Colorado Springs Civil Court Decision

[OneGuy67]

I really don't agree with this court decision.


http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...burglar-270000-


COLORADO SPRINGS (AP) - A jury says a Colorado Springs car lot owner and a relative must pay $270,000 to the daughter of a man who was fatally shot while allegedly breaking into the business. The Colorado Springs Gazette reports the jury concluded Friday the men weren't shielded by self-defense laws. Police have said the intruder, 20-year-old Robert Johnson Fox, wasn't a threat to the men despite having knives.
A grand jury declined to indict the business owner or two relatives. The suit says they were guarding the car lot after a string of robberies.
Fox's parents filed a wrongful death suit on behalf of Fox's 3-year-old daughter. The jury award includes loss of companionship and loss of future earnings. The family will also be awarded some legal costs.
Defense attorneys declined comment.

[TFOGGER]

Appeals...3.2.1....

How is a man with "knives"(plural) that is breaking into cars not a threat?

[Ridge]

Yeah, definitely going to appeals.

[Cman]

That has got to be one of the worst decisions I've seen for business owners! You defend your property, the police don't press charges because you were within your rights and a jury in a civil case awards the kid $270,000 +? What is wrong with the people on that jury?

[Delfuego]

Future earnings as a car thief????? My head is gonna explode.....

Sounds like a case of "who's lawyer is better". Let this be a lesson to to everyone. Its not about right vs wrong, or guilty vs innocent. Its about who has the better attorneys.

[Scanker19]

I want to smash my hand with a hammer to get the thought of that article out of my head.

[spyder]

Doesn't Colorado's version of the castle law protect buisness owners? I was pretty sure it did on their property. WTF?

[Scanker19]

Would it be illegal to pay it in shit covered pennies, or would that bullshit court cry contempt? Holy fuck this has me hot. At least their not in jail, although if they were at least they could have college paid for.

[Delfuego]

I want to smash my hand with a hammer

Then sue the hammer manufacturer!

Doesn't Colorado's version of the castle law protect buisness owners? I was pretty sure it did on their property. WTF?

That is for "criminal" proceedings, this a "civil" lawsuit.

[spyder]

Then sue the hammer manufacturer!
That is for "criminal" proceedings, this a "civil" lawsuit.

I was pretty sure that the Castle laws protected you from all lawsuits, especially from the family being able to sue you.

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine arising from English common law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his "castle"), and any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
Castle Doctrines are legislated by state though not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine law. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home...

I guess these are the basics, but some states haven't adopted all of them.

In general, (one) or a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

• An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.
• The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
• The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
• The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.
Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

K, I guess it is just for your home...?