Make My Day BS

[jerrymrc]

It's not that it wouldn't, it's just an area where you start to get closer to "interpretation". In some cases it still would unarguably. This circumstance sounded like he warned and immediately shot. But say a bunch of bangers roll up to your garage, doors open, as your under a car working on it, they walk in and say, "Hey home-slice, how about you give us your wallet or I'm going to kick this jack out" you shoot them in the ankle and the nuts from under the vehicle, that would be an easier MMD application. Though doors are open, they knew it was an illegal entry (trespass). You also have a reasonable belief of bodily injury, no matter how slight (vehicle landing on you is actually serious bodily injury).

The issue here with Mr. Druggy is they are going to argue he thought he was a block from his house and didn't know where he was (accidental). Already looks like they are pushing that direction in the article. Even though Mr. Druggy was most likely looking for shit to support his habit (door open or close).

That make sense?

Something more to chew on. They say he used to own a house close by. The defendant had just purchased the house he lived in. Whats to say that when the druggie came looking for stuff to steal that the previous owner had a lot of nice things in the garage and said druggie had no idea that the place had been sold and the new owner had firearms and was not the old lady schoolteacher he remembered living there.

[Bailey Guns]

The only remaining burden is reasonable belief of harm no matter how slight.

You keep saying "harm" or "injury". There's no such requirement in the statute. It's a reasonable belief the intruder might use any degree of force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling. A potential use of force does not equal harm. The word "might" in this statute is very significant. If you can articulate why you thought an intruder might use force against someone in the dwelling that's all that's needed for that element of the statute.

Also, there have been some pretty far-ranging interpretations of this statute by DAs and juries.

[spqrzilla]

As an aside, I'm confident everyone here knows that the Gazette piece completely misstates self defense law in Colorado.

[Aloha_Shooter]

As an aside, I'm confident everyone here knows that the Gazette piece completely misstates self defense law in Colorado.

The Gazette died when it became the Denver Post-lite.

[BushMasterBoy]

The dead guys sister says he was a drug addict. It would interesting if the Gazette would publish the indictment.

http://gazette.com/make-my-day-law-c...rticle/1578715

[def90]

Politically in the Front Range pretty much any prosecutor is going to ask for charges add on the fact that he shot was in the back which makes for good public opinion polling numbers.

[DireWolf]

Politically in the Front Range pretty much any prosecutor is going to ask for charges add on the fact that he shot was in the back which makes for good public opinion polling numbers.

Would it be unreasonable to suggest that if any prosecutor can be proven to be actively persuing charges for political reasons, particularly when the evidence makes it clear that no charges should be filed, or where there is absolutely no possible way that beyond a resonable doubt of guilt can be obtained without lying or altering/witholding evidence, that said prosecutor should be hit with an ethics violation so hard that their license to practice law evaporates in a cloud of dust?

I've known a few attorneys that have stated that the law means whatever you can successfully argue it means, but given the power to destroy lives through malicious prosecution and the costs/impact likely associated, it just seems like it's something that should be an instant career ender for a prosecutor if it can be proven to be happening and that notches on their belt take precedence over impartial application of the law in the public interest.....

Just a thought.....

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

[spqrzilla]

Ethics in CO is a joke. I've advocated CO to lose its immunity when it fails to investigate and discipline attorneys (to motivate attorney regulation). It really needs to be out of the hands of the state altogether. Our registered attorneys of course disagree and like the present system. The only cases that get investigated are financial (e.g. attorney steals client money) because they look at an invoice, say "yup, should have refunded" and that's it.

Conflicts of interest, criminal allegations, forging documents, any of the other rules... no investigation.

Also don't forget, there is prosecutor immunity, a prosecutor is immune for every action he undertakes. Every. He can literally knowingly forge documents and knowingly hire paid witnesses to lie about you, and risk no criminal, no civil penalty whatsoever even if caught red handed. The only thing he risks is his law license, and guess what.

Attorney regulation probably isn't going to investigate it unless he's been stealing money from the D.A.'s office or something. Even if a prosecutor is knowingly forging documents. Welcome to 99 problem's lesson #10 on how there is no check nor balance of any kind on the judicial system.

Actually there are registered attorneys who do and don't agree with you. Frankly, I've seen attorney regulation that was more lenient than Colorado's. While prosecutor immunity is quite broad, you exaggerate it a bit. Certainly no prosecutor is going to be investigated for a charging decision where there was an indictment by grand jury.

Certainly, attorney regulation is most comfortable investigating attorneys who steal money because its easiest to prove.

[Skip]

if you dont consider a guy with his back turned a threat, I guess you never heard of el presidente drills.

im not saying that is the case here, what Im saying is just because someone reads something, it doesnt mean they know all the details. that person may have very well been a threat. And we know that 21 feet with a knife is a threat. the grand jury probably doesnt understand things like that.

The thing that irks me and I hope the jury considers is that a true self-defense situation often puts people who are not trained or experienced (massive adrenaline dump) in a position to make a split second decision. It was the (often career) criminal who initiated the situation in the first place. Everything thereafter is an unplanned reaction to various perceived levels of threat in the space/time the criminal gives a (potential) victim.

Don't know if that's the case here or not. But I could see someone being so scared that they fail to make the decision the same way a Monday-morning quarterbacker would sitting in a comfortable office protected by the taxpayers.

[PugnacAutMortem]

if you dont consider a guy with his back turned a threat, I guess you never heard of el presidente drills.


im not saying that is the case here, what Im saying is just because someone reads something, it doesnt mean they know all the details. that person may have very well been a threat. And we know that 21 feet with a knife is a threat. the grand jury probably doesnt understand things like that.

You're right, I've not heard of el presidente drills. Cool name though, what are they? Also correct on the 21ft distance with a knife...inside that distance I would rather see a gun than a knife. Once offline of the barrel the the threat of being shot goes to 0, I like those odds a lot better than some crazy person with a knife slashing away again and again. We used to do knife fighting drills in krav with training knives that had red lipstick on the "cutting edge" and then we would put on white t-shirts and go to town. It was amazing, even the best of the guys in class couldn't get away unscathed.

And again (you're on fire HBAR) I also agree that I don't know all of the details. As a matter of fact I believe I said as much. I also love how you had to add a small jab at me in there.

I missed you buddy