Friend walked in on a burglary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by funkymonkey1111

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by funkymonkey1111

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

"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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0

I guess everyone that says anything to you must be attacking you... [werdo]

---

No... when did I imply that?

JM ver 2.0, you continue to make over generalizations that are silly and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brutal

You also cannot provoke the intruder's threat of deadly force. By entering the home knowing there are intruders, you are provoking the intruder.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brutal

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cameron

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.

brutal, you keep using the word "provoke" incorrectly in this situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brutal

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

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]