Denver resident defends himself against intruder

The conversation is wrong for this forum, and endless parade of bonafides over political correctness are not going to gain anything.

I see a reaction from a small group within a community that clearly would have a different reaction if the situation was changed slightly.

A reversal tactic also will not gain anything.

Kutchin will as we can see never recover a penny of his efforts to defend himself from the DA and is not out of his house he will also end up with a loss of his house all because he was robbed by a thug (and from the looks an up-and-comming professional thug).

No upside - and it was aggravated by the DA and outside sources more concerned with a thief than law or personal property and rights.

DinFreemont said:

No upside - and it was aggravated by the DA and outside sources more concerned with a thief than law or personal property and rights.

Click to expand...

Anyone know the numbers on that? What was his $5000 in legal costs for? Just to retain counsel? If someone is in a similar incident as a homeowner how much counsel are you likely to need if it's a "clean" shoot? There was the case in Boulder a few years ago where the DA opted not to prosecute. What would be the aftermath of the shoot, knowing that ultimately you're not likely to be charged? The police would likely at least take you into custody to get a statement. May or may not hold you (which you might have to get a bond if you don't have cash for bail). You could get a lawyer for counsel while you give a statement, but I suppose you don't NEED one unless you're charged.

I'm just trying to think of what Kutchin's legal costs might have been if not just having counsel present while he gave his statement.

Colorado was the first state in the nation to adopt the Castle Doctrine, or "Make my day law." No prosecution for any crime can occur when deadly force is used in your domicile. You do not need to mount an affirmative defense. It is 'protected' conduct via the law. Colorado also does not allow civil suits against the homeowner for wrongful death or any other BS from some shyster lawyer on the civil side of the action, so I don't know what legal fees they're talking about--can't follow the link, either.
A scumbag broke into someone's home and was killed. TFB, imo. I don't care what color the scumbag was, or what kind of beer he drank. He got what he deserved. Hard on his family? Maybe they should have done something years ago to prevent it. Ran with a bad bunch? His own ******* choice to break into that house. Deprived youth? Lot of that going around and most turn out to be decent, law abiding citizens. Guess he won't do it again.

Gunslinger said:

Colorado was the first state in the nation to adopt the Castle Doctrine, or "Make my day law." No prosecution for any crime can occur when deadly force is used in your domicile. You do not need to mount an affirmative defense. It is 'protected' conduct via the law. Colorado also does not allow civil suits against the homeowner for wrongful death or any other BS from some shyster lawyer on the civil side of the action, so I don't know what legal fees they're talking about--can't follow the link, either.
A scumbag broke into someone's home and was killed. TFB, imo. I don't care what color the scumbag was, or what kind of beer he drank. He got what he deserved. Hard on his family? Maybe they should have done something years ago to prevent it. Ran with a bad bunch? His own ******* choice to break into that house. Deprived youth? Lot of that going around and most turn out to be decent, law abiding citizens. Guess he won't do it again.

Click to expand...

Howdy Gunslinger!
Well said, and I agree with everything you've said regarding home defense.
In my home, we have weapons for our defense. We have an alarm system for prevention of intrusion. We have signs posted to indicate that fact. And we have the dog, likely to be the first to greet an intruder and that can also be unpleasant considering he has the right to keep and bear teeth.

Somebody busts into my home, their next visit is very likely to be the morgue.

However when an intruder hears me rack my Mossburg 12 ga pump (Which is quite loud, btw) or hears the slide on my Ruger .40 as I cock the weapon, I'm willing to bet they'll be gone before I can get off a round! (actually I keep a round in the chamber with safety on, but I might rack the slide just for effect)

That's the best way. That way he lives to tell all his chums how he almost got shot dead on the spot by a homeowner ready and willing to defend his home! That might dissuade other felons from trying to enter my home with nefarious intent.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

M-Taliesin said:

That's the best way. That way he lives to tell all his chums how he almost got shot dead on the spot by a homeowner ready and willing to defend his home! That might dissuade other felons from trying to enter my home with nefarious intent.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I had a conversation with our town's PD chief to that effect. He noted how many CCW holders there were in town. I said I wished we could advertise that to keep criminal activity at its low levels.

Gunslinger said:

Colorado was the first state in the nation to adopt the Castle Doctrine, or "Make my day law." No prosecution for any crime can occur when deadly force is used in your domicile. You do not need to mount an affirmative defense. It is 'protected' conduct via the law. Colorado also does not allow civil suits against the homeowner for wrongful death or any other BS from some shyster lawyer on the civil side of the action, so I don't know what legal fees they're talking about--can't follow the link, either.

Click to expand...

A quote from the article says, "The Denver District Attorney’s office cleared Kutchin of any criminal wrongdoing, ruling his actions were justified under Colorado law."

Another quote says, "Kutchin said beyond the anguish over what happened, he has spent $5,000 on attorneys fees, another $1,000 on his insurance deductible and countless hours dealing with police, prosecutors and court personnel." Therefore, I believe sometime during the course of spending "countless hours dealing with police, prosecutors and court personnel," he felt compelled to hire an attorney.

What would really help take a bite out of crime is if a DA didn't drag the victim through the coals, but instead examined the evidence and made a good, solid decision EARLY in the process, instead of searching for each and every possible chink in the victim's circumstances. It should go something like this: "Three days ago three perps, at least one of whom was armed, broke into one home, fled at the alarm, broke into another, aimed a firearm at the homeowner, who shot one of the perps. The other two fled. The perp who was shot was high on alcohol, MJ, and opiates, and died at the scene. Colorado's Castle Law says this is justified, so no charges will be filed against Kutcher. Case closed."

Seriously: THREE DAYS. That's all it's taken in other citizes, including here in the Springs. The attorney fees came into play because the DA did NOT make a timely decision, and instead arbitrarily and capriciously CHOSE to drag the victim through "countless hours dealing with police, prosecutors and court personnel."

DA's fault for making a BAD decision. I'd sue him for the fees resulting from him either intentionally not doing his job, dragging his feet, or simply being incompenant.

As for the ma and grandma of the perp, I believe the reason behind Kutchin's decision not to sue them has more to do with his choice, a healthy one in my opinion, to persue healing in this matter, and hopefully for everyone.

On another note, I find the comments following the article almost totally support Kutchin and villify the criminal. As it should be.

He could have killed all of them. When you shoot, shoot center mass.with a gun pointing at him he did the right thing.

M-Taliesin said:

However when an intruder hears me rack my Mossburg 12 ga pump (Which is quite loud, btw) or hears the slide on my Ruger .40 as I cock the weapon, I'm willing to bet they'll be gone before I can get off a round! (actually I keep a round in the chamber with safety on, but I might rack the slide just for effect)

That's the best way. That way he lives to tell all his chums how he almost got shot dead on the spot by a homeowner ready and willing to defend his home! That might dissuade other felons from trying to enter my home with nefarious intent.

Click to expand...

Most times a little "fear of God" will do wonders.

since9 said:

DA's fault for making a BAD decision. I'd sue him for the fees resulting from him either intentionally not doing his job, dragging his feet, or simply being incompenant.

Click to expand...

Howdy Since9!
Not to mention, the D.A. completely denied the man's rights under the Colorado Constitution; Article 2, Section 13 and even more specifically by Colorado Revised Statute:
C.S.R. 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.

From my understanding, this man's civil liberties were abused. His civil rights were trampled and I agree he should consider filing suit against the D.A. on that basis.

Nothing in the language of C.S.R. 18-1-704.5 is in the least ambiguous.
The home owner defended his home against an armed intruder and was presented with the imminent threat of being shot. He fired in self defense, believing his life was in imminent peril.

Seems open and shut to me, and the homeowner was within his rights to fire in self defense. The D.A. is just as wrong as the kid who broke into his home. In the latter's case, he was dead wrong.

Law has little value when those sworn to uphold such laws ignore them, as seems to be the case with the D.A. in this matter. He should be sued to help restore his perspective regarding laws he has sworn by oath to uphold.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

M-Taliesin said:

Howdy Since9!
Not to mention, the D.A. completely denied the man's rights under the Colorado Constitution; Article 2, Section 13 and even more specifically by Colorado Revised Statute:
C.S.R. 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.

From my understanding, this man's civil liberties were abused. His civil rights were trampled and I agree he should consider filing suit against the D.A. on that basis.

Nothing in the language of C.S.R. 18-1-704.5 is in the least ambiguous.
The home owner defended his home against an armed intruder and was presented with the imminent threat of being shot. He fired in self defense, believing his life was in imminent peril.

Seems open and shut to me, and the homeowner was within his rights to fire in self defense. The D.A. is just as wrong as the kid who broke into his home. In the latter's case, he was dead wrong.

Law has little value when those sworn to uphold such laws ignore them, as seems to be the case with the D.A. in this matter. He should be sued to help restore his perspective regarding laws he has sworn by oath to uphold.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Click to expand...

I agree. Malfeasance, the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust), is actionable against him and should be sought.

did you guys know they held a candlelight vigil outside this guy's house the night after the shooting?

JamesB said:

Most times a little "fear of God" will do wonders.

Click to expand...

I purposely keep the chamber clear while at home. If there does happen to be an intruder in the dark, then I’ll rack the slide and chamber one (1) .45 round and give them a chance to hear the “security” system and change their mind. If they are stupid then they will not benefit from the warning “rack”.

Plasterman said:

I purposely keep the chamber clear while at home. If there does happen to be an intruder in the dark, then I’ll rack the slide and chamber one (1) .45 round and give them a chance to hear the “security” system and change their mind. If they are stupid then they will not benefit from the warning “rack”.

Click to expand...

Why not keep a round chambered while at home? That way, if you need to employ it immediately you can....and if you feel the need to rack the slide, you only eject the chambered round, leaving you with the same amount of ammo you would have even w/o a round in the chamber.

PikesPeakMtnMan said:

Why not keep a round chambered while at home? That way, if you need to employ it immediately you can....and if you feel the need to rack the slide, you only eject the chambered round, leaving you with the same amount of ammo you would have even w/o a round in the chamber.

Click to expand...

I don't know. I just feel better clearing the chamber when i take it off my hip.

Fuzzy math, but if I have my .45 with 1 in the chamber and 7 more in the clip for a total of 8, I rack the slide, ejecting the one in the chamber, I how have a new round in the chamber and only 6 in the clip total of 7. I know its been a while since I took new math but I am having a hard time seeing that 7=8. The one is on the floor, probably in the dark and of no use to me. Sorry, locked and and loaded means just that. I am fortunate that there is only me in my house and I know that each of my guns is loaded or locked away to keep them from the bad guys.

It really sucks that this guy has been infact put thru hell and back and I can not even imagine what he has to go thru on a daily basis. The laws were on his side but he is being prosecuted by public opinion and the grief of mom and others. Sorry mom, you child made a bad choice and he paid for the bad choice with his life.

Plasterman said:

I purposely keep the chamber clear while at home. If there does happen to be an intruder in the dark, then I’ll rack the slide and chamber one (1) .45 round and give them a chance to hear the “security” system and change their mind. If they are stupid then they will not benefit from the warning “rack”.

Click to expand...

no intruder is getting a warning from me. his warning was the locked door he came through.

bomber said:

no intruder is getting a warning from me. his warning was the locked door he came through.

Click to expand...

I agree.
Should he fail to recognize the door as a warning, the next warning is a/several warning shots into center mass.

JamesB said:

I agree.
Should he fail to recognize the door as a warning, the next warning is a/several warning shots into center mass.

Click to expand...

i don't intend on putting any unnecessary steps between me and my first shot. racking the slide is just an opportunity for a jam, especially in a high stress situation