Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Colorado's ‘Make My Day’ law prevents charges in shooting

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,165

    Colorado's ‘Make My Day’ law prevents charges in shooting

    KKCO reports that Mesa County authorities have decided not to file charges in the death of Randy Cook. Cook was shot and killed on New Year’s Day by Joe Hoskins in Hoskins’ home.
    [ ... ]
    Colorado’s “Make My Day” law protects an occupant of a dwelling from prosecution for using deadly physical force when someone has made unlawful entry and there’s a reasonable belief crimes have or will be committed. The law was adopted in 1985.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-in-shooting/

    Really 'Make My Day', or journalistic license with the truth?
    ETA Ahh, CRS 18 1 704.5
    Last edited by Nightmare; 06-12-2014 at 06:55 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,628
    Spin sells advertising space.

    No bad news, make it up on the fly.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    They'll bow their heads in sorrow and mourn that there was nothing that could be done when a homeowner gets killed by a home invader in a place that bans gun ownership...

    But let one homeowner protect himself or his family in a place with civilized laws? Suddenly they start making Dirty Harry references. Are they not aware that even in places with total bans on private ownership of guns, Inspector Callahan would still have his .44 magnum?

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    As long as "Mr. Paul Kersey" (Charles Bronson) is allowed to have his .32 Colt Police Positive -- or .475 Wildey, or whatever caliber/gun he's into at the moment -- I'm happy.

    Carry on, Mr. Kersey...

    :-)
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 06-13-2014 at 02:05 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Tempe, Arizona
    Posts
    189
    Sort of an interesting case. Guys get in a drunken fight and it moves inside the house. The deceased then reportedly goes for the homeowner's shotgun. Homeowner tackles and shoots him. I am puzzled what on earth the prosecutor thinks the homeowner should have done?

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Typical media spin: "District Attorney Pete Hautzinger says video surveillance confirms that Cook was among a group that forced entry to the home."

    So, what would have happened if no video surveillance were available? Same thing. In fact:

    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.

    Boiling this down to brass tacks, if not Boolean logic, deadly force is authorized when the following conditions exist: unlawful entry AND (occupant has reasonable belief that a crime has been committed OR is being committed OR will be committed against person OR property) AND occupant has a reasonable belief the other person might use any degree of physical force against the occupant.

    Boiling it down even further, if a human defeats a lock or a door or window, that alone meets all the pre-requisites for use of deadly force, therefore REQUIRING they be immune from criminal prosecution.

    The term "shall" takes the decision out of the DA's hands, and was included precisely for that very reason. It's not up for discussion or decision. The message our legislators sent was clear: Don't invade other people's homes.

    I absolutely LOVE the fourth provision, as all too often people who're simply trying to protect themselves and their loved ones wind up paying the intruder's family far more $$$ than the intruder would ever have stolen. Even if the survivors lost, the cost to the law-abiding citizen would be immense. This provision places 100% of the fault of the intruder's death squarely on the intruder.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northglenn, Colorado
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The message our legislators sent was clear: Don't invade other people's homes...

    ...This provision places 100% of the fault of the intruder's death squarely on the intruder.
    Which is exactly where it belongs.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Riverton, Wyoming, United States
    Posts
    5

    Also

    The Law also protects the homeowner from civil prosecution as well

  9. #9
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    I live in Grand Junction and have sort of followed the situation. What added to the sensationalism is the defending home owner also owns THE titty bar in town.

    District Attorney Pete Hautzinger is a bit of a ***** on any gun issue and if memory serves me at this late hour is originally a front range (read Denver-Boulder area) Democrat though now listed as a Republican. Personally I'll never vote for him in any primary.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Jefferson County, CO
    Posts
    260
    I discussed this case with a Fruita PD officer who was also with GJPD for many years (and still frequently works many cases that cross both jurisdictions). He did not work this case at all (or if he did, he didn't let us know). With the details that we had, we all agreed it was a good shoot. It got brought up as we were doing some CHP training, and laws handling home intruders were being discussed.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Gonzales View Post
    The Law also protects the homeowner from civil prosecution as well
    That it does, which is an absolutely wonderful provision! When our Founders created prohibitions against double jeopardy, they did NOT want some slick lawyers and judges to later establish the "civill" option, which can often be far more heinous than the criminal repercussions.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •