Dude gets tied up, breaks free, shoots bad guys

[BPTactical]

18-1-706. Use of physical force in defense of property



A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.

HISTORY: Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 409, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-806.



Cross references: For theft, see part 4 of article 4 of this title; for criminal mischief, see § 18-4-501; for criminal tampering, see § § 18-4-505 and 18-4-506.
 
ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Self-Defense in Colorado", see 24 Colo. Law. 2717 (1995).

One cannot instantly kill in defense of property. While a man may use all reasonable and necessary force to defend his real and personal estate, of which he is in the actual possession, against another who comes to dispossess him without right, he cannot instantly carry his defense to the extent of killing the aggressor. If no other way is open, he must yield and get himself righted by resort to the law. Bush v. People, 10 Colo. 566, 16 P. 290 (1887) (decided under G. S. § 721).

When instruction on defense appropriate. A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on an affirmative defense only if evidence in the record supports it. Here record does not support entitlement to instruction. People v. Goedecke, 730 P.2d 900 (Colo. App. 1986).

[TFOGGER]

18-1-706. Use of physical force in defense of property



A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.

HISTORY: Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 409, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-806.



Cross references: For theft, see part 4 of article 4 of this title; for criminal mischief, see § 18-4-501; for criminal tampering, see § § 18-4-505 and 18-4-506.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Self-Defense in Colorado", see 24 Colo. Law. 2717 (1995).

One cannot instantly kill in defense of property. While a man may use all reasonable and necessary force to defend his real and personal estate, of which he is in the actual possession, against another who comes to dispossess him without right, he cannot instantly carry his defense to the extent of killing the aggressor. If no other way is open, he must yield and get himself righted by resort to the law. Bush v. People, 10 Colo. 566, 16 P. 290 (1887) (decided under G. S. § 721).

When instruction on defense appropriate. A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on an affirmative defense only if evidence in the record supports it. Here record does not support entitlement to instruction. People v. Goedecke, 730 P.2d 900 (Colo. App. 1986).

So charge him with misdemeanor assault. Or varmint hunting without a proper license. Or disturbing the peace.

[theGinsue]

Good thing I won't be on that jury. Did he break the law, as written? Yes. Did he do what needed to be done? Absolutely.

Haven't seen many better times to invoke jury nullification as this.

[Great-Kazoo]

So charge him with misdemeanor assault. Or varmint hunting without a proper license. Or disturbing the peace.

Discharging a firearm in city limits. Possible Reckless Endangerment. A DA with political aspirations might have field day with this. Hopefully he said Attorney, instead of his adrenaline ruling the day.

[Bailey Guns]

18-1-706. Use of physical force in defense of property

I don't think that's the applicable statute in this case. From the limited info it sounds like at least Kidnapping and Burglary in addition to the Aggravated Robbery. I'd be willing to bet the "Make My Day" law will be brought up here as a defense. Doesn't mean the guy can't be charged...but he has a decent chance to beat any charges with a good attorney and a little luck with a jury. And he should. ASSUMING the home owner is telling the truth and this isn't some sort of drug deal gone wrong or other such nonsense, in my opinion, he shouldn't be charged. Send a message it's open season on assholes committing these types of robberies.

[TFOGGER]

If I had to guess, it was probably the car that they were trying to steal that the homeowner was selling on Craigslist. Just a guess, though.

[davsel]

Someone steals your car from the store parking lot while you are inside the store.
The police catch the thief down the road and he is convicted by a jury for stealing the car.
Should the thief receive the death penalty?

[TFOGGER]

Someone steals your car from the store parking lot while you are inside the store.
The police catch the thief down the road and he is convicted by a jury for stealing the car.
Should the thief receive the death penalty?

False analogy. Someone threatens you with a weapon, ties you up, and attempts to flee in your car after assaulting and robbing you. Do you have the right to defend yourself and your property, and at what point does self defense become criminal assault? THAT is the question. The assailant should have to take into consideration if the possible gains from his course of action are worth the risk to his life and freedom.

[davsel]

There is no such thing as defending yourself against a fleeing individual.

[TFOGGER]

There is no such thing as defending yourself against a fleeing individual.

Not arguing that. Clearly, if the assailant was fleeing, there is no justification for lethal force. But if the assailant was attempting to use the victim's car as a weapon against him(victim runs out and attempts to stop robber from leaving in his car(a bad idea, but it happens all the time), and the robber tries to back over him)? We don't have all the information to properly evaluate this particular situation.