Carrying a gun can make you see them.

[grim]

And then what if Zimmerman DID chase. What if Zimmerman pulled his gun not his phone? What if martin was fighting for his life and lost. What if a murderer was trying to hide behind a story with no witnesses?

Better yet what if Zimmerman had followed neighborhood watch procedures and stayed in his car. What if Zimmerman had just watched and reported to the police as the guidelines say? Then what if?

IF IF'S AND BUTTS WERE CANDY AND NUTS THEN EVERYDAY WOULD BE ERNTE DANK FEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[#1Townie]

Man if I only had a billion dollars. Lol

[TFOGGuys]

It happened in the Rodney King case.....

But, even if Martin was committing a crime, Z would still not have been legally allowed to shoot him unless he felt his life was in danger. THAT, is the problem. And, since there is only 1 witness, the burden of proof on the prosecuter is going to be enormous, especially in light of the SYG law. I just hope REAL, not lynch mob, justice is done.

Even a man with empty hands can be a lethal threat. The legality of lethal force in self defense does not hinge on the actual threat of death, but in the perceived threat of death or great bodily harm, at least in Colorado (Florida's law is even broader). This is where the jury comes in. If Zimmerman can convince a jury that A) he was not the initiator of the physical confrontation, and B)that he was in fear of death or great bodily harm at the hands of Martin, he'll walk under the statute.

Colorado self defense and lethal force statutes:

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.


Source: L. 85: Entire section added, p. 662, § 1, effective June 6.


Cross references: For limitations on civil suits against persons using physical force in defense of a person or to prevent the commission of a felony, see § 13-80-119.



RECENT ANNOTATIONS

Section does not authorize an appeal from a pretrial order denying immunity. An order denying defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss under the "make-my-day" statute is not a final judgment and therefore not subject to appeal. In general, the jury's verdict subsumes the trial court's pretrial ruling. A defendant may, however, seek review prior to trial under C.A.R. 21. Wood v. People, 255 P.3d 1136 (Colo. 2011).



ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Self-Defense in Colorado", see 24 Colo. Law. 2717 (1995).

Prerequisite for immunity under this section is an unlawful entry into the dwelling, meaning a knowing, criminal entry. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).

To be immune from prosecution under this section a defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had a reasonable belief that the intruder was committing or intended to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry. This inquiry focuses on the reasonable belief of the occupant, not on the actual conduct of the intruder. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).

Sufficient evidence existed to support trial court's denial of defendant's pre-trial motion to dismiss on the basis defendant had not met his burden as established by the supreme court. People v. Janes, 962 P.2d 315 (Colo. App. 199.

Trial court is authorized to dismiss criminal prosecution at pretrial stage when conditions of statute are satisfied, and this does not infringe upon prosecution's discretion to file charges. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987); Young v. District Court, 740 P.2d 982 (Colo. 1987).

Defendant bears burden of establishing right to immunity by preponderance of evidence when issue of immunity is raised at pre-trial stage. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987); People v. Eckert, 919 P.2d 962 (Colo. App. 1996).

Fact that a homicide victim was on the defendant's porch does not permit the defendant to claim immunity from prosecution for unlawful entry to defendant's dwelling unless the court finds that defendant believed that the victim intended to commit a crime or use physical force against the defendant. People v. Young, 825 P.2d 1004 (Colo. App. 1991).

Defendant may still raise immunity as defense at trial when pretrial motion to dismiss is denied. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987).

For purposes of this section, the common areas of an apartment building do not constitute a dwelling. People v. Cushinberry, 855 P.2d 18 (Colo. App. 1993).

Where pretrial motion to dismiss on grounds of statutory immunity provided in this section is denied, defendant may raise it as an affirmative defense at trial. In such case, the burden of proof which is generally applicable to affirmative defenses would apply. People v. Malczewski, 744 P.2d 62 (Colo. 1987).

Section does not authorize an appeal from the pretrial order denying immunity. People v. Wood, 230 P.3d 1223 (Colo. App. 2009).

Because this section creates an immunity defense as well as an affirmative defense, and because the burden of proof for each defense is different, when raised at trial, this section poses special problems when instructing a jury. In such a case, instruction based on language from People v. McNeese, which dealt with pretrial immunity, must be put into context so as not to confuse or mislead the jury about the burden of proof with respect to an affirmative defense raised at trial. People v. Janes, 982 P.2d 300 (Colo. 1999).

Defendant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to immunity under this section where he could not show the struggle and wounding of the victim took place in defendant's bedroom of the house he shared with the victim. People v. Eckert, 919 P.2d 962 (Colo. App. 1996).

Trial court did not commit reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that it need only determine whether the victim made an unlawful entry into a part of a dwelling that was occupied by defendant, as defendant failed to show that the bedroom was exclusively his province and that the victim's entry into the bedroom was unlawful. People v. Eckert, 919 P.2d 962 (Colo. App. 1996).

Instruction requiring jury to find that defendant had a reasonable belief that victim "had committed" a crime and omitting "was committing or intended to commit" a crime was erroneous but did not constitute plain error. There was no evidence that the victim's entry into defendant's house was unlawful and, therefore, no basis on which a reasonable jury could have otherwise acquitted defendant under this section. People v. Phillips, 91 P.3d 476 (Colo. App. 2004).

Jury instructions in error. Jury instruction that states that entry into a dwelling "must have been made in knowing violation of the law" could mislead the jury and thus is in error. Language is misleading in that it could be taken to mean that an intruder must know his or her conduct violates a criminal statute rather than that the intruder must not have a reasonable belief that his or her entry is licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged. People v. Zukowski, __ P.3d __ (Colo. App. 2010).

Jury instruction that states "[a]n entry made in the good faith belief that it is lawful, is not an entry made in knowing violation of the criminal law" allows an interpretation that the entry would not be unlawful under the make-my-day statute, and, thus, the instruction is also in error. An intruder may act under a mistaken belief of fact that he or she was lawfully on the premises and that this type of entry would not be unlawful under the make-my-day statute. A mistaken belief that an entry, although uninvited, is lawful does not make it lawful. People v. Zukowski, __ P.3d __ (Colo. App. 2010).

Trial court erred in interpreting subsection (2) as including the concept of "remain lawfully" within the statutory phrase "unlawful entry". Defendant failed to establish the legal elements of this section to bar prosecution where the victim was initially invited into defendant's residence and, after arguing, was later asked to leave. People v. Drennon, 860 P.2d 589 (Colo. App. 1993).

The reference to "uninvited entry" in subsection (2) refers back to the term "unlawful entry" used in the same subsection. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).

Victim's entry was unlawful and uninvited for the purposes of statute providing immunity for use of force where wife of murder victim did not have authority to invite the decedent into defendant's apartment and was staying with the defendant on the condition that she not invite the victim into defendant's apartment. People v. McNeese, 865 P.2d 881 (Colo. App. 1993).

When this section is being used as an affirmative defense, it is error for a jury instruction to place the burden on the defendant to prove the affirmative defense. People v. Janes, 962 P.2d 315 (Colo. App. 199.

Applied in People v. Arellano, 743 P.2d 431 (Colo. 1987).

[#1Townie]

Yeah what he said. But in less words. Can we post whore this thing yet?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Even a man with empty hands can be a lethal threat. The legality of lethal force in self defense does not hinge on the actual threat of death, but in the perceived threat of death or great bodily harm, at least in Colorado (Florida's law is even broader). This is where the jury comes in. If Zimmerman can convince a jury that A) he was not the initiator of the physical confrontation, and B)that he was in fear of death or great bodily harm at the hands of Martin, he'll walk under the statute.

Colorado self defense and lethal force statutes:

Exactly. I mentioned this before. I guarantee, I get someone on the ground and start punching them, start to crush their trachea, or pounding their head into a hard surface, there isn't a jury around that wouldn't convict this particular neanderthal of assault with a deadly weapon.

Exactly why I think, unless they can PROVE he he LIED about being assaulted and rolled around in the grass on his back, and busted his own nose, and bashed the back of his own head on the ground, or any other damning evidence like that, the arrest is a sham to appease the pre-rioting mob. Which is the real shame here, because that will ruin Z's life and force him to waste tons of money on lawyers, but, like I said, think she wasn't picked because she's on the mob's side? We'll see...

[#1Townie]

Exactly. I mentioned this before. I guarantee, I get someone on the ground and start punching them, start to crush their trachea, or pounding their head into a hard surface, there isn't a jury around that wouldn't convict this particular neanderthal of assault with a deadly weapon.

Exactly why I think, unless they can PROVE he he LIED about being assaulted and rolled around in the grass on his back, and busted his own nose, and bashed the back of his own head on the ground, or any other damning evidence like that, the arrest is a sham to appease the pre-rioting mob. Which is the real shame here, because that will ruin Z's life and force him to waste tons of money on lawyers, but, like I said, think she wasn't picked because she's on the mob's side? We'll see...

Yeah im guessing that's why they filed charges.

[Ezzzzy1]

What if he wasnt chasing him? What if he followed Treyvon because he looked suspicious, called 911 and when the operator told him to stop following him he did. What if Treyvon went back and kicked Zimmermans ass and then Zimmerman shot him? You still think Zimmerman is a DB?

And then what if Zimmerman DID chase. What if Zimmerman pulled his gun not his phone? What if martin was fighting for his life and lost. What if a murderer was trying to hide behind a story with no witnesses?

Better yet what if Zimmerman had followed neighborhood watch procedures and stayed in his car. What if Zimmerman had just watched and reported to the police as the guidelines say? Then what if?

The difference between these two statements/questions is that one is fact from Zimmerman the only living witness. They are not "what ifs", they are in fact what happened based on the only person that KNOWS what happened.

Edit: Im sure where we differ Townie is that you do not believe Zimmerman told the truth, as I recall you said that no one tells the truth, but in doing that you are trying him and basically finding him guilty in your head without a trial. To many people are doubting what Zimmerman has said and all that does is open up the door for the same people to "make up" what happened that night.

[Ezzzzy1]

Exactly. I mentioned this before. I guarantee, I get someone on the ground and start punching them, start to crush their trachea, or pounding their head into a hard surface, there isn't a jury around that wouldn't convict this particular neanderthal of assault with a deadly weapon.

Exactly why I think, unless they can PROVE he he LIED about being assaulted and rolled around in the grass on his back, and busted his own nose, and bashed the back of his own head on the ground, or any other damning evidence like that, the arrest is a sham to appease the pre-rioting mob. Which is the real shame here, because that will ruin Z's life and force him to waste tons of money on lawyers, but, like I said, think she wasn't picked because she's on the mob's side? We'll see...

Do you think they could get murder 2nd if they were able to prove that he in fact chased Treyvon, Treyvon turned around and beat the shit out of him and then Zimmerman shot him? Basically everything the facts state but without Zimmerman retreating and Treyvon following him and then assaulting him.

[CaptGoodvibes]

The difference between these two statements/questions is that one is fact from Zimmerman the only living witness. They are not "what ifs", they are in fact what happened based on the only person that KNOWS what happened.

Edit: Im sure where we differ Townie is that you do not believe Zimmerman told the truth, as I recall you said that no one tells the truth, but in doing that you are trying him and basically finding him guilty in your head without a trial. To many people are doubting what Zimmerman has said and all that does is open up the door for the same people to "make up" what happened that night.

*sigh* You keep using the word 'fact.' Over and over and over again.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Ezzzzy1]

*sigh* You keep using the word 'fact.' Over and over and over again.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

If Zimmerman is telling the truth (and who are you to say he is not) then everything he has said is indeed FACTS, maing.

What would make you or anyone else, that wasnt there, think that Zimmerman is lying?

[CaptGoodvibes]

You're right. People that kill people never lie about it.

[Ezzzzy1]

You're right. People that kill people never lie about it.

You are saying that an honest person never killed anyone?

So if you killed someone in self defense you would lie about it?

[#1Townie]

No we are saying you can't chase people for no reason and then kill them and claim self defense.

How about another fact. A girl that trayvon was talking to at the time says she heard Zimmerman push martin. If Zimmerman did indeed start that fight..... oh well you know. Hey we wanted a trial. I wanted a jury to hear the evidence. If a grand jury had come back saying there was no evidence I would have been fine.

Are you guys saying that we don't need courts at all? Just listen to everyone and their good word? If everyone was 100% honest I wouldn't have a job. Lol!!!!!!!!!!

Bro none of has said to just skip trial and feed him to the gators. What's wrong with seeing something like this go to a trial?

Again I will ask do any of you really think a jury of 12 will send a man away on no evidence? I mean if Zimmerman is telling the truth he has nothing to worry about. The facts will be the facts and he will go home.

[Ezzzzy1]

No we are saying you can't chase people for no reason and then kill them and claim self defense.

I really think you need to look at intention. There is a huge difference between someone following/chasing you because they want to talk to you and someone following/chasing you because they want to kill you.

How about another fact. A girl that trayvon was talking to at the time says she heard Zimmerman push martin.

Sure, then put her on the stand but dont speculate about it. It really doesnt prove anything. For what its worth, I dont know this chick but I bet she is lying

Honestly if they find out that Zimmerman is lying, I say fry him. I really dont think anyone that you guys are arguing with is defending Zimmerman as much as they are defending his rights.

[#1Townie]

And for some reason the black kid had no rights? So the only living person that can speak on Martina behalf is the one not telling the truth? Lol. Zimmerman wasn't a cop. Hell not even a security guard. He has no authority to stop detain and question anyone. Some random dude with a power trip issue.

[Ezzzzy1]

And for some reason the black kid had no rights? So the only living person that can speak on Martina behalf is the one not telling the truth? Lol.

Well... you are saying that the only person that can speak on behalf of Zimmerman is not telling the truth. Aren't you? And who the hell is Martina?

Zimmerman wasn't a cop. Hell not even a security guard. He has no authority to stop detain and question anyone. Some random dude with a power trip issue.

He didnt need to be a cop or a security guard to take the proactive roll of looking out for his neighborhood and he didnt stop or detain anyone. I totally think he had the authority to ask someone what they were doing in his neighborhood if they looked suspicious and if that person started to run I think he is within his rights to follow them. Just because Zimmerman was '"out of breath on the 911 tapes" doesnt prove that he was "chasing" someone. It proves that he was out of breath but it does not prove why.

[#1Townie]

Well... you are saying that the only person that can speak on behalf of Zimmerman is not telling the truth. Aren't you? And who the hell is Martina?



He didnt need to be a cop or a security guard to take the proactive roll of looking out for his neighborhood and he didnt stop or detain anyone. I totally think he had the authority to ask someone what they were doing in his neighborhood if they looked suspicious and if that person started to run I think he is within his rights to follow them. Just because Zimmerman was '"out of breath on the 911 tapes" doesnt prove that he was "chasing" someone. It proves that he was out of breath but it does not prove why.

Hahahaha there is the no reason to continue this talk with you. He is innocent until proven guilty. He will now gave his day in court. The original investigator wanted him arrested. Now he is. The people.. well most with half a brain wanted to see him stand trial. Now he will.

Ezzzzy you better start seriously checking laws. If you think that kid of behavior is acceptable you might find yourself in a dangerous place. People like me that look out of place don't take kindly to random people not know how to mind their own. Thanks to people from before I have learned the Asshole that wants to jump in and find out what's the problem is my threat.

Enjoy.

[sag]

[salsashark]

[CaptGoodvibes]

You are saying that an honest person never killed anyone?

So if you killed someone in self defense you would lie about it?

Wow. So are you saying a repeat "felon" that was never charged because of his family connections, could not possibly be a cold blooded killer? Don't answer. You are not bothered by facts in this case.

[#1Townie]

Hahahaha!

[Ezzzzy1]

Wow. So are you saying a repeat "felon" that was never charged because of his family connections, could not possibly be a cold blooded killer? Don't answer. You are not bothered by facts in this case.

Well, here is my answer

When did I say any of that? I never said any of that.

Fun to watch so many people say what they "think" happened and again you are saying, without any facts, that Zimmerman got off some felony charges BECAUSE of a family connection. Show me this? Show me where it says that he got off felony charges because of a family connection. If it is FACT then I am sure you will not have a hard time finding something that PROVES what you are saying.

[#1Townie]

You spin me right round... lol

[Ezzzzy1]

You spin me right round... lol

How so?