Printable View
If you want to go that route...Quote:
Originally Posted by funkymonkey1111
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?
I am astounded by some of the bullshit I'm reading in this thread.
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...
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
You totally changed the entire situation...
No, I didn't. You said:Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
Explain to me how my scenario has changed the situation?Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
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.
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/...una/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/...una/thinsp.pngnt] Show IPA
noun 1. a person, family, group, or 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.
b. one who is in actual possession.
IIRC there is no statutory definition of "occupant" in Title 18. It's been a while.
This is what I'm trying to get at...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_L
No. Do you have a publicized event that proves yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
It's my layman's interpretation of the law in this single, particular event.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLEpZm957jk
Don't you have work to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_L
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
Until then you can keep the name calling to yourself. No one likes a name caller.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
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.
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 JM Ver. 2.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_L
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by funkymonkey1111
Again with the name calling, hostility, and anger...Quote:
Originally Posted by funkymonkey1111
Just give up, bro. You're trying too hard. The heart trouble and blood pressure isn't worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
I guess everyone that says anything to you must be attacking you... [werdo]
No... when did I imply that?Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
JM ver 2.0, you continue to make over generalizations that are silly and wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
brutal, you keep using the word "provoke" incorrectly in this situation.
Entering my own home is somehow seen as provoking an intruder?Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
Please explain.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spqrzilla
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.
[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]Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel