Friend walked in on a burglary.

[spyder]

I think some of you need to understand the term "Occupant."

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 can make up all the shit you want but if someone determined you entered the home AFTER the intrusion, you're fucked.

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?.....

[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.

[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.

[funkymonkey1111]

Who are you, again?

Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.

who are you? Seems like this guy is asking a question--you're spewing BS. I guess I just figured out who you are.

[spqrzilla]

brutal and JM ver 2.0

You two gentlemen are making statements that simply are not correct. Largely because you seem to take a specific point you want to make, that would perhaps even be arguable, and then turn it into huge sweeping generalizations that are flat out false.

[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

who are you? Seems like this guy is asking a question--you're spewing BS. I guess I just figured out who you are.

brutal and JM ver 2.0

You two gentlemen are making statements that simply are not correct. Largely because you seem to take a specific point you want to make, that would perhaps even be arguable, and then turn it into huge sweeping generalizations that are flat out false.

I'm going to slow it WAY down for you...

You CAN NOT enter your home if you KNOW that there could be a clear and present danger inside your home.

Being alerted by the alarm company that there could be a clear and present danger in your home means that you KNOW there is a clear and present danger.


If you enter your home KNOWING there could be a clear and present danger and you SHOOT THE PERSON IN THE HOUSE, you will be charged and you will be going to jail. Is it right? No. Is that the way it is? YES.

You have to understand the limitations of the law. You can't inject yourself into a life or death situation with the intention of using deadly force. "Oh hey, I'll just walk in on this burglary so I can shoot the asshole stealing my shit."

That WILL NOT FLY. EVER.


You weren't in any danger before you went into the house. You put yourself in danger by entering a situation which you knew could be deadly. That's YOUR BAD.




All of you that are saying, "he should have shot him" are insane. Do you have any idea how that is going to look to a jury?

Alarm company told you there was an alarm and possible intruder. Told you police were on the way. You entered the home anyway and shot the guy inside.

Looks like you said, "I'll teach this asshole to break into my house!" and entered the home with the intention of killing the guy inside.





NOW! If you come home to a wide open door, or even a closed door, and you encounter someone inside your home... That's a different story.

BUT, if you KNOW there might be someone in there, and you KNOW the police are on the way... You sit your happy little ass outside and wait for the police. Lest you sit your happy little ass in prison for the rest of your life.



That's the way it is. That's the way it'll happen. That's the way it'll always be. Is that the way it should be? Well, that's not up to us to decide, sadly.

[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.

[davsel]

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.

But are you still the "home owner?"