VETERAN’S AR-15 CONFISCATED BY POLICE- And he's facing criminal charges!

[Skip]

http://www.guns.com/2013/05/29/color...ntruder-video/ similar but different, and a whole other host of issues of continuing to shoot after he was fleeing

"As she saw the man’s Nike-sporting foot coming through the window, she fired at him. He initially hid behind a tree, but once Richter hit the tree he was hiding behind with one of the five shots she fired, he took off running down the street."

That part in red is exactly what you say! No need to mention a warning shot. She saw him, feared for her safety, and fired at him. Good shoot!

Now if CoS PD wanted to make a case on her shooting while the suspect is fleeing, they probably could try...

[clublights]

I stated that poorly, it is breaking the window, while displaying intent to enter, such as reaching an arm into the home. Let me see what I can do with my google-fu to find it. This was a case from a few years ago where an older/elderly man killed a man that had broken a window and was not yet fully inside the home, the arm counted etc. Intent vs. Letter

I recall that case too ..


Kid was drunk/high .. wrong house .

This is a similar one ...

http://www.fox21news.com/news/story....1#.Uae7DJX89UQ

[Ronin13]

I agree. I watched the TV news video and they showed the area in which the encounter occurred to include the door he was alleging to try to gain entry into. No damage to the door at all. So, it wasn't like the suspect was putting a shoulder into the door and was physically breaking into the apartment. If he was jiggling the door knob and looking through the window, does that warrant a round being fired? Additionally, since we are dealing with another state, I am up on their defense of home laws. If it would have happened here and the suspect did not gain entry, our "Make My Day" statute would not apply and there could be a chargeable offense.

The way I was taught on this- treat your home like the endzone on a football field- if they break the plane they're technically inside your home, and from there you can judge if they are a threat and fire if needed. Until that point, they are not inside your home/occupied domicile and you're not justified in shooting. Granted this is advice from an attorney friend of Rich Wyatt's.

[OneGuy67]

I recall that case too ..


Kid was drunk/high .. wrong house .

This is a similar one ...

http://www.fox21news.com/news/story....1#.Uae7DJX89UQ

Um, it is the same story.


The DA is interpreting the law as the reach into the residence is the breach into the dwelling. I've worked with Dan May recently and he seems to be a really good guy. I have no issue with his interpretation of the law in this particular case.

[Bailey Guns]

1) It is relevant to the RoE he instinctively uses to confront a deadly and dangerous situation when the heart is racing and the adrenalin is pumping. It also demonstrates he has a certain amount of training when it comes to firearms.

RoE on the battlefield mean nothing in a civilian shooting. The defense can argue that, of course, but I certainly wouldn't count on it being a valid defense. And the headline was indeed inflammatory in my opinion.

2) There may be no modern legal justification, but most decent folks still think it's proper protocol before ending the life of another human being. This is one lesson everyone can learn; no warning shots. You either deploy lethal force and end the threat or you don't.

Well, that's only relevant if the "decent folks" are all on the jury. I consider myself to be "decent folk" and there will be no warning shots from me in a lethal force encounter. This case will most likely illustrate it's not only a bad idea it's most likely illegal. If someone has created a situation for me that warrants a lethal response I'm not aware of any protocol, decent folks or not, that requires a warning shot because it's proper.

3) The criminal is the one who created the wreckless endangerment. Let's say the vet ending up dropping the guy without a warning shot and one of those rounds goes straight through the bad guy, through the wall, and kills a kid sleeping in an adjacent apartment.

I agree the criminal is wrong as well and I don't think anyone is arguing that he's innocent. But in your hypothetical situation the vet would most likely be looking at 1 or 2 counts of some sort of murder or manslaughter. Apparently he wasn't justified in shooting. That's the whole point of why he was arrested. Not to mention the civil liability issues he'd be looking at.

Who gets the manslaughter/murder charge?

So why does it make sense to criminalize responding to a deadly situation instead of putting the blame on the criminal where it belongs?

You still have to act according to the law even when using force to defend yourself from a criminal. The vet wasn't facing a deadly threat when he fired...at least according to the arresting officers. Again...I didn't read anywhere where the wannabe burglar won't be held responsible for whatever offense he committed. He was arrested, after all, trying to flee the scene.

4) Easier said than done. There are lots of guys struggling with this right now--you can't just turn it off.

Well, then if it isn't turned off there are consequences. I understand and I sympathize...but that doesn't change the facts.

5) Agreed, but I wouldn't consider the vet to be a dumbass--he was just ignorant of the fact that our laws no longer follow logic or basic morality. Ironically, it is the "system" that makes these encounters more deadly by removing a once commonly accepted tool; the warning shot.

Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. Granted...calling him a dumbass may not have been warranted. But I disagree that what he did was logical. And I don't recall warning shots being a commonly accepted practice (especially in an apt bldg) since I've been around...and that's over 50 years...and I grew up in TX.

We had a similar situation in CoS this week when a woman fired on an invader and scared him off. She wasn't charged with anything. The dynamics of that situation aren't all that different from this one--just that LE looked at it differently.

Didn't hear about that so I can't comment.

[clublights]

Um, it is the same story.


The DA is interpreting the law as the reach into the residence is the breach into the dwelling. I've worked with Dan May recently and he seems to be a really good guy. I have no issue with his interpretation of the law in this particular case.

I thought the one I was really thinking of was in denver not CoS and the shooter was an elderly fellow...

I agree with the DA's choice I was just pointing to a story

May seems like an OK guy.. we did some campaign work with him the last cycle

[Dingo]

Stories like this, and the general bleeding-heart, progressive, and litigious nature of our society as a whole, are training us to do one thing: ENSURE that it's our word against a dead man's. 10 years ago, I was of a mindset that it would be better to wound someone, or fire a warning shot. Too many stories of home owners being sued by the motherless filth invading their home, and being chargedby progressive police officials with an eye for politics.

Bottom line: enter my home unannounced, you get one chance to identify yourself. If I don't know you, you're dead.

[Squeeze]

All the "anti-gunners" will side with the poor criminal who was just doing what he had to do to make a living. The evil homeowner with a treacherous black rifle should be hung, tarred & feathered according to their "rules". It's been said and I'll say it again, the f**king political correctness is sucking the lifeblood right out of America. God help any of us if we ever have to be the ones to pull a trigger in defense of our own lives.

[fj605]

"I have my father's gun and a scorching case of herpes." (Jennifer Grey - in Ferris Beuller's Day Off)

Why not meet the intruder at the door? I may not be a good shot but I know I can drive tacks when the muzzle of my gun is touching the target.

[Colorado_Outback]

If you have any case law on this, I would like to review it. Breaking a window does not constitute the ability to use the affirmative defense.

It happened here in Springs a couple years back.

Sunday night after a broncos game this guy was so hammered he was trying to enter the wrong house. Homeowner is afraid and calls 911, on the phone with them for a while when the guy starts to make his way through the back door after attempting the front. Homeowner shoots and kills him through the door.
I cant remember if they dropped the charges or if he was tried and found innocent.. looking for the article now..