Friend walked in on a burglary.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

I like pie.

Mmmmmmmm. Pie.......

Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.

[TFOGGER]

TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 7. JUSTIFICATION AND EXEMPTIONS FROM CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
C.R.S. 18-1-704.5 (2012)
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.

Had they in ANY WAY posed a threat, he would have been justified (legally) in using whatever force was necessary. If they had not immediately complied any move they made towards him could be easily interpreted as a threat.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

Had they in ANY WAY posed a threat, he would have been justified (legally) in using whatever force was necessary. If they had not immediately complied any move they made towards him could be easily interpreted as a threat.

Still wrong. But nice try.

Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

So, you're saying that if you come home, enter your home, and are surprised by an intruder, that if you shoot that person, you are screwed? I hope that is not what you're saying, because it's happened, and the home owner's got off. It's the same shit. So?.....

That's not the case here at all.

In your case you'd be covered.



In the story the op states the homeowner has already been told the police are on the way. That's the big issue here.

The alarm company asked and the HO approved the police dispatch. He should have waited for the police.

Had he shot the people knowing that police were en route he'd be on the fast track to prison.



You can't knowingly inject yourself into a situation where deadly force is authorized. Especially if you know the police are on the way.

Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.

[Cameron]

Total crap and sounds like LE folklore.

Do you have one case in which your premise played out?

Cameron

[funkymonkey1111]

Total crap and sounds like LE folklore.

Do you have one case in which your premise played out?

Cameron

I think you're supposed to call him "sir."

[brutal]

So, you're saying that if you come home, enter your home, and are surprised by an intruder, that if you shoot that person, you are screwed? I hope that is not what you're saying, because it's happened, and the home owner's got off. It's the same shit. So?.....

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

[JM Ver. 2.0]

Total crap and sounds like LE folklore.

Do you have one case in which your premise played out?

Cameron

Who are you, again?

Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.

[Cameron]

Who are you, again?

I'm Cameron, I would have thought that was obvious. Let me ask again.

You have made the assertion that knowledge of LE notification in a burglary some how invalidates Colorado state law in regard to the protection of an occupant or home owner, specifically in regard to the use of force. Do you have ANY case law that backs up your premise? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Cameron

[JM Ver. 2.0]

I'm Cameron, I would have thought that was obvious. Let me ask again.

You have made the assertion that knowledge of LE notification in a burglary some how invalidates Colorado state law in regard to the protection of an occupant or home owner, specifically in regard to the use of force. Do you have ANY case law that backs up your premise? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Cameron

I feel the need to bring special attention to this part... Ya know, since you all keep looking past this...

You are in the occupant of the building in the situation in this thread. Therefor, you don't get any protection since you didn't occupy the building at the time it was broken into.