Stand Your Ground/Make My Day

[GilpinGuy]

There's been a lot of talk nationally from the libtard community about repealing the Stand Your Ground laws in many states. I haven't heard anything about here in CO yet, but how long until the CO libtards try to do away with our "Make My Day" law?

[Great-Kazoo]

After the recall election and b4 2014 election.

[Bailey Guns]

They've tried to neuter the law several times, always unsuccessfully. I hope that trend continues.

[Tinelement]

Law or not.

I'm defending myself if I have to.

Cold day in hell if any of my family or I die from a thug.

[cysoto]

There exists some key differences between the so-called "Make My Day" law (also known as "Castle Doctrine") and "Stand Your Ground" laws (which we cannot invoke outside our dwelling here in Colorado). I don't see "Make My Day" being disputed in this state any time soon.

[GilpinGuy]

There exists some key differences between the so-called "Make My Day" law (also known as "Castle Doctrine") and "Stand Your Ground" laws (which we cannot invoke outside our dwelling here in Colorado). I don't see "Make My Day" being disputed in this state any time soon.

A year ago I would never thought that I couldn't give a 30 round mag to my son for his birthday.

[Rabid]

There exists some key differences between the so-called "Make My Day" law (also known as "Castle Doctrine") and "Stand Your Ground" laws (which we cannot invoke outside our dwelling here in Colorado). I don't see "Make My Day" being disputed in this state any time soon.
My understanding is in Colorado you have to know you can not escape your dwelling before you using deadly force. If my understanding is right we do have a make my day law but not a stand your ground law. The uninformed media is just making the make my day law sound worse then it is.

[cysoto]

My understanding is in Colorado you have to know you can not escape your dwelling before you using deadly force. If my understanding is right we do have a make my day law but not a stand your ground law. The uninformed media is just making the make my day law sound worse then it is.
In Colorado there is no duty to retreat from an intruder in one's dwelling however, this is only in our dwelling (defined as "a building which is used, intended to be used, or usually used by a person for habitation") which is different than the "Stand Your Ground" laws in other states that extend this right to places outside the home.

C.R.S. 18-1-704.5(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.

[Bailey Guns]

I don't see "Make My Day" being disputed in this state any time soon.

There have been grumblings about the law pretty much since it's inception. There have been several instances where the MMD law has been used that have prompted calls for changes to the law going all the way back to 1986. Fortunately, none have amounted to much. But make no mistake...there are plenty of legislators out there who would weaken this law if they felt they had a "shot" at it.

[Bailey Guns]

And by the way...in Colorado there is no duty to retreat from someone you reasonably believe might use unlawful force against you regardless of where you are. There's no specific "stand your ground" statute that says so but there's also no statute that requires a person to retreat prior to using force to protect oneself.

[BlasterBob]

As cysoto posted, "a building which is used, intended to be used, or usually used by a person for HABITATION"

Think this would include a detached garage or shop that is detached from your dwelling if you are in one of them doing some work on a project and a violent intruder strolls right in on ya, uninvited with an apparent appearance of committing a crime?

[Bailey Guns]

^^ Not normally. But the law has been widely interpreted by courts and juries. There have been at least a couple of cases where an "intruder" hasn't actually made entry into a home when he/she was shot. There was another in/near C Sprgs where the "homeowner" followed the intruders outside and shot one of them as he was preparing to leave in a car. He was acquitted by a jury under the MMD law. So, who knows? You can't really say until it happens how a court/DA/jury will see the facts of a case.

[BlasterBob]

I sure wouldn't want to be involved in such a scenario. Big bucks for defense in the courts, probably jail time waiting for a trial and they you have the deceased perp's relatives wanting to retaliate. [dig]

[Bailey Guns]

Relatives can't "retaliate" (I'm assuming you mean in civil court...otherwise disregard) in a case where it's ruled MMD. But I'm with you. I don't want to ever be put in a position to test how well the system works. I've been sued civilly for something I didn't do and it wasn't fun.

[Wulf202]

As cysoto posted, "a building which is used, intended to be used, or usually used by a person for HABITATION"

Think this would include a detached garage or shop that is detached from your dwelling if you are in one of them doing some work on a project and a violent intruder strolls right in on ya, uninvited with an apparent appearance of committing a crime?

As much as your wife might think you live in the garage it does not include detached garages without habitation. Usually you have to have a sink shower and stove along with bedding food and clothing.

[Rabid]

In Colorado there is no duty to retreat from an intruder in one's dwelling however, this is only in our dwelling (defined as "a building which is used, intended to be used, or usually used by a person for habitation") which is different than the "Stand Your Ground" laws in other states that extend this right to places outside the home.

C.R.S. 18-1-704.5(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.
Thanks for the clarification Cysoto.

[Bailey Guns]

Just an FYI interesting piece from the Patriot Post and the WSJ regarding Obama and his "evolving views" regarding "Stand Your Ground" laws:


"Same-sex marriage isn't the only subject on which President Obama's views have evolved. In his remarks last Friday on George Zimmerman's acquittal, the President said it would be wise to 'examine' state and local laws governing the use of firearms in self-defense. He suggested that 'stand your ground' provisions are 'sending a message' that 'someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation.' He asked: 'Is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see?'

It turns out that Mr. Obama participated in such an examination almost a decade ago and emerged as a stand-your-ground proponent. Illinois Review, a conservative blog, recently unearthed Illinois Senate records showing that then-state Senator Obama voted for and even co-sponsored a 2004 bill that expanded the protection of the state's 1961 stand-your-ground law to include immunity from civil liability for people who use deadly force to defend themselves or their property. The bill wasn't controversial in the liberal legislature, passing the Senate without dissent and the state House with only two nays before then-Governor Rod Blagojevich, also a Democrat, signed it.

... U.S. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, a member of the Judiciary Committee, says he'll hold a subcommittee hearing on the topic this fall. Maybe he should call his former junior colleague as a witness and ask him to explain what message he was seeking to send in 2004." --The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324783204578622102597966828.html)

[Bailey Guns]

This whole "duty to retreat" thing is sounding a lot like "your car is an extension of your home". Neither applies in Colorado regardless of the misinformation that's constantly passed around.

[Dave_L]

It still amazes me that we have laws to protect criminals. "You have to run from them, if you can". How about you don't try to rob me/cause me harm and we can all live happily?

[Ronin13]

And by the way...in Colorado there is no duty to retreat from someone you reasonably believe might use unlawful force against you regardless of where you are. There's no specific "stand your ground" statute that says so but there's also no statute that requires a person to retreat prior to using force to protect oneself.
THIS! I was just about to say something to this effect. "Retreat, hell!"

[Bailey Guns]

I'm not saying retreat can't be a viable and effective option. Discretion IS the better part of valor sometimes. In our classes we teach escape and avoidance should be first options as opposed to unnecessarily interjecting yourself into a situation that might result in violence and a subsequent use of force.

By all means, I'm a firm believer that if you can run away from a violent confrontation, then run away (obviously, I say this in the context of what we teach Joe Citizen). We tell our students to ask themselves two questions before resorting to use of force: 1) Is this worth dying over?, and 2) Is this worth going to jail and/or losing everything you've worked for your entire life over?

Once the violent confrontation starts there are too many variables which produce too many unknown outcomes to risk entering a confrontation you might be able to avoid by retreating.

[cysoto]

I'm not saying retreat can't be a viable and effective option. Discretion IS the better part of valor sometimes. In our classes we teach escape and avoidance should be first options as opposed to unnecessarily interjecting yourself into a situation that might result in violence and a subsequent use of force.

By all means, I'm a firm believer that if you can run away from a violent confrontation, then run away (obviously, I say this in the context of what we teach Joe Citizen). We tell our students to ask themselves two questions before resorting to use of force: 1) Is this worth dying over?, and 2) Is this worth going to jail and/or losing everything you've worked for your entire life over?

Once the violent confrontation starts there are too many variables which produce too many unknown outcomes to risk entering a confrontation you might be able to avoid by retreating.

Very well stated! http://www.ian-brown.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/applause.gif

[wctriumph]

Either way, as far as any law, it will be better for my wife to get me out of jail than out of the morgue.

[Squeeze]

After the recall election and b4 2014 election.

What he said ^^^