• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Justified shooting in Boulder?

JamesB

JamesB

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
703
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
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.
 
Beau

Beau

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
672
Location
East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
JamesB said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well I know in IN it is called Castle Doctrine. It does not extend beyond the home though.
 
O2HeN2

O2HeN2

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
229
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.).

O2
 
since9

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
ZackL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Being intoxicated is not only zero defense, it is itself a violation which often complicates other actions, always negatively for the individual who's intoxicated. Example: Vehicular manslaughter due to momentary inattention vs vehicular manslaughter due to intoxication.

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.
 
JamesB

JamesB

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
703
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
since9 said:
Being intoxicated is not only zero defense, it is itself a violation which often complicates other actions, always negatively for the individual who's intoxicated. Example: Vehicular manslaughter due to momentary inattention vs vehicular manslaughter due to intoxication.

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.
Click to expand...

Here in Colorado in the eyes of the law, being intoxicated is a Mitigating factor, not an Aggravating one; meaning that it is actually a partial defense.

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:
since9

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
JamesB said:
Here in Colorado in the eyes of the law, being intoxicated is a Mitigating factor, not an Aggravating one; meaning that it is actually a partial defense.
Click to expand...

In a pig's eye!

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.
Click to expand...

The clearly implied part you're obviously ignoring is "while in possession of a firearm." We don't discuss carrying pygmy pigs on this forum.

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.
Click to expand...

Try the section on firearms. If you had, you might have run across this:


§ 18-12-106. Prohibited use of weapons

(1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if:
...
(d) The person has in his or her possession a firearm while the person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a controlled substance, as defined in section 12-22-303(7), C.R.S. Possession of a permit issued under section 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal, or possession of a permit or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of this article is no defense to a violation of this subsection (1).​

It's amazing how easily that's found when one actually bothers to look for it.

Congrats, James B. Your trolling behavior just pissed me off. That's difficult! Bye for now... (ignore list)
 
JamesB

JamesB

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
703
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
since9, Do you know the thread you are replying to here?

Has there been an assertion made that the 21-year-old intoxicated co-ed student was armed with anything more intimidating than a lipstick?
She had a gun? Really?
We are talking about the girl being drunk, not the homeowner.

Yes, carrying a gun and being drunk is a crime.
Yes, driving a car while being drunk is a crime.
But, simply being drunk is NOT A CRIME. (unless you can find something that says otherwise...?)

If you are going to look up laws, perhaps you would like to review 18-3-106 Vehicular Homicide. Your belief in regard to this one is false as well.
 
Last edited:
JamesB

JamesB

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
703
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
Bellum_Intus said:
**facepalm**

Can't we all just get along? :p

--Rob
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

But I personally prefer to associate with people who do not always agree with me. If we never have our opinions challenged, how can we actually learn? If we simply accept someone's view on a given subject, do we do a greater disservice to them or to ourselves?

To that end, I also expect those around me to challenge me and not accept what I say simply because I say it.
Feel free to take me to task if what I say deosn't jive.
Call me to the carpet if I am dead wrong about anything.
Just be willing to defend your own position, and if you can't I ask that you be willing to consider changing it.

since9 has probably tought me more than anyone else here simply because of this.

Respect.
 
Last edited:
Bellum_Intus

Bellum_Intus

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
540
Location
Rush, Colorado
JamesB said:
Perhaps.

But I personally prefer to associate with people who do not always agree with me. If we never have our opinions challenged, how can we actually learn? If we simply accept someone's view on a given subject, do we do a greater disservice to them or to ourselves?

To that end, I also expect those around me to challenge me and not accept what I say simply because I say it.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with a healthy debate for sure, example, I am a Libertarian, I end up debating the world lol.. but.. I do try to keep it civil. I read all of the threads here and it seems to get a bit heated. I guess I'd just like to see it toned down a tad.. eh, just me..

I am planning a thread soon that should spark a healthy debate, but I am 'debating' posting it.. heh..

Ok back on topic =)

--Rob

[edit] Just read your edits =) .. Good to see it's a healthy debate and not a personal thing.. The way I see it, here, we're all on the same team..
 
Last edited:
M-Taliesin

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
Bellum_Intus said:
**facepalm**

Can't we all just get along? :p

--Rob
Click to expand...

Howdy Rob!
Terrific quote from the official California State Pinata of 1991.
(a little like being Miss November of 2008, but entirely different).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PK3MLGzUTE

How many of us have ever been so drunk that we not only got in the wrong house, but were unable to figure out it was the wrong house after gaining access?
Then, even when drunk, I'd think most folks would think twice about staying in that strange looking house with the unfamiliar decor when somebody is shouting they're about to shoot you! I mean.... I'm a friend of Bill's and all.... but I ain't never been that drunk!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 
since9

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Beau said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's what I call it: "Castle Doctrine" or "Castle laws." Unfortunately, it's the media that calls it the "Make my day" law. Not only does it sell more newspapers/airtime ad dollars, but it really helps the liberal left fan the anti's fear into flame. Which sells more newspapers and airtime ad dollars.

O2HeN2 said:
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.).

O2
Click to expand...

If it's folks in our own 2A community who're using this intentionally derogatory term, they're just shooting us all in our feet!

JamesB said:
since9, Do you know the thread you are replying to here?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Has there been an assertion made that the 21-year-old intoxicated co-ed student was armed with anything more intimidating than a lipstick?
Click to expand...

No.

She had a gun? Really?
Click to expand...

No. No.

We are talking about the girl being drunk, not the homeowner.
Click to expand...

That's correct.

Yes, carrying a gun and being drunk is a crime.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Yes, driving a car while being drunk is a crime.
Click to expand...

Yes.

But, simply being drunk is NOT A CRIME.
Click to expand...

No ****, Sherlock. C.R.S. 27-81-101 says it's a health issue, not a criminal issue.

If you are going to look up laws, perhaps you would like to review 18-3-106 Vehicular Homicide. Your belief in regard to this one is false as well.
Click to expand...

What the hell does this have to do with the price of tea in China, much less with the subject matter of this thread?

You're trolling, James B. Back on ignore. Bye-bye!
 
M

mahkagari

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,186
Location
, ,
The intruder has been charged with felony trespassing.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestwor...charge_drunk_cu_grad_shot_timothy_justice.php

DA Garnett: "And the charge is a way to make sure we help the person get treatment for what may be a serious drinking problem. We want to help them get that under control."

I'm trying reeeeeeaaaaalllllyy hard not to have a knee-jerk reaction that if Ripple was a different socioeconomic background there wouldn't be any justification about "trying to get them help" and much more talk about people "paying for their actions".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top