Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 25 to 34 of 34

Thread: D bags on the prowl

  1. #25
    Member Yearly Supporter Hoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    In a field of brooms!
    Posts
    494

    Re: D bags on the prowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezzzzy1 View Post
    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.

  2. #26
    Senior Member TFOGGuys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    What am I doing in this handbasket?
    Posts
    3,838

    Re: D bags on the prowl

    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)

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Thanks, Jim
    TFOG Wheelsports, LLC
    www.tfogracing.com
    303-216-2400

    Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "undocumented pharmacist"



  3. #27
    Senior Member Ezzzzy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Castle Rock
    Posts
    4,303

    Re: D bags on the prowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOGGuys View Post
    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?
    Mo-Door.com - Contact me for CSC pricing

    Mo-Door on: Twitter Facebook

  4. #28
    Member Yearly Supporter Hoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    In a field of brooms!
    Posts
    494

    Re: D bags on the prowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezzzzy1 View Post
    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.

  5. #29
    Senior Member Ezzzzy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Castle Rock
    Posts
    4,303

    Re: D bags on the prowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoot View Post


    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?

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

    HOOT HOOT!
    Mo-Door.com - Contact me for CSC pricing

    Mo-Door on: Twitter Facebook

  6. #30
    Dog is my co-pilot thankgod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pluto
    Posts
    815

    Re: D bags on the prowl

    Fuck it.... just shoot everybody.Don't you think there would be a point in our evolution where we put the guns aside???
    "When you on the track, you have to be enjoying the moment, you have to be flowing, "Be water, My Friend". You try to be the fastest, and it seems a little beet estupid, 20 riders making the same way, lap by lap, but this simple thing: is very complicated." #99

  7. #31
    Senior Member Ghosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Thornton, CO.
    Posts
    3,626

    Re: D bags on the prowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezzzzy1 View Post
    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*
    .
    .
    .
    I keed, I keeeeeid!
    .
    '08 Yamaha R1 (black), mostly stock. Past bikes: '98 VFR-800 (red), '01 CBR-929RR (white/red), '05 Yamaha R6 (white), '08 Yamaha R1 (blue).
    '94 Supra Turbo 6spd. (black), BUILT motor/head, CompTurbo CT43-xx, '69 Dodge Coronet SuperBee tribute, 440/520 SixPack stroker, auto.

  8. #32
    Gold Member salsashark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    The Malakalaka Balance Board of Trust
    Posts
    8,149

    Re: D bags on the prowl

    Quote Originally Posted by thankgod View Post
    Fuck it.... just shoot everybody.Don't you think there would be a point in our evolution where we put the guns aside???
    nope... they just get bigger

    Do not put off living the life you dream of. Next year may never come. If we are always waiting for something to change...
    Retirement, the kids to leave home, the weather or the economy, that's not living. That's waiting!
    Waiting will only leaves us with unrealized dreams and empty wishes.

  9. #33
    Senior Member TFOGGuys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    What am I doing in this handbasket?
    Posts
    3,838

    Re: D bags on the prowl

    Quote Originally Posted by thankgod View Post
    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.
    Thanks, Jim
    TFOG Wheelsports, LLC
    www.tfogracing.com
    303-216-2400

    Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "undocumented pharmacist"



  10. #34
    Senior Member Aaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    In front of all the slow bikes.
    Posts
    2,190

    Re: D bags on the prowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezzzzy1 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezzzzy1 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezzzzy1 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoot View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Aaron; Tue May 29th, 2012 at 09:10 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Fri Nov 14th, 2008, 02:13 PM
  2. Held Tank Bags? Or other hardmount tank bags?
    By salsashark in forum Gear & Accessories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Fri Apr 18th, 2008, 03:30 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
  •