Friend walked in on a burglary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cameron

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brutal

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brutal

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cameron

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0

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.

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.