D bags on the prowl

[Moose73]

I was at a friends house this week and I parked my bike right in
front of his house twenty feet from his front door. We were only inside for about
thirty mins as I'm heading out the door with my helmet and gear
I see this guy (well not so much a guy more like a little half a nothing
pussy) with his hand on my triple tree looking down. He must have
heard us coming out because he looks up and starts walking down the
block so I walk towards him he looks back and see's me following him.
He than pulled out a cell phone and starts texting and turns around
Head up the block speed walking so I start following him again.
He gets about fifty feet from me and turns the corner and runs to a
waiting car. I try to get the plate number but it was a temp in the back
window couldn't make it out. I wish I could have got closer to him I would
Have blasted him with my helmet I need a new one anyway lol.
So now I think I might have to get an alarm put on my baby or
start carrying again? So glad I went outside when I did five mins later and
my bike might be gone? I already had a gxser stolen a few years back.
Just wanted to let you all know to keep an eye out sucks to walk out
an see your bike not where you left it. The worst feeling ever!

[Fernman]

I would have tackled him and have my friend put his arm through the rear wheel as I tried to do a burn out, I'm sick of these crooks.

[AOK303]

'you need to tell what area you were in that it happened

[mdub]

I think he is in cherry hills

[Ezzzzy1]

Treyvon?

[willb003]

Where were you? What kinda of car? What did the dude look like?

[Ghosty]

Damn, CherryHills is a real nice area. Should've tackled him and held him until the cops came! Then tell the officer that you're pretty sure he was vandalizing your bike, hence you thought a crime WAS committed already, even if he didn't steal it.

I'm not a lawyer though, so don't know the legality of this. Anyone know?...

[Moose73]

The guy was Asian and the car he hopped in was an older white
white four door Toyota something not sure. This happened up north
in Arvada.

[willb003]

Some idiot wrecked into my work truck last night, and I was talking to the Cop just now. He said there were a lot of cars and bikes being reported stolen this morning.

[tecknojoe]

Carrying a gun isnt the solution. I believe it is against the law to protect personal property with lethal force

[Ezzzzy1]

Carrying a gun isnt the solution. I believe it is against the law to protect personal property with lethal force

Sure but it sure makes protecting what is yours easier... As in: now I can tell them to fuck off and if they dont like it they can make a mess out of the situation followed by the mess I make out of the situation.

If I saw someone trying to steal my bike and told them to leave and they started walking towards me (while this would be argued publicly) I would probably draw, tell them to stop. If they didnt stop they would probably not be happy with what happened next.

Correct me if I am wrong someone, but I believe I would be within my rights? Yes/no?

[Moose73]

It is against the law I was joking about carrying. It should be legal to
take people like that out and beat the shit out of them and not get busted?

[thankgod]

Carrying a gun isnt the solution. I believe it is against the law to protect personal property with lethal force

Yeah you can't just shoot someone cause they are looking at your bike, your life must be put in imminant danger. You can't shoot em in the back either. And you can't brandish a weapon (ie picking up your shirt and showing them you pack heat) If they came at you in the Toyota and tried to hit you then yes, light them the fuck up,If you have your weapon, same thing at home, if someone breaks into your place I'm pretty sure that if you have it posted on your house somewhere, "make my day" law, you can defend yourself with lethal force if your life is in danger, or you feel it's in danger. It's crazy, Can anyone confirm on some gun laws here in Colorado?

[mauser72]

You dont need to post anything on your house the way the law is written is if some one commits two crimes in your house ie breaking in or unlawfull entry and then steals something or will not leave when asked to. If you ever have to use this law be sure to say that you saw them going through your stuff or they made threats at you, them just walking into your house is not enough.

[Aaron]

I advocate concealed carry of firearms. If you ever meet me, I guarantee I have a gun on me. I always carry, everywhere. But I am in a different position than most all of you. I have more training, likely more experience, and I absolutely do not want to kill someone. The last sentence there is critical if you are going to conceal a gun. You have to not want to use it, and not want people to know you have it. Several posts advocate lying about facts to justify you killing someone. This disgusts me. If you ever take someone's life, you will have to say what happened probably 150 times over, on camera most of the time. And you will have to describe the entire incident in thorough detail, second by second. If you formulate a lie to cover yourself because you wanted to plug a thug, you will slip eventually, some details will change, and you'll end up in a very sticky situation.

When you kill someone, you are the offender of a homicide. Period. You will never get away from the fact that you committed a homicide. Your only hope is that the facts surrounding the case are enough to justify your homicide, protecting you from liability.

Fact of the matter is, you are expected to have more restraint than anyone else, including a Police Officer, when you are carrying a gun.


Damn, CherryHills is a real nice area. Should've tackled him and held him until the cops came! Then tell the officer that you're pretty sure he was vandalizing your bike, hence you thought a crime WAS committed already, even if he didn't steal it.

I'm not a lawyer though, so don't know the legality of this. Anyone know?...

In this case, there's not a cop in America who would charge you for tackling and holding him until the cops came, even without you lying about him vandalizing your bike. But, he did not do enough to warrant a criminal charge unfortunately. So you'd both be let go. But this is a benefit as he might learn a lesson, and if he's got warrants he'll still be taking a ride.


Carrying a gun isnt the solution. I believe it is against the law to protect personal property with lethal force

Absolutely it is.


Sure but it sure makes protecting what is yours easier... As in: now I can tell them to fuck off and if they dont like it they can make a mess out of the situation followed by the mess I make out of the situation.

If I saw someone trying to steal my bike and told them to leave and they started walking towards me (while this would be argued publicly) I would probably draw, tell them to stop. If they didnt stop they would probably not be happy with what happened next.

Correct me if I am wrong someone, but I believe I would be within my rights? Yes/no?

This post bothers me. I'm all for Concealed Carry, and I'm all for using some physical force to restrain somebody until the Police come. But you're advocating drawing your weapon, when this situation cannot even transform to one where you could legally use it. This is a problem we encounter with carriers all too often, they get into a relatively minor situation, and they escalate it to a deadly one rapidly without cause.

Let's start with this. You should not draw your weapon, or give any indication that you have a weapon, unless you have to use it. Remember, you are expected to retreat first. You should never draw your weapon as a threat. However once you draw your weapon, you need to pause and threaten, and then re-evaluate the situation prior to firing shots.


Yeah you can't just shoot someone cause they are looking at your bike, your life must be put in imminant danger. You can't shoot em in the back either. And you can't brandish a weapon (ie picking up your shirt and showing them you pack heat) If they came at you in the Toyota and tried to hit you then yes, light them the fuck up,If you have your weapon, same thing at home, if someone breaks into your place I'm pretty sure that if you have it posted on your house somewhere, "make my day" law, you can defend yourself with lethal force if your life is in danger, or you feel it's in danger. It's crazy, Can anyone confirm on some gun laws here in Colorado?

More or less accurate, until the residence part. The "Make my Day" law simply states that if someone forcefully enters your residence, you may use deadly force. That's it. You need not warn them, post it, or even be threatened. Just the act of them entering your residence unlawfully has been established as a threat to your life, and citizens should not be expected to retreat from their residence.


You dont need to post anything on your house the way the law is written is if some one commits two crimes in your house ie breaking in or unlawfull entry and then steals something or will not leave when asked to. If you ever have to use this law be sure to say that you saw them going through your stuff or they made threats at you, them just walking into your house is not enough.

Does not even need to have the crimes part, so long as they enter unlawfully. But if you front door is wide open, and you kill the first guy to walk in, you will probably be going to jail. Although the law states entering unlawfully, you should probably restrain unless they force entry. Best solution? Don't ever leave your doors unlocked.

[Ezzzzy1]

This post bothers me. I'm all for Concealed Carry, and I'm all for using some physical force to restrain somebody until the Police come. But you're advocating drawing your weapon, when this situation cannot even transform to one where you could legally use it. This is a problem we encounter with carriers all too often, they get into a relatively minor situation, and they escalate it to a deadly one rapidly without cause.

I understand how it could bother you but what bothers me is that if someone is trying to steal something that is mine, you are saying, I need to retreat? No way. I have to be well within my rights to tell them to stop and if they approach me I feel I should have the right to draw my gun. And trust me in a situation like this I would be fully prepared to use it.

Im not sure how minor of a situation I consider it to be when I catch someone trying to steal something of mine and am in no way trying to "transform" the situation. What I am doing is protecting what is mine.

I will say it like this. If I didnt have a gun on me when I caught someone stealing something of mine, I may not say something. Why, well because I have no means of protecting myself if the thief has a gun. Now if I have a gun I know that I could protect myself if things took a turn. If the thief is breaking the law and you tell them to stop, if they dont retreat and they approach me, they are essentially threatening me. If they dont listen to my commands to stop (approaching me), I now fear for my life and would make them stop.

This is how a cop would deal with the situation, and not to be a smart ass, but why wouldnt I be able to protect myself the same way you would?

[Aaron]

Your opinion of the law is completely flawed. You're wrong. You do have the duty to retreat. That being said, there's not a Police Officer in America that will hold you accountable if you choose to get involved. So get involved, but don't escalate the situation.

So, let's walk through the situation you just outlined. You tell the person to stop, they instead walk toward you. You tell them again to stop, they again refuse to comply. This is not a deadly force scenario, sorry. Your life is not in danger. You may feel you have the right to draw your gun, but you don't. This case exactly, I'd probably arrest you, depending on a lot more circumstances (Time of day, his size, where his hands were, what you saw him doing, etc). You are completely justified to use physical force and to restrain him until the Police arrive, but your gun has no place in this situation as you've described it.

Someone stealing your stuff is a minor situation. I'm sorry, but it is. It is a property crime. No one's life was in danger until you escalated it.

A cop would not kill somebody for walking toward them. I have used force plenty of times for this same thing, but never deadly force. There's a big difference. I'd be hard-pressed to even tase someone for this.

[tecknojoe]

Don't get me wrong, the guy was probably looking to steal the OP's bike. Just wanted to note that you can't just brandish / and or shoot at someone.

I don't know about colorado, but in Virginia: If someone breaks into you house and is stealing your shit. If you come downstairs and they drop it and attempt to leave, you cannot shoot them.

Although many people argue, well if he's not alive then he's not there to tell anyone otherwise.

Personally, I wouldn't want a bloody mess followed by years of court troubles over a motorcycle

[Hoot]

Your opinion of the law is completely flawed. You're wrong. You do have the duty to retreat. That being said, there's not a Police Officer in America that will hold you accountable if you choose to get involved. So get involved, but don't escalate the situation.

So, let's walk through the situation you just outlined. You tell the person to stop, they instead walk toward you. You tell them again to stop, they again refuse to comply. This is not a deadly force scenario, sorry. Your life is not in danger. You may feel you have the right to draw your gun, but you don't. This case exactly, I'd probably arrest you, depending on a lot more circumstances (Time of day, his size, where his hands were, what you saw him doing, etc). You are completely justified to use physical force and to restrain him until the Police arrive, but your gun has no place in this situation as you've described it.

Someone stealing your stuff is a minor situation. I'm sorry, but it is. It is a property crime. No one's life was in danger until you escalated it.

A cop would not kill somebody for walking toward them. I have used force plenty of times for this same thing, but never deadly force. There's a big difference. I'd be hard-pressed to even tase someone for this.

Sounds like another discussion we have been having. I'm glad to hear a LEO's take on a similar hypothetical situation. Where are obviously differences, but some similarities.

[Ezzzzy1]

Your opinion of the law is completely flawed. You're wrong. You do have the duty to retreat. That being said, there's not a Police Officer in America that will hold you accountable if you choose to get involved. So get involved, but don't escalate the situation.

So, let's walk through the situation you just outlined. You tell the person to stop, they instead walk toward you. You tell them again to stop, they again refuse to comply. This is not a deadly force scenario, sorry. Your life is not in danger. You may feel you have the right to draw your gun, but you don't. This case exactly, I'd probably arrest you, depending on a lot more circumstances (Time of day, his size, where his hands were, what you saw him doing, etc). You are completely justified to use physical force and to restrain him until the Police arrive, but your gun has no place in this situation as you've described it.

Someone stealing your stuff is a minor situation. I'm sorry, but it is. It is a property crime. No one's life was in danger until you escalated it.

A cop would not kill somebody for walking toward them. I have used force plenty of times for this same thing, but never deadly force. There's a big difference. I'd be hard-pressed to even tase someone for this.

Hey, I am just trying to understand the law, at least from your standpoint.

So someone is stealing my stuff and I have the duty to retreat? Weird. It, at this point, almost seems like the law protects the criminal.

I just blindly asked my neighbor (state patrol) what he would do if he caught someone trying to steal something, told them to stop and the person started walking towards them. You know what he said? .... Its a no brainer, of course I would draw my pistol. And you know what he said he would do if the person did not stop walking towards him? Yep, you guessed it. As weird as it sounds I feel like a lot of cops would do the same thing.

Most every time a cop shoots someone, that doesnt have a weapon, the person getting shot is moving towards the officer. It is viewed as a threat and would justify deadly force for an officer. I just kinda see it as a double standard.

In a criminal situation (meaning someone is stealing something from me) I think I should be allowed to assume that I can not trust the person and that the are indeed a threat. I feel that they (the criminal) have the right to retreat when I tell them to stop. If they choose to not retreat and direct their attention to me how am I breaking the brandishing laws by pulling out my gun and if they continue to walk towards me how am I breaking the laws that revolve around fearing for my life? Especially when an officer could pull the trigger only fearing for their safety.

[Ezzzzy1]

What you are saying is that if I have a gun on me and I see someone stealing I am allowed to tell them to stop and use physical force to restrain them until the police show up. The only time I could use my gun is if I tried to restrain them and couldnt. They stared to beat me and I was able to reach for my pistol. Then I would be justified in shooting them.

Back-ass-words. I wish that thiefs (all of them) knew they would get shot by someone that caught them stealing. Instead they actually have the law protecting them and their wrongful doings.

[thankgod]

Got this from AWARE.ORG...."If you are like me, you need a simple rule, one that is easy to understand, applies virtually everywhere, "feels right" morally and ethically, and is so clearly within the bounds of laws everywhere that you feel safe applying it. Here is that rule:
You are justified in using lethal force against another human being if, and only if, there is immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to an innocent person.
To understand this fully, let's unpack it phrase by phrase, and see how it applies to specific situations.
Immediate danger. The danger has to be right here, right now. Not a danger that has already past. If you shoot someone after he has already committed and completed a crime, that is revenge, "taking the law into your own hands," or vigilantism (which is both immoral and illegal), not justifiable self-defense. The danger can't be one that is far in the future, either. If someone threatens that he will kill you tomorrow, you are not justified in shooting him today! But if someone tries to drag you into a van, you don't have to wait until he actually starts to rape you to defend yourself.
Unavoidable danger. This one is tricky. As far as I know, no state requires that you retreat in your own home if attacked. But it might be prudent to do so if it is possible without endangering yourself or anyone else. Every self defense instructor I've ever know, regardless of whether they teach awareness, chemical sprays, defensive tactics, martial arts,, or firearms, says that avoiding, or running away from, a confrontation is by far the best thing to do, if possible. Some men have a lot of trouble with this concept, having been raised on the macho premise that they must never back down or run away. Most women have no trouble at all with this concept, much preferring to run away from an assault than to stay and fight, even if they are armed and know they could "win" a confrontation.
Danger of death. That seems clear enough, but still requires some thought. Is a rapist putting you in danger of death, even though he says he won't hurt you? Yes. Given the facts about AIDS, and the fact that rapists have a higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases than the general population, there's a good chance that one of the consequences of rape could be death.
Danger of grave bodily harm. A slap on the face, though painful and definitely an assault, is probably not grave bodily harm, but a punch from the fist of a strong man is a different matter. Broken bones and stab wounds definitely qualify. So does rape. And remember that they don't have to be actually inflicted, the fact that you are in immediate and unavoidable danger of them is sufficient. Does this mean that you can shoot someone, explain later that "he said he was going to punch me", and expect that the police will treat it as self-defense? No, life isn't that simple.
Notice that nothing is said in this rule about danger to property. That's because it is not justified to shoot someone to protect mere "stuff". Although some possible exceptions to this rule might make an interesting column, the emotional, legal, and financial consequences of shooting someone are so extreme that it is hard to reconcile them with protecting your purse, or a TV set, or even the family silver. My first firearms license said on the back that it was issued for "protection of life and propery", but I didn't believe it then, and I believe it even less now. Protection of life, yes. Property, no.
To an innocent person. This part is a little complicated. To be completely justified in using your gun against someone else, you need to be "innocent". If you knowingly provoke a drunk, unstable person into a rage and he attacks you, you may find that some member of the jury who will eventually consider your manslaughter case says to himself, "She shouldn't have provoked him". There's a lot of gray area here for the lawyers and the press to frolic in. Since it will be in somebody's best interest to try to make you look bad after the fact, the only way to protect yourself is to be squeaky clean, and develop habits that maintain your innocence. Don't ever threaten to kill other people, even in jest. Don't drink if you are carrying. Don't ever think or say that having a gun makes it possible for you to go into dangerous areas that you would avoid if you weren't armed (that can be twisted into the perception that you deliberately went into a danger zone because you wanted the opportunity to use your gun).
There's another tricky part to this "innocent" business. Suppose you are walking in an unfamiliar area at night, and come across a scruffy-looking man holding a fairly well-dressed man at gunpoint in a parking lot. Should you whip out your gun and shoot the scruff? Before you do, consider the fact that he might be an undercover police officer arresting a drug dealer. The fact is, you don't know, in most situations where strangers are involved, whether the person apparently being threatened is innocent or not. In such cases, it is generally better to find some other way of dealing with the situation, such as getting out of there and calling the police, who are better trained, equipped, and experienced in telling the good guys from the bad ones.
The point is that if you are like the women I've talked to who have been through terrifying situations, you will know in your heart, when you are in the middle of one, whether you can reasonably try to get away, whether the threats you are hearing are bluff or truth, whether you are in terrible danger or not. You must make the judgment as to whether you are in immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm, and act accordingly.
If you have never been attacked, it is natural to wonder how you would react, and whether you would be able to judge the situation properly. But when reality happens to you, you are very likely to find that you have no trouble at all knowing that you are in immediate and unavoidable danger. What you do then will depend on how you have trained yourself (mentally as well as physically) to react.
Next month we will look at some specific situations, and evaluate them against the criterion of "immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm". Some situations are clear cut, many have shades of gray. One thing to ask yourself when analyzing a "what if" scenario is what additional information you would need in order to feel comfortable with a "shoot" or "don't shoot" decision. The more you think about these things in advance, the more confident you will become in your ability to make a good decision under stress"

[Moose73]

Wow I was just trying to let people know to get a close eye on there rides
so they dont have some punk them. I did not intend for it to turn into a gun
law thread sorry.

[Hoot]

Hey, I am just trying to understand the law, at least from your standpoint.

So someone is stealing my stuff and I have the duty to retreat? Weird. It, at this point, almost seems like the law protects the criminal.

I just blindly asked my neighbor (state patrol) what he would do if he caught someone trying to steal something, told them to stop and the person started walking towards them. You know what he said? .... Its a no brainer, of course I would draw my pistol. And you know what he said he would do if the person did not stop walking towards him? Yep, you guessed it. As weird as it sounds I feel like a lot of cops would do the same thing.

Most every time a cop shoots someone, that doesnt have a weapon, the person getting shot is moving towards the officer. It is viewed as a threat and would justify deadly force for an officer. I just kinda see it as a double standard.

In a criminal situation (meaning someone is stealing something from me) I think I should be allowed to assume that I can not trust the person and that the are indeed a threat. I feel that they (the criminal) have the right to retreat when I tell them to stop. If they choose to not retreat and direct their attention to me how am I breaking the brandishing laws by pulling out my gun and if they continue to walk towards me how am I breaking the laws that revolve around fearing for my life? Especially when an officer could pull the trigger only fearing for their safety.


The only difference I can tell you is that when your neighbor tells someone to stop, he's in uniform and can be plainly seen as a law enforcement officer giving a lawful order. If someone was told by an officer to stop and continued toward them, they have reason to believe they mean them harm.

For you or me, ordinary citizens, telling someone to stop is just one person telling another, and them approaching them you or I would not instantly = grave danger or fear of death.

Just my take on the difference.

[Hoot]

What you are saying is that if I have a gun on me and I see someone stealing I am allowed to tell them to stop and use physical force to restrain them until the police show up. The only time I could use my gun is if I tried to restrain them and couldnt. They stared to beat me and I was able to reach for my pistol. Then I would be justified in shooting them.

Back-ass-words. I wish that thiefs (all of them) knew they would get shot by someone that caught them stealing. Instead they actually have the law protecting them and their wrongful doings.


This would make the most sense, but as they say now a days, common sense ain't so common.

[TFOGGuys]

The law as it related to use of force by citizens for self defense and defense of property:


TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 7. JUSTIFICATION AND EXEMPTIONS FROM CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

C.R.S. 18-1-704 (2011)


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.



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.


18-1-706. Use of physical force in defense of property



A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.

[Ezzzzy1]

This would make the most sense, but as they say now a days, common sense ain't so common.

It might make sense on paper but how much sense does allowing someone to use their gun only after they have been knocked out? It makes none.

Thats why Florida modified their law to "stand your ground". Essentially making it legal to protect yourself with deadly force without having to be assaulted first. Meaning if a group of guys with bats are walking towards you, you do not have to wait for them to beat the shit out of you before you can brandish your weapon and use it legally.


The law as it related to use of force by citizens for self defense and defense of property:


TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 7. JUSTIFICATION AND EXEMPTIONS FROM CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

C.R.S. 18-1-704 (2011)

Thanks for this!

How I read it (and its all up for interpretation), you would be allowed to defend yourself with deadly force if, while defending your property, you felt that you were in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury AND you felt you could not "win" the altercation with a lesser form of physical force.

YES/NO?

[Hoot]

It might make sense on paper but how much sense does allowing someone to use their gun only after they have been knocked out? It makes none.

Thats why Florida modified their law to "stand your ground". Essentially making it legal to protect yourself with deadly force without having to be assaulted first. Meaning if a group of guys with SKITTLES AND TEA are walking AWAY FROM you, do not have to wait for them to beat the shit out of you before you can brandish your weapon and use it legally.


:)

Ok i'm done beating that dead horse.

I think the student up at CU who was shot while intoxicated is a scenario that is exactly what we are talking about here. She entered illegally and then was told to leave and then the homeowners used their weapon.

[Ezzzzy1]

:)

Ok i'm done beating that dead horse.

I think the student up at CU who was shot while intoxicated is a scenario that is exactly what we are talking about here. She entered illegally and then was told to leave and then the homeowners used their weapon.

I win? :lol:

I appreciate the conversation man and the point is, for me, to gain clarity on the laws. Nothing more or less. Knowledge.

HOOT HOOT!

[thankgod]

Fuck it.... just shoot everybody.:sniper:Don't you think there would be a point in our evolution where we put the guns aside???

[Ghosty]

Meaning if a group of guys with Skittles are walking towards you, you do not have to wait for them to pelt the shit out of you with deadly candies before you can brandish your weapon and use it legally.
*fixed* :D
.
.
.
I keed, I keeeeeid! ;)

[salsashark]

Fuck it.... just shoot everybody.:sniper:Don't you think there would be a point in our evolution where we put the guns aside???

nope... they just get bigger

http://www.onemetal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Aliens02.jpg

[TFOGGuys]

Don't you think there would be a point in our evolution where we put the guns aside???

It would be nice, but reality is that until people stop choosing to violently take what they want from those that have it, a gun is the single most effective equalizer one can use.

[Aaron]

Sounds like another discussion we have been having. I'm glad to hear a LEO's take on a similar hypothetical situation. Where are obviously differences, but some similarities.
That's why I openly post here and identify myself, hoping it can do 3 things. Educate you all on the actual application of laws, give an insight into why we do what we do, and try to improve our reputation.


Hey, I am just trying to understand the law, at least from your standpoint.

So someone is stealing my stuff and I have the duty to retreat? Weird. It, at this point, almost seems like the law protects the criminal.

I just blindly asked my neighbor (state patrol) what he would do if he caught someone trying to steal something, told them to stop and the person started walking towards them. You know what he said? .... Its a no brainer, of course I would draw my pistol. And you know what he said he would do if the person did not stop walking towards him? Yep, you guessed it. As weird as it sounds I feel like a lot of cops would do the same thing.

Most every time a cop shoots someone, that doesnt have a weapon, the person getting shot is moving towards the officer. It is viewed as a threat and would justify deadly force for an officer. I just kinda see it as a double standard.

In a criminal situation (meaning someone is stealing something from me) I think I should be allowed to assume that I can not trust the person and that the are indeed a threat. I feel that they (the criminal) have the right to retreat when I tell them to stop. If they choose to not retreat and direct their attention to me how am I breaking the brandishing laws by pulling out my gun and if they continue to walk towards me how am I breaking the laws that revolve around fearing for my life? Especially when an officer could pull the trigger only fearing for their safety.
I understand, it's just a touchy subject for a few reasons.

There is no way you, a cop, or anyone, could ever convince a jury that an unarmed (Or at least hands visible) male walking toward you against your orders poses an imminent deadly threat. Does he pose a threat authorizing some legal force? Absolutely. But deadly? Clearly not.

In all of those cases, there is much more to it than you ever hear about. It was 2am, the Officer was alone, the subject was clearly intoxicated, the call stated he was armed, and the Officer more than likely tried another means of force prior to firing. One of our more recent shootings involved an Officer knocking on a door, the occupant answering with a gun, and the Officer firing. Sounds pretty bad right? Well once you account for everything else, it became obviously justified, if not provoked.


What you are saying is that if I have a gun on me and I see someone stealing I am allowed to tell them to stop and use physical force to restrain them until the police show up. The only time I could use my gun is if I tried to restrain them and couldnt. They stared to beat me and I was able to reach for my pistol. Then I would be justified in shooting them.

Back-ass-words. I wish that thiefs (all of them) knew they would get shot by someone that caught them stealing. Instead they actually have the law protecting them and their wrongful doings.

Exactly what I'm saying. Just like at work I can't just kill people who refuse to follow my verbal commands, I have to escalate force accordingly. Presence, verbal commands, controlling holds, take-down maneuvers, physical force/taser/OC, and deadly force.

I agree with you about the law protecting the criminal. Believe me, it's extremely dis-heartening at times. But that's America. The criminal is still a person, still has rights accordingly, and is presumed innocent.


It might make sense on paper but how much sense does allowing someone to use their gun only after they have been knocked out? It makes none.

Thats why Florida modified their law to "stand your ground". Essentially making it legal to protect yourself with deadly force without having to be assaulted first. Meaning if a group of guys with bats are walking towards you, you do not have to wait for them to beat the shit out of you before you can brandish your weapon and use it legally.

There's a difference between one unarmed guy and a bunch of guys with bats. A bunch of guys with bats? They won't get within 20 feet of me before I open fire. I'm not going to talk Florida law, I don't know it and it does not apply. I also try not to express my opinion on CO law, because it doesn't matter. I can't have an opinion on the law while I'm working, I have to follow what it says (With discretion of course).


How I read it (and its all up for interpretation), you would be allowed to defend yourself with deadly force if, while defending your property, you reasonably felt that you were in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury AND you reasonably felt you could not "win" the altercation with a lesser form of physical force.

YES/NO?

I would agree with that, but add the bolded words. Because at the end of the day, a jury is not going to find a 100lb guy with a plastic force presented a deadly threat.



I think the student up at CU who was shot while intoxicated is a scenario that is exactly what we are talking about here. She entered illegally and then was told to leave and then the homeowners used their weapon.

Like every other case, none of us even have half the details, but the way I read it it clearly falls within the "Make my Day" and the homeowner didn't even have to order her to leave. Speaking of, I handled an almost identical incident a month or so ago (Minus the homicide part of course). Drunk girl thought the house was her's, walked in and made herself at home. Hello felony.