• 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.

UPDATE Colorado Springs, 'Shooting death fuels debate over guns' WashingtonTimes.com

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Original thread: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum60/21218.html

Source URL: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/02/shooting-death-fuels-debate-over-deadly-force-laws/

COLORADO SPRINGS
Sean Kennedy, a 22-year-old golf pro, drunkenly banged on the door, yelled obscenities and smashed a window as he tried to enter what he thought was his house.

But it wasn't his home. The house, located a block from Mr. Kennedy's residence, but showing the same house number, belonged to James Parsons. As Mr. Kennedy reached his arm through the broken window in an effort to unlock the back door, Mr. Parsons, who was inside with his girlfriend, shot and killed him.

Colorado Springs prosecutors last week exonerated Mr. Parsons, saying that he acted within the scope of the state's "Make My Day" law, which allows homeowners to use deadly force against intruders.

"A reasonable person in those circumstances would have believed that [Mr. Kennedy] was going to do a crime against them or their property," District Attorney Dan May said.

Nonetheless, the decision reignited debate over whether such laws allow homeowners to use more force than necessary in their defense. Critics argue that the laws, which have proliferated in recent years, have essentially given homeowners a license to kill.

"What's happening among gun owners is that there's less accountability and less responsibility," said Scott Vogel, spokesman for the Freedom States Alliance in Chicago, which opposes the "Make My Day" laws. "Gun owners are taking these laws and drawing their own conclusions and using them as a 'get out of jail free' card."

The debate is likely to intensify as more states adopt and expand such statutes. Since 1985, 16 states have approved "Make My Day" statutes - known to critics as "Shoot to Kill" laws - with more legislation expected this year, said Sam Hoover, staff attorney for the Legal Community Against Violence in San Francisco.

Besides Colorado, the 15 other states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota, Mr. Hoover said.

Even in states that have approved such laws, however, deciding whether the statute applies can be tricky. Colorado Springs prosecutors wrestled with the case for a month before deciding against filing charges in the Dec. 28 shooting.

About 10 p.m., Mr. Kennedy, who had been drinking at a Denver Broncos football party with friends, drove up in his truck to the house at 3212 Virginia Ave. and tried to enter. Police say he was looking for a house he shared with roommates at 3212 N. Institute St., located a block away. His blood alcohol level was later tested at 0.26, more than three times the legal limit of 0.08 for driving in Colorado.

When Mr. Parsons and his girlfriend heard the pounding at the door, they called 911 and pleaded for help. Mr. Parsons' girlfriend stayed on the phone for about 4 1/2 minutes, during which time the shots were fired.

"Oh, my God, he's coming in the back door," said the woman, who was not identified, during the call. "Are they on their way because - oh my God, he broke in the glass!"
At that point, Mr. Kennedy had walked around the house and broken a window next to the back door. He was reaching through the broken glass to unlock the dead bolt when Mr. Parsons fired three shots through the window with a .38 Special.

"Get the ambulance! I shot him," Mr. Parsons said in the background. "He broke his arm in the window, and he was coming in the house!"

Mr. May said the panicky call and efforts by the homeowners to deter Mr. Kennedy - they shouted for him to leave several times - offered proof that they were in fear for their safety.

The Colorado law states that "citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes," and that lethal force may be used against someone who illegally enters a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime or use physical force against the occupant.

"The evidence from the dispatch tape and from investigative interviews indicated that they were both terrified during this incident and were traumatized by these events," said Mr. May in a statement.

One point of contention was whether Mr. Kennedy could be considered an intruder, since he never actually entered the home. Prosecutors said that having his arm inside the house constituted breaking and entering.

"It doesn't have to be the entire body. His arm was in the house," Deputy District Attorney Gail Warkentin said. "Breaking and entering might have been breaking the lock on the screen door - it could be as little as that - but certainly after he had his arm in the house."

Mr. Kennedy's family remains distraught over the shooting, she said. After graduating from high school in 2004, Mr. Kennedy had worked as a golf pro at two Colorado Springs golf clubs.

"I spoke to Sean's father, and he's obviously grieving for his son. He told me he wished the homeowner had shown more restraint," Ms. Warkentin said. "He said his son didn't deserve to die."

Critics called the Kennedy case a classic example of a fatality that could have been avoided if the homeowner had taken evasive action - for example, leaving the house through the front door - but having a "Make My Day" law on the books makes it less likely that homeowners will do so.

"There's every indication that this gun owner could have shouted at this guy, yelled at him," Mr. Vogel said. "Instead, even though he hadn't been harmed, he just shot him. You didn't sense that he and his girlfriend were in immediate peril, and that used to be the standard."

Dudley Brown, president of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said the couple couldn't have known how violent Mr. Kennedy was, or whether he was armed.

"There's no such thing as 'shoot to wound.' That's only in movies," said Mr. Brown, a certified firearms instructor. "They made their best effort to let law enforcement deal with it, but here's a news flash for liberals: The police can't always be there when you're in trouble."

Despite the debate, "Make My Day" laws remain popular with state legislatures, with new bills introduced every year to implement or expand such laws.

In Colorado, a legislative committee last week heard testimony on behalf of a bill known as "Make My Day Better," which would extend the law to include businesses. But the bill was killed in committee on a straight party-line vote, with Democrats voting against and Republicans voting in favor.
 

jmlefler

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Southwest, Michigan, USA
imported post

Two things:

1. "Make my Day" laws? C'mon... Whoever wrote this has an obvious anti bias. In Michigan, and other States, this statute is called the "Castle Doctrine" as in, a man's home is his castle and must have the means, and the duty, to defend it.

2. On the face, this case doesnt' differ substantially from the Ryan Frederick case. Unidentified intruder, breaking the door and the upper part of his body inside the home with the homeowner firing and a death ensues.

Carry on .
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
imported post

If he was shot dead at the scene. Who was stateing he was just trying to break
into his own house?
Is there a law in Colorado that you can break into houses with the same house number as yours?

Also missing from the story was how he got there? With a blood alchohol of .28
he couldn't have driven there or he would be breaking the law.
So we must also look for his partners in the robery attempt that drove off when
the robery went bad.

If all the yelling and screaming in the house didn't deter him then it is on him
to provide proof to the home owners that he just wants to come in and say hi.

It is a travesty with the 911 tapes, and broken window that it took the DA this long
to admit there was no crime.
 

uncoolperson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
608
Location
Bellingham, ,
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
When Mr. Parsons and his girlfriend heard the pounding at the door, they called 911 and pleaded for help. Mr. Parsons' girlfriend stayed on the phone for about 4 1/2 minutes, during which time the shots were fired.
 

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

jmlefler wrote:
Two things:

1. "Make my Day" laws? C'mon... Whoever wrote this has an obvious anti bias. In Michigan, and other States, this statute is called the "Castle Doctrine" as in, a man's home is his castle and must have the means, and the duty, to defend it.


Colorado's law is virtually always called "Make my Day," by everybody. It doesn't matter where people stand on the issue.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

jmlefler wrote:
2. On the face, this case doesnt' differ substantially from the Ryan Frederick case. Unidentified intruder, breaking the door and the upper part of his body inside the home with the homeowner firing and a death ensues.
Astonishingly so! Major differences, the Police were probably not drunk, and Virginia does not have a Castle Doctrine law.

How do we get us one of those here?

Sadly, as was stated in the Frederick case, the police attitude appears to be that if an intruder is unarmed, you should let them take what they want and be on their way.

TFred
 

Evil Ernie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
779
Location
Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
imported post

They also neglected to state that Mr. Kennedy started by pounding on the front door. Thats when the occupants started yelling for him to leave and called 911. Kennedy then went around the house to the back where the B&E and subsequent shooting took place.

What more do these idiots want before self defense is allowable?
 

.40 Cal

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
1,379
Location
COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
When Mr. Parsons and his girlfriend heard the pounding at the door, they called 911 and pleaded for help. Mr. Parsons' girlfriend stayed on the phone for about 4 1/2 minutes, during which time the shots were fired.

"Oh, my God, he's coming in the back door," said the woman, who was not identified, during the call. "Are they on their way because - oh my God, he broke in the glass!"
At that point, Mr. Kennedy had walked around the house and broken a window next to the back door. He was reaching through the broken glass to unlock the dead bolt when Mr. Parsons fired three shots through the window with a .38 Special.

"Get the ambulance! I shot him," Mr. Parsons said in the background. "He broke his arm in the window, and he was coming in the house!"

Mr. May said the panicky call and efforts by the homeowners to deter Mr. Kennedy - they shouted for him to leave several times - offered proof that they were in fear for their safety.
(snip)

"There's every indication that this gun owner could have shouted at this guy, yelled at him," Mr. Vogel said. "Instead, even though he hadn't been harmed, he just shot him. You didn't sense that he and his girlfriend were in immediate peril, and that used to be the standard."

OK,how can these two situations be in the same article?

Here in NC we have no castle doctrine, but the only clear cut situation that allows you to use deadly force is exactly what happened here. If you are in fear for your life and the individualis beating on your door trying to get in... It has never made sense to me because once they break in the door youhave to give them the opportunity to retreat. I understand the family of the deceased is upset, but there is no way to hold the homeowner responsible for protecting human lives from a very determined individual breaking into his house.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
JBinMontana wrote:
No one should have to retreat from their home, from anyone. What do you expect from a liberal paper like the Washington Post. :banghead:
The Washington Times. There is a difference, not as much as I like but some difference.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/02/shooting-death-fuels-debate-over-deadly-force-laws/

The biggest difference is that Kahr Arms was founded by Justin Moon, son of Washington Times founder Sun Myung Moon. :cool:
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

My Dad lives in Colorado Springs. I went to visit him not long ago....ok, maybe over 1 year...

He told me about that law. . . Made me envious...

Here in Cali we have a Castle like doctrine, but we are criminally liable. . . meaning that if someone does break into your home and you do injure or kill them the person or survivors can sue you for wrongful death or damages. . .

And in Cali it is more than just the home. Basically you have no duty to retreat from anywhere you have a legal right to be. You may stand and defend your ground.

Unless people have been lying to me.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

Theseus wrote:
My Dad lives in Colorado Springs. I went to visit him not long ago....ok, maybe over 1 year...

He told me about that law. . . Made me envious...

Here in Cali we have a Castle like doctrine, but we are criminally liable. . . meaning that if someone does break into your home and you do injure or kill them the person or survivors can sue you for wrongful death or damages. . .

And in Cali it is more than just the home. Basically you have no duty to retreat from anywhere you have a legal right to be. You may stand and defend your ground.

Unless people have been lying to me.
That's civilly liable, not criminally. California has no "duty to retreat" law, but the response must only be in equal proportion to the threat. This is where it gets murky in court, as people define "equal threat" differently.
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

Sadly, this shouldn't be murky at all. Someone who has deliberately invaded your home, your one "safe, secure place" in the world. You should have every right to defend your ground with full force. Anyone who wishes to enter my home by force will be expelled with much greater force, until they are "no longer a threat".

Tawnos wrote:
That's civilly liable, not criminally. California has no "duty to retreat" law, but the response must only be in equal proportion to the threat. This is where it gets murky in court, as people define "equal threat" differently.
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
imported post

Tawnos wrote:
Theseus wrote:
Here in Cali we have a Castle like doctrine [snip]
That's civilly liable, not criminally. California has no "duty to retreat" law, but the response must only be in equal proportion to the threat. This is where it gets murky in court, as people define "equal threat" differently.

If you are in your home and you reasonably believe that force was used to get it then it is presumed that they will do great harm.

If they are there to performgreat harm any resulting homicide is deemed justified in PC 197

However...there is no civil protection :banghead:

----

PC 198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
 
Top