Friend walked in on a burglary.

[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

[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?"

[JM Ver. 2.0]

But are you still the "home owner?"

Yes. But in every part of the law the word used is OCCUPANT. See below.

Because you were not an occupant when they broke in, and made yourself an occupant AFTER you KNEW there could be a danger and that the police were en route, you're no longer protected under the law.

The key word is OCCUPANT.

oc·cu·pant /ˈäkyəpənt/
Noun
1. A person who resides or is present in a house, vehicle, etc., at a given time.
2. The holder of a position or office: "the first occupant of the Oval Office".

Because you were not an occupant at the given time, and you were aware a danger could be present, you have no protection under the law.

I'm done now.

Cameron, I'm sorry I didn't stoop to your level of name calling and actually gave you something logical. Your blatant attempt at baiting me into a confrontation by name calling was pretty childish. Sorry it didn't work.

Originally Posted by Colorado Revised StatutesTITLE 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.