2.0 comments - which really approach trolling IMO - stop short of being a legitimate argument specifically because of his over-broad generalizations.
Lot of respect for you for not throwing around the bar card.
BUT! In this thread opinions don't matter... So trolling or not... Who cares?! :D
funkymonkey1111
06-24-2013, 15:01
Never did hear what these DAs had to say--or was it their opinions not matter?
So I guess the real question is... Will Zimmerman be found guilty or acquitted? [Gas2]
So I guess the real question is... Will Zimmerman be found guilty or acquitted? [Gas2]
Yes. No. I don't know. Purple. 3.1415927. I was told there'd be no math...
Wow, I'm surprised this thread has held out this long.....
spqrzilla
06-24-2013, 17:27
Wow, I'm surprised this thread has held out this long.....
It didn't.
Breaking and entering, Burglary are the basics. He should have pressed charges. You didn't say if they were black or hispanic, which adds to the depth of the story. After all, Zimmerman is classified as a 'White-Hispanic', a new catagory of race to make it a white on black crime.
[Score] Those were both better than I expect. I would actually buy that if I was on a jury. You've changed my mind.
That's because you haven't seen Cameron's biceps...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.