Friend walked in on a burglary.

[spqrzilla]

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

[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.

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

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.

[spqrzilla]

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

[davsel]

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.

[airborneranger]

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.

[spqrzilla]

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.

[Ronin13]

Entering my own home is somehow seen as provoking an intruder?
Please explain.

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."

[JM Ver. 2.0]

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.

it doesn't really matter what your defense attorney says. Hell, it doesn't even matter what the DA or Detective says. All that matters is what a judge and jury say. And I can say with almost 100% certainty that if you walked into the house and shot the two unarmed people in the house you would be going to jail for a long long time.

And, you don't know anything about me. Don't pretend like you do. It's rude.

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.

Even if you were legally justified in shooting the two people in the OP, you'd still spend a good chunk of time defending yourself in court. And then, you would forever be seen as the guy who had to "teach them a lesson."

If you want to go through all that just because you think you're right... Knock yourself out.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

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."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...returned-fire/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474025&in_page_id=1770

http://whostheass.com/2012/09/true-story-burglar-falls-through-a-roof-and-sues/



Who's the victim now?

This is the problem with all of you saying to shoot the guys...

[Ronin13]

JM, you need to relax... First off you're making these reaching statements- no one goes into their house and just shoots people. Stop reaching for straws, no one said just shooting intruders. If it's justified, regardless of the situation, then the homeowner/occupant should be good. Either way, if you use deadly force against a threat you should expect to have to defend yourself, that just goes with the territory.