Make My Day BS

[BushMasterBoy]

Make my day law does not cover homeowner says grand jury. I guess we are at the mercy of scumbag politicians when it comes to protecting ourselves. Even in Colorado...


http://gazette.com/slaying-of-burgla...rticle/1580549

[Sawin]

Their argument is about it being in a detached garage....

[PugnacAutMortem]

The article makes it seem like the issue is the actual building he was shot in may not be considered a dwelling, but if he shot the guy in the back doesn't that also render the MYD law not applicable? My understanding is that someone with their back to you doesn't present a direct threat to your life and therefore you don't have the necessary condition to retaliate with lethal force. Unless you can prove they were going for a weapon, but it sounds like the guy was just running away (at least from what that article says, haven't read anything else past that).

[izzy]

The detached garage and I'd guess the guy being shot in the back might have something to do with it.

[cstone]

Detached garage, shot in the back, and apparently not within lunging distance. The Grand Jury rejected the possible 2nd degree murder or manslaughter charges and indicted on negligent homicide. The defense will put forward a "make my day" defense and if that is not successful she will use a self-defense defense. I would assume the prior burglary convictions will come out at some point. Trial is scheduled to begin in January 2017.

An indictment is not a conviction and I didn't see where the court had denied a "make my day" defense. Grand Juries are more likely to indict than not indict based on the way they are controlled and used by prosecutors. This is all on the El Paso DA's Office. They don't believe the homeowner acted legally and they are pursuing charges. I have no idea what the outcome of a trial will be if the case goes to trial. I am curious as to what type of plea bargain they will offer to avoid a trial.

[Robb]

Thankfully this goes to trial in the Springs and not in Boulder.

[roberth]

Thank you cstone.

[cstone]

If it goes to trial, I would assume someone will educate the trial jury on realistic threats and call defense experts who will provide numerous examples of people who were attacked just after the attacker turned around. Grand Juries only hear and see what the prosecutor wants them to hear and see.

[newracer]

The article makes it seem like the issue is the actual building he was shot in may not be considered a dwelling, but if he shot the guy in the back doesn't that also render the MYD law not applicable? My understanding is that someone with their back to you doesn't present a direct threat to your life and therefore you don't have the necessary condition to retaliate with lethal force. Unless you can prove they were going for a weapon, but it sounds like the guy was just running away (at least from what that article says, haven't read anything else past that).

Otther than the dwelling issue, none of that pertains to the MYD law.

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.

[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.