The intruder should feel lucky to be alive, IMO.
Thread: Justified shooting in Boulder?
Boulder police say a homeowner shot and wounded a female intruder after the woman entered the couple's bedroom shortly before 3:30 this morning.
According to a news release, the homeowners, a husband and wife, said they were in bed at their home in the 400 block of College Avenue when they heard what they thought was a raccoon outside their bedroom door.
When they realized the noise was, in fact, a person who had entered their bedroom, they began to shout to warn the intruder to leave, police said.
The male homeowner shouted he had a gun and he would use it, but the intruder continued walking through the bedroom toward the couple while holding a light, according to police.
The man fired one shot, and when they turned on the lights they saw a female on the floor with a gunshot wound to her hip and called 911. The couple said they did not recognize the woman.
The female was taken to the hospital for treatment, and Boulder police spokeswoman Kim Kobel said the victim has stabilized and that her injuries were not life-threatening. She said police would not be releasing any more information on either the shooting victim or the homeowners while the investigation was ongoing.
Kobel said no arrests have been made, and the Boulder District Attorney's Office would decide if any charges would be filed once their investigation is complete.
Walter Kintsch, who lives in the 400 block of College Avenue, said he didn't notice or hear anything until he saw police officers on his block around 9 a.m.
"It's a scary thing to have happen here," said Kintsch, who has been living in the neighborhood for 47 years. "This is normally a very quiet neighborhood."
Didnt see this on here yet. Thoughts, concerns?
The intruder should feel lucky to be alive, IMO.
That would pass a shoot / no shoot scenario.
He should be VERY careful however what he says to PD. Make sure "i was in fear of my life and my families lives" (which would be hard pressed to be argued) is clearly stated. I'd caution him NOT to talk to PD w/o an atty present. Words can mean the difference between a good shoot and a bad one.
If this happened here in the Springs, the DA would have closed the case with a "self defense" ruling by now.
This is Boulder, however, entrenched with liberal idiots six deep. I fully expect their DA to ignore state law much the same as Corey, the FL state prosecutor who's ignoring FL state law in the Zimmerman case.
My girl and I saw this on the news. Our first thought was the intruder should be lucky shes still alive. The man shouted orders multiple times then he fired when his commands were not being followed by the intruder. This case should have been shut almost immediately.
Again, I hope this guy is lawyered up..
We'll see, I suppose, I'd hope the guy is all good.. but one never knows in Boulder..
The wording in that story really, really ticked me off. An intruder is not, ever, no matter what, a victim. The victims in this were the homeowners, who had their peace of mind and safety compromised by the person who entered their home unlawfully in the wee hours of the morning with who knows what in mind. Albeit, she could have been a harmless drunk who thought she was home, but she could have also had theft, murder or any number of other illegal acts on her mind.
I agree with Bellum. The homeowners need to lawyer up and not speak with police or the DA without one present. It seems cut and dry to me, but I do live in El Paso county.
If I was the homeowner, I'd just keep quiet, get a lawyer on the case, say nothing to the PD, and relax.
Remember, the cops in Boulder ain't exactly CSI Colorado. Remember how badly they hosed up the Ramsey case?
They didn't just screw up that investigation, they contaminated the crime scene beyond all recognition, allowed a whole herd of people to trample all over the property, failed to secure the scene, allowed the Ramseys to split town, fondled possible pieces of evidence, allowed the body to be moved before any forensic examination, and that's just for openers. It got worse as the day wore on. An amazing; possibly astounding, example of police ineptitude. If they had a hall of fame for investigative ineptitude, Boulder P.D. would be the MVP of the exhibit.
Not to be critical, but I don't think the Boulder P.D. could manage a reasonable investigation of who order their doughnuts this morning.
BTW, the Ramsey case has never been solved.
Can I hear a rousing DUH! out there?
Before we continue to bash Boulder cops,
The DA has cleared the homeowner, and the girl may face charges.
Oh ya, and the girl was extremely drunk. She looks like a nice girl though so it's a sad situation. Maybe she will think twice about her lifestyle now that she has a nice scar to remind her of what can happen when your BAC is .20
I heard on the news no charges would be filed as it was placed under the Colorado Make My Day Law.
Nice girl my @$$. I'm going to be a royal d!ck and judge a book by its cover, but she looks like every other spoiled Boulder poppie I see around here exercising poorer and poorer judgement in exchange for and in consequence of free booze. Her actions don't do anything to change that opinion. I can't wait for her parents to threaten the wealthy homeowners with a lawsuit for harming their "sweet little girl".
Last edited by mahkagari; 05-25-2012 at 09:34 AM.
[QUOTE=mahkagari;1760115] .They can threaten all day long. Won't do any good though.I can't wait for her parents to threaten the wealthy homeowners with a lawsuit for harming their "sweet li ttle girl".
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder
(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.
I would say all three are covered.Would it? Does MMD cover lethal force or up to lethal force? Secondly, only two of the criteria were fulfilled by my reading (1. Illegal entry, 2. Crime other than the entry, 3. Fear for safety of occupants). I'm not saying it wasn't justified lawful self defense. I just think there are other laws in place, but the DA cited that one.
1. Illegal entry - She did not have permission to be there.
2. 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- The story said that he ordered person to stop or he would shoot and the person kept advancing. I would say that would lead a person to believe a crime was about to be committed.
3. The occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.- See 2. If I tell them to stop or I'l shoot and they keep coming I would assume they intend to hurt me.
As a side note. I'm wondering if referring to this particular law as the "make my day law" is really a good idea. I know it's been called such for as long as I can remember but is the image it projects really what we want to portray? Why not call it "Castle Doctrine" or "Home Defense Law" or something?
Female intruders can kill you just as quickly as male. The Castle Doctrine is absolutely clear in CO. The fact that she was in their bedroom at 0330 would make it justifiable even without CD--no retreat is possible and no one can apply anything but presumptive fear of grievous harm to the couple in that scenario. It should have taken 5 minutes for the DA to exonerate the homeowner.
"For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V
I've always understood that Colorado's "Make My Day Law" is actually called that, not just a nickname. It's just I seem to remember reading that somewhere, sometime....but if it was on the internet then it must be true....
IMO, having our castle doctrine law called Make My Day seems like it has more teeth than a similar law with a less-ferocious sounding name, like, Castle Doctrine...
One day your life is going to flash before your eyes, make it worth watching.
"Use of deadly physical force against an intruder"
What calling it make my day makes it sound like is that we are just waiting for someone to enter our homes so we can shoot them.
"Hey my day is made.
Well I got to shoot someone today!".
I think the home owner should be filing a lawsuit on the perpetrator.
In general, the term "make my day law" refers to a presumed justification of innocence when an intruder is shot in your home.
"Castle doctrine" laws extend those protections of the "castle" to outside the home so they are also known as "make my day better" laws.
That's my understanding.
If memory serves, the name of the bill when first introduced to the legislature was "The homeowner's protection act". The media coined the term "Make my day" to cast it in a negative light (anyone surprised?) Why gun owners had adopted this slanderous phrase is beyond me (along with "assault rifles", "Saturday night specials", "Sniper rifles", "Street sweepers", etc.).
When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away...
They'll never take your "hunting rifle", they'll call it a "sniper rifle" first.
Zero failures comes at infinite cost.
I don't know how the courts would see this, although another poster was dead-on about the news trying to make out like the intruder was a victim. That's so wrong their presses need recalibration for proper operation in this universe.
Can you please site for me how and where "Being intoxicated is itself a violation?"
I don't see where Colorado has any laws regarding "public intoxication," or "drunk and disorderly," or anthing else that is even close to this.
Nearest one I can find (if I'm not driving a car) is 18-9-123 which deals with bringing outside beer into a baseball game.
If you can find something better, I'd love to see it.
Last edited by JamesB; 05-29-2012 at 11:52 AM. Reason: spelling