Do Not Fire Warning Shots

[davsel]

From the CSPD Blotter: http://www.springsgov.com/units/poli...r.asp?offset=0

Incident Date: March 25, 2014
Time: 8:17:00 PM
Division: Falcon -- Shift II
Title: Disturbance
Location: 6300 block of Leadville Circle

Summary:

At about 2017 hrs., 03/25/14, officers from the Falcon Division were dispatched to a residence in the 6300 block of Leadville Circle to investigate a family disturbance.

Upon arrival officers discovered that a disturbance between and husband and wife had escalated throughout the evening. The wife had contacted her daughter and son-in-law and asked them to respond to the home due to her husband’s rants and statements involving a shotgun in the home.

The son-in-law retrieved a handgun and he and his wife responded to the location. While the parties were all in the home the son-in-law heard his mother-in-law and wife screaming during a disturbance with his father-in-law, who was heavily intoxicated. The son-in-law confronted the father-in-law, who threatened his life, and began approaching him. The son-in-law fired two rounds from the handgun into the floor of the home as a warning to the father-in-law. The father-in-law stopped and all the parties took him to the ground and held him until police arrived and ordered them out of the home.

Officers were able to contact the father-in-law on the second floor of the home and detain him without incident.

The son-in-law was charged for Discharge of a Weapon.

Adults Arrested Nathan Frie

Charged for Discharge of a Weapon?

If convicted, does he loose his legal ability to own a gun?
If he'd shot him, would he have been charged with anything at all?

[crashdown]

"Shotgun in home", nothing in the story about the shotgun being in the father in laws possession when confronted.
If this was in city limits, it could be illegal to discharge weapon within that city, other than that I would think somebody would have to file a complaint regarding menacing for it to have any real legal footing.
"Warning shots" are dumb.... either you need to use a gun or you don't.

[merl]

They are not warning shots, they are the result of poor aim.
"I was in fear for my life and acted in self defense. My aim must have been off. Once he stopped the threat ended"
because really the only time you can fire a gun like that in in fear for your life when shooting them is also justified.

My guess is he would have been charged either way, it is just how the DA & judge will see it later

[davsel]

Well, it appears the "Illegal discharge of a firearm" is a law to convict drive-by punks.
It's a Class 5 Felony
What The Hell

At least he'll get off on self defense. But why place the charge and waste the time and money in the first place?

TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 12. OFFENSES RELATING TO FIREARMS AND WEAPONS
PART 1. FIREARMS AND WEAPONS - GENERAL

C.R.S. 18-12-107.5 (2013)

18-12-107.5. Illegal discharge of a firearm - penalty


(1) Any person who knowingly or recklessly discharges a firearm into any dwelling or any other building or occupied structure, or into any motor vehicle occupied by any person, commits the offense of illegal discharge of a firearm.

(2) It shall not be an offense under this section if the person who discharges a firearm in violation of subsection (1) of this section is a peace officer as described in section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S., acting within the scope of such officer's authority and in the performance of such officer's duties.

(3) Illegal discharge of a firearm is a class 5 felony.

HISTORY: Source: L. 93: Entire section added, p. 968, § 1, effective July 1.L. 2003: (2) amended, p. 1616, § 15, effective August 6.


ANNOTATION

This section was intended to punish random drive-by and walk-by gunfire directed at occupied structures or vehicles from outside such premises or vehicles. People v. Simpson, 93 P.3d 551 (Colo. App. 2003).

The plain language of this section does not require that a bullet actually end up inside a house. The court of appeals held that firing a bullet into materials of which the house is built, in this case the shingles on the roof, violates this section. There is no requirement in the section that the bullet pierce the exterior of the building and enter the interior of the house. People v. Serpa, 992 P.2d 682 (Colo. App. 1999).

The second clause of subsection (1) does not require proof that a bullet actually entered the passenger compartment of the vehicle and the absence of such a requirement is consistent with the general assembly's clear intention to criminalize the discharge of a firearm into an occupied vehicle irrespective of whether an occupant is endangered. People v. White, 55 P.3d 220 (Colo. App. 2002).

Illegal discharge of a firearm is not a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder after deliberation. Discharge of a firearm is not an element of attempted first degree murder after deliberation. People v. Beatty, 80 P.3d 847 (Colo. App. 2003).

Court erred by failing to instruct on self-defense. Illegal discharge of a firearm is a general intent offense to the extent that it involves a defendant who acts "knowingly", and self-defense is an affirmative defense to a general intent crime. People v. Taylor, 230 P.3d 1227 (Colo. App. 2009), overruled on other grounds in People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553 (Colo. 2011).

[merl]

Thats the same one they charge people with when they have a ND. Never noticed before that it applies to your own home as well.

[spqrzilla]

"Knowingly" as the CO S.Ct. interprets the mens rea means that a negligent discharge is not a violation of that statute.

But this is a good example of why "warning shots" are a bad idea. Its hard to argue that you were in fear for your life or serious bodily injury and that you thought a "warning" was the answer.

[Irving]

Makes it sound like the law is intended to apply to people firing upon a home or vehicle, rather than from within one.

[merl]

"Knowingly" as the CO S.Ct. interprets the mens rea means that a negligent discharge is not a violation of that statute.

Knowingly or recklessly.
edit, it was a thread here months back about a man in boulder being charged under this for a ND. (as was claimed)

[spqrzilla]

"Recklessly" is still not the same as negligence.

[bogie]

My defense would be that Uncle joe said it was okay.