Make my day law does not cover homeowner says grand jury. I guess we are at the mercy of scumbag politicians when it comes to protecting ourselves. Even in Colorado...
http://gazette.com/slaying-of-burgla...rticle/1580549
Printable View
Make my day law does not cover homeowner says grand jury. I guess we are at the mercy of scumbag politicians when it comes to protecting ourselves. Even in Colorado...
http://gazette.com/slaying-of-burgla...rticle/1580549
Their argument is about it being in a detached garage....
The article makes it seem like the issue is the actual building he was shot in may not be considered a dwelling, but if he shot the guy in the back doesn't that also render the MYD law not applicable? My understanding is that someone with their back to you doesn't present a direct threat to your life and therefore you don't have the necessary condition to retaliate with lethal force. Unless you can prove they were going for a weapon, but it sounds like the guy was just running away (at least from what that article says, haven't read anything else past that).
The detached garage and I'd guess the guy being shot in the back might have something to do with it.
Detached garage, shot in the back, and apparently not within lunging distance. The Grand Jury rejected the possible 2nd degree murder or manslaughter charges and indicted on negligent homicide. The defense will put forward a "make my day" defense and if that is not successful she will use a self-defense defense. I would assume the prior burglary convictions will come out at some point. Trial is scheduled to begin in January 2017.
An indictment is not a conviction and I didn't see where the court had denied a "make my day" defense. Grand Juries are more likely to indict than not indict based on the way they are controlled and used by prosecutors. This is all on the El Paso DA's Office. They don't believe the homeowner acted legally and they are pursuing charges. I have no idea what the outcome of a trial will be if the case goes to trial. I am curious as to what type of plea bargain they will offer to avoid a trial.
Thankfully this goes to trial in the Springs and not in Boulder.
Thank you cstone.
If it goes to trial, I would assume someone will educate the trial jury on realistic threats and call defense experts who will provide numerous examples of people who were attacked just after the attacker turned around. Grand Juries only hear and see what the prosecutor wants them to hear and see.
Otther than the dwelling issue, none of that pertains to the MYD law.Quote:
Originally Posted by PugnacAutMortem
Quote:
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, 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.
The thing that irks me and I hope the jury considers is that a true self-defense situation often puts people who are not trained or experienced (massive adrenaline dump) in a position to make a split second decision. It was the (often career) criminal who initiated the situation in the first place. Everything thereafter is an unplanned reaction to various perceived levels of threat in the space/time the criminal gives a (potential) victim.Quote:
Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck
Don't know if that's the case here or not. But I could see someone being so scared that they fail to make the decision the same way a Monday-morning quarterbacker would sitting in a comfortable office protected by the taxpayers.
You're right, I've not heard of el presidente drills. Cool name though, what are they? Also correct on the 21ft distance with a knife...inside that distance I would rather see a gun than a knife. Once offline of the barrel the the threat of being shot goes to 0, I like those odds a lot better than some crazy person with a knife slashing away again and again. We used to do knife fighting drills in krav with training knives that had red lipstick on the "cutting edge" and then we would put on white t-shirts and go to town. It was amazing, even the best of the guys in class couldn't get away unscathed.Quote:
Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck
And again (you're on fire HBAR) I also agree that I don't know all of the details. As a matter of fact I believe I said as much. I also love how you had to add a small jab at me in there.
I missed you buddy https://www.ar-15.co/images/smilies/anim_beer1.gif
I’m concerned that because it was in a detached garage that MMD may not apply. It looks like potentially if the door is open and a perp doesn’t have to break in to attack me somehow I don’t have a MMD defense. If I was in my garage on my property and was attacked, I would hope I have the law on my side as it pertains to self-defense.
I have seen a scenario of a perp coming at a person and at the moment the perp sees his victim raise a gun, turns instinctively to avoid the bullet thereby getting shot in the back. Therefore, being shot in the back does not exonerate the perp or necessarily mean he was leaving the scene.
The dead guys sister says he was a drug addict. It would interesting if the Gazette would publish the indictment.
http://gazette.com/make-my-day-law-c...rticle/1578715
Politically in the Front Range pretty much any prosecutor is going to ask for charges add on the fact that he shot was in the back which makes for good public opinion polling numbers.
Something more to chew on. They say he used to own a house close by. The defendant had just purchased the house he lived in. Whats to say that when the druggie came looking for stuff to steal that the previous owner had a lot of nice things in the garage and said druggie had no idea that the place had been sold and the new owner had firearms and was not the old lady schoolteacher he remembered living there.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Would it be unreasonable to suggest that if any prosecutor can be proven to be actively persuing charges for political reasons, particularly when the evidence makes it clear that no charges should be filed, or where there is absolutely no possible way that beyond a resonable doubt of guilt can be obtained without lying or altering/witholding evidence, that said prosecutor should be hit with an ethics violation so hard that their license to practice law evaporates in a cloud of dust?Quote:
Originally Posted by def90
I've known a few attorneys that have stated that the law means whatever you can successfully argue it means, but given the power to destroy lives through malicious prosecution and the costs/impact likely associated, it just seems like it's something that should be an instant career ender for a prosecutor if it can be proven to be happening and that notches on their belt take precedence over impartial application of the law in the public interest.....
Just a thought.....
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
You keep saying "harm" or "injury". There's no such requirement in the statute. It's a reasonable belief the intruder might use any degree of force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling. A potential use of force does not equal harm. The word "might" in this statute is very significant. If you can articulate why you thought an intruder might use force against someone in the dwelling that's all that's needed for that element of the statute.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Also, there have been some pretty far-ranging interpretations of this statute by DAs and juries.
Actually there are registered attorneys who do and don't agree with you. Frankly, I've seen attorney regulation that was more lenient than Colorado's. While prosecutor immunity is quite broad, you exaggerate it a bit. Certainly no prosecutor is going to be investigated for a charging decision where there was an indictment by grand jury.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Certainly, attorney regulation is most comfortable investigating attorneys who steal money because its easiest to prove.
As an aside, I'm confident everyone here knows that the Gazette piece completely misstates self defense law in Colorado.
The Gazette died when it became the Denver Post-lite.Quote:
Originally Posted by spqrzilla