Colorado Springs Civil Court Decision

I really don't agree with this court decision.


http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...burglar-270000-


COLORADO SPRINGS (AP) - A jury says a Colorado Springs car lot owner and a relative must pay $270,000 to the daughter of a man who was fatally shot while allegedly breaking into the business. The Colorado Springs Gazette reports the jury concluded Friday the men weren't shielded by self-defense laws. Police have said the intruder, 20-year-old Robert Johnson Fox, wasn't a threat to the men despite having knives.
A grand jury declined to indict the business owner or two relatives. The suit says they were guarding the car lot after a string of robberies.
Fox's parents filed a wrongful death suit on behalf of Fox's 3-year-old daughter. The jury award includes loss of companionship and loss of future earnings. The family will also be awarded some legal costs.
Defense attorneys declined comment.

Appeals...3.2.1....

How is a man with "knives"(plural) that is breaking into cars not a threat? [Rant1]

Yeah, definitely going to appeals.

That has got to be one of the worst decisions I've seen for business owners! You defend your property, the police don't press charges because you were within your rights and a jury in a civil case awards the kid $270,000 +? What is wrong with the people on that jury?

Future earnings as a car thief????? My head is gonna explode.....

Sounds like a case of "who's lawyer is better". Let this be a lesson to to everyone. Its not about right vs wrong, or guilty vs innocent. Its about who has the better attorneys.

I want to smash my hand with a hammer to get the thought of that article out of my head.

Doesn't Colorado's version of the castle law protect buisness owners? I was pretty sure it did on their property. WTF?

Would it be illegal to pay it in shit covered pennies, or would that bullshit court cry contempt? Holy fuck this has me hot. At least their not in jail, although if they were at least they could have college paid for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordanls19

I want to smash my hand with a hammer

---

Then sue the hammer manufacturer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spyder

Doesn't Colorado's version of the castle law protect buisness owners? I was pretty sure it did on their property. WTF?

---

That is for "criminal" proceedings, this a "civil" lawsuit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delfuego

Then sue the hammer manufacturer!
That is for "criminal" proceedings, this a "civil" lawsuit.

---

I was pretty sure that the Castle laws protected you from all lawsuits, especially from the family being able to sue you.

Quote:

---

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine arising from English common law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his "castle"), and any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
Castle Doctrines are legislated by state though not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine law. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home...

---

I guess these are the basics, but some states haven't adopted all of them.

Quote:

---

In general, (one) or a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

• An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.
• The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
• The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
• The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.
Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

---

K, I guess it is just for your home...?

I think we have a hybrid derived from the "make my day" law, and not the "Castle Doctrine" per se. I may be incorrect on this, I am basing some of this on what I learn in my CCW class I took a few weeks ago, and that could be mis-information. I think you may be correct in that it applies to your home and not your business and protection of that business. I also think you are supposed to be under perceived threat of violence.

The way I read it is its a place permanent or temporary which you find shelter and live at. Hotel rooms and things like that.Either way it should go to appeals.

"hey little girl. Your daddy was a thug thief who got shot by someone trying to make a clean living. we sued and now you have $300,000!"

sounds about right...

joe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boostedxt

The way I read it is its a place permanent or temporary which you find shelter and live at. Hotel rooms and things like that.Either way it should go to appeals.

"hey little girl. Your daddy was a thug thief who got shot by someone trying to make a clean living. we sued and now you have $300,000!"

sounds about right...

joe

---

Honestly, If that were the circumstances, I don't think I would miss daddy too much...

Might be his "best" act ever.

there's a reason why it's call the legal system, not the justice system.

Apparently the dirtbag in question was hiding in a shed on the property. At that point, it's a turkey shoot. The owner could have just as easily kept the criminal in there until cops showed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delfuego

Future earnings as a car thief????? My head is gonna explode.....

---

No, future earnings as a meth addict who, as admitted by his co-conspirator, was just looking to "steal whatever they could to sell and buy more drugs"...

The unfortunate part is that the make my day law doesn't cover a place of business, unless like in the other recent case, there is also a residence on the property.



I wonder, if they could appeal on the grounds that the kid should have been in child protective services, or should have been removed from her fathers care anyway? Then there would be no loss of companionship or future earnings... I'm sure the defense attorney's thought of that.

I think the defense should argue the other side of what could have been now... Take how much money we as taxpayers would have had to pay for his dumb ass to be in prison when he eventually gets caught (lawyers fees, court fees, prison, everything) and put that against what they awarded his family. I think the business man saved colorado quite a bit of money.

There is no "castle doctrine" for businesses in Colorado. It was introduced this past legislative session, but didn't make it. I'm not sure why and I don't have the time to do the legislative session research to find the bill and see what happened to it. If someone else has the time, it can be found on the state website.

The article I read was too empty of facts, but the only reason I can see for such a judgment would be if he didn't threaten anyone with the knives and only had them on his person. However, the grand jury decided to not indict them for criminal charges, so that leads me to believe the knives posed some threat.

I don't know. I just have a hard time with civil lawsuits in which people sue willy nilly and there are shyster lawyers out there willing to give it a shot for a potential payoff.

this is exactly why i always say in those "i got in a fight" threads that its best to just back down if at all possible and avoid confrontation. it has NOTHING to do with right and wrong, it has to do with the risks you run when you put yourself into the court system. it doesn't matter how in the right you were, people get boned on that kind of stuff daily. its just not worth it, especially since most of the people doing this shit are worthless to begin with.

There is a big difference between criminal and civil. Should have learned that one with OJ.

Not that I agree one bit with it. But civil court, one does not have prove guilt or innocence. Just that a loss has occurred.

/Heavy sarcasm/ How do you know that, as a meth-head crook, he couldn't have made that $200,000 over the course of a couple of years. /heavy sarcasm/