Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: OC in a gated apartment complex?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Aurora CO
    Posts
    4

    OC in a gated apartment complex?

    Back in September I was sitting on my patio with two friends and heard a gunshot that sounded as if it came from the property. My first thought was somebody was getting robbed or possibly rapped so I grabbed my AR-15 (fastest access) and handed my friend my 45. We started heading towards the area where the gun shot came from when we were approached by law enforcement. The charge is disorderly conduct (Brandishing a deadly weapon). The gun shot was from a State Trooper shooting a deer struck by a car on the toll way. Is the apartment public or private property since its gated? Anything I can use in my defense?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Unfortunately, stupidity, foolhardyness, and testosterone overload are not considered viable defenses...


    Actively going TO a crime scene while armed is NOT your job. That is what we pay police to do.

    If some thugs kicked in YOUR door, and you armed yourself and your buddy to defend yourself, you'd be OK, but arming up and hiking TOWARD the sound of gunfire is just dangerous, foolhardy, and ILLEGAL.

    Lawyer up, bro. And stop posting about the incident. Remember, anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you...

    But you might want to invest in some KY jelly... You're probably gong to need it...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  3. #3
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871
    To actually answer your question, generally, gated communities are private property. Having said that, "brandishing" or whatever it's called wherever you are, is still not legal even on private property.

    I agree, lawyer up.

  4. #4
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147
    This happened in September? 10 months and you haven't sought legal counsel AND this hasn't been to trial yet?, starting to smell fishy to me.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Aurora CO
    Posts
    4
    Call it what you want. I call it taking care of your neighbors. I've been in the Military for 18 years and I would hope I know how to handle a weapon. Time is of the essence in situations like that. The State had so much evidence (not) that they dropped it and have turned it over to the base. I was trying to act in a first responder role as in first aid but I'm not heading towards a gun shot without a means to protect myself, to me thats stupidity. Thanks for the advice.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It seems that the government is stipulating that a shot was fired nearby. (It really does not matter exactly where or why.) You took a reasonable self-defense posture on private property in response to that shot.

    Get a lawyer and fight this one out.

    JMO.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Aurora CO
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It seems that the government is stipulating that a shot was fired nearby. (It really does not matter exactly where or why.) You took a reasonable self-defense posture on private property in response to that shot.

    Get a lawyer and fight this one out.

    JMO.
    I have had a lawyer and been fighting the civilian side now for 9 months and then a week before it was supposed to go to trial they decide they want to turn it over to the military but want to keep the case open on the civilian side until they hear what the Military does. It's just frustrating. Nine months and lawyer fees for a misdemeanor....

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Unfortunately, stupidity, foolhardyness, and testosterone overload are not considered viable defenses...


    Actively going TO a crime scene while armed is NOT your job. That is what we pay police to do.

    If some thugs kicked in YOUR door, and you armed yourself and your buddy to defend yourself, you'd be OK, but arming up and hiking TOWARD the sound of gunfire is just dangerous, foolhardy, and ILLEGAL.

    Lawyer up, bro. And stop posting about the incident. Remember, anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you...

    But you might want to invest in some KY jelly... You're probably gong to need it...

    You might wish to look up the poster's state law before making sweeping pronouncements. . . .

    CRS 18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.

    (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

    (2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

    (a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

    (b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

    (c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

    (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

    (a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or

    (b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

    (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

    (4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Aurora CO
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyer22 View Post
    You might wish to look up the poster's state law before making sweeping pronouncements. . . .

    CRS 18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.
    Thanks for that information and thanks for not being like most other people and just bashing someone when they ask a question.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It seems that the government is stipulating that a shot was fired nearby. (It really does not matter exactly where or why.) You took a reasonable self-defense posture on private property in response to that shot.

    Get a lawyer and fight this one out.

    JMO.
    +1

    Who says we have to call and rely on the police for everything? We are the Law!!!
    If I thought my neighbors were in trouble I would investigate also.

  11. #11
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385
    I thank for your bravery, even though it may have been on the wrong side of the law.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    +1

    Who says we have to call and rely on the police for everything? We are the Law!!!
    If I thought my neighbors were in trouble I would investigate also.

    THIS and that the police HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC.
    warren vs D.C.

    U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.

    By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police. The court held that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection.

    OR

    Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.
    Last edited by zack991; 08-03-2010 at 02:43 PM.

Posting Permissions

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