Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Homeowner charged with 1st degree murder
#1
This will be interesting to watch. I thought Castle Doctrine applied to your property as well as inside your home?

The legal analyst interviewed says otherwise.


http://www.9news.com/news/crime/marijuana-theft-could-be-motive-behind-deadly-shooting-of-teen/334983493
Sig Sauer P250 .40 S&W sub-compact
Trijicon night sights
(3) 10 round magazines.

Remington 870 12 ga. pump shotgun
Uncle Mike's Sling Mounts & Hooks | 15 shell sling | 56 shell bandolier | 25 shell belt | 4 chokes | Synthetic Black
10 shot Briley Extension Tube | Plano takedown hardcase

Custom Built AR-15
Surplus Arms & Ammo AR-15 Lower | 5.56 NATO or .223 compatible |
UTG 6 pt adjustable rear stock and buffer spring | Leapers UTG 3x12x44 SWAT Accushot - EZ Tap w/ illuminated reticle |
UTG Adjustable bi-pod | UTG ring scope mounts | Blackthorne 5.56 NATO Upper w/ 20" Bull Varmint Stainless Steel Barrel |
Magpul handguards w/ Delta Ring conventional gas tube setup (no piston) | Chrome Del-ton Bolt Carrier Group | DMPS Charging Handle |
DMPS Trigger | Magpul Trigger Guard | ProMag AR-15/M4 Heavy Duty Recoil Pad | 3 point SWAT Sling and sling hooks |
Nebo Tactical Flashlight and Laser Combo | 3 magpul picatinny rail mounts | Tactical Ergonomic Pistol Grip |
TMS Sling Swivel w/ Base | (20) - 30 round magazines |

Draw
Reply
#2
The way The artical makes it out ( I know it's the liberal anti gun media) , is that the home owner was picking them off with no threat of violence to himself.
The way I understand castle doctrine is that, shooting someone without them posing a threat to life and limb is only allowed inside of the home
Reply
#3
Protecting property is not a valid defense in CO. Neither is protecting animals.
Smileak
Reply
#4
(10-12-2016, 11:45 PM)HannahBearCo Wrote: This will be interesting to watch.  I thought Castle Doctrine applied to your property as well as inside your home?

The legal analyst interviewed says otherwise.

I had a conversation with a self-defense lawyer on this topic. Castle Doctrine requires three items to apply:
  • It must be in a structure, primarily intended as a domicile. This means that a detached garage, or out in the yard doesn't qualify. Also, a motor home doesn't qualify, as it's not a domicile, but just a place to sleep while away from home.
  • The target must have gained entry into the home illegally; this means that if you invite the person into your house, Castle Doctrine won't apply until at some point the person leaves and then comes back.
  • There must be SOME level of force no matter how slight. This means that even just taking an aggressive step towards the home occupant's direction could apply. In Castle Doctrine cases, there has to be force, but it does not have to be deadly force.

(10-15-2016, 07:46 AM)bufordtjustice Wrote: The way The artical makes it out ( I know it's the liberal anti gun media) , is that the home owner was picking them off with no threat of violence to himself.
The way I understand castle doctrine is that, shooting someone without them posing a threat to life and limb is only allowed inside of the home

Correct. It doesn't have to be deadly force from the aggressor, but it does have to be some force, and inside the home.
JackRock
Lakewood, CO
http://ryancash.co
Charter Member, Bristlecone Shooting Center
Reply
#5
(10-15-2016, 02:00 PM)Lead Junkie Wrote: Protecting property is not a valid defense in CO. Neither is protecting animals.


then pulling a gun on unarmed hikers and menacing them shouldn't be legal since protecting property isnt a valid defense and this certainly didn't happen in the landowners structure.

http://www.cogunowners.com/showthread.php?tid=2028
Sig Sauer P250 .40 S&W sub-compact
Trijicon night sights
(3) 10 round magazines.

Remington 870 12 ga. pump shotgun
Uncle Mike's Sling Mounts & Hooks | 15 shell sling | 56 shell bandolier | 25 shell belt | 4 chokes | Synthetic Black
10 shot Briley Extension Tube | Plano takedown hardcase

Custom Built AR-15
Surplus Arms & Ammo AR-15 Lower | 5.56 NATO or .223 compatible |
UTG 6 pt adjustable rear stock and buffer spring | Leapers UTG 3x12x44 SWAT Accushot - EZ Tap w/ illuminated reticle |
UTG Adjustable bi-pod | UTG ring scope mounts | Blackthorne 5.56 NATO Upper w/ 20" Bull Varmint Stainless Steel Barrel |
Magpul handguards w/ Delta Ring conventional gas tube setup (no piston) | Chrome Del-ton Bolt Carrier Group | DMPS Charging Handle |
DMPS Trigger | Magpul Trigger Guard | ProMag AR-15/M4 Heavy Duty Recoil Pad | 3 point SWAT Sling and sling hooks |
Nebo Tactical Flashlight and Laser Combo | 3 magpul picatinny rail mounts | Tactical Ergonomic Pistol Grip |
TMS Sling Swivel w/ Base | (20) - 30 round magazines |

Draw
Reply
#6
I see apples and oranges
Mainly because in one instance no shots were fired and the only thing that got hurt were the hikers feelings.( no deadly force used).
And in the second story the property owner fired on and killed someone without facing them.
Reply
#7
(10-20-2016, 05:58 PM)bufordtjustice Wrote: I see apples and oranges
Mainly because in one instance no shots were fired and the only thing that got hurt were the hikers feelings.( no deadly force used).
And in the second story the property owner fired on and killed someone without facing them.


last i checked its still against the law to pull a gun on someone in a threatening manner and you cant use the excuse that he was defending his property because thar doesnt fly
Sig Sauer P250 .40 S&W sub-compact
Trijicon night sights
(3) 10 round magazines.

Remington 870 12 ga. pump shotgun
Uncle Mike's Sling Mounts & Hooks | 15 shell sling | 56 shell bandolier | 25 shell belt | 4 chokes | Synthetic Black
10 shot Briley Extension Tube | Plano takedown hardcase

Custom Built AR-15
Surplus Arms & Ammo AR-15 Lower | 5.56 NATO or .223 compatible |
UTG 6 pt adjustable rear stock and buffer spring | Leapers UTG 3x12x44 SWAT Accushot - EZ Tap w/ illuminated reticle |
UTG Adjustable bi-pod | UTG ring scope mounts | Blackthorne 5.56 NATO Upper w/ 20" Bull Varmint Stainless Steel Barrel |
Magpul handguards w/ Delta Ring conventional gas tube setup (no piston) | Chrome Del-ton Bolt Carrier Group | DMPS Charging Handle |
DMPS Trigger | Magpul Trigger Guard | ProMag AR-15/M4 Heavy Duty Recoil Pad | 3 point SWAT Sling and sling hooks |
Nebo Tactical Flashlight and Laser Combo | 3 magpul picatinny rail mounts | Tactical Ergonomic Pistol Grip |
TMS Sling Swivel w/ Base | (20) - 30 round magazines |

Draw
Reply
#8
the hikers in question should hire a lawyer and see if a judge agrees that some law was broken.
My bet is a lawyer wouldn't touch it and a judge would dismiss it.
Mainly because as soon as the hikers filed charges the land owners lawyer would file trespassing charges and The land owner would have an easier time proving that they trespassed thanthey would have proving that he acted inappropriately.

Did this actually happen to you and not a "friend" on FB.
Seems you are pretty butt hurt to bring it up again in a different thread.
If you don't want to be told in a rude manner to leave , don't trespass.
I don't
Reply
#9
(10-21-2016, 12:44 PM)bufordtjustice Wrote: the hikers in question should hire a lawyer and see if a judge agrees that some law was broken.
My bet is a lawyer wouldn't touch it and a judge would dismiss it.
Mainly because as soon as the hikers filed charges the land owners lawyer would file trespassing charges and The land owner would have an easier time proving that they trespassed thanthey would have proving that he acted inappropriately.

Did this actually happen to you and not a "friend" on FB.
Seems you are pretty butt hurt to bring it up again in a different thread.
If you don't want to be told in a rude manner to leave , don't trespass.
I don't


no it didnt happen to me. no i am not butthurt.

I just remembered when the shooting happened because they said you cant shoot someone to defend your land, so it made me wonder why pulling a gun on someone that is tresspassing in the form of camping would even be legal.
Sig Sauer P250 .40 S&W sub-compact
Trijicon night sights
(3) 10 round magazines.

Remington 870 12 ga. pump shotgun
Uncle Mike's Sling Mounts & Hooks | 15 shell sling | 56 shell bandolier | 25 shell belt | 4 chokes | Synthetic Black
10 shot Briley Extension Tube | Plano takedown hardcase

Custom Built AR-15
Surplus Arms & Ammo AR-15 Lower | 5.56 NATO or .223 compatible |
UTG 6 pt adjustable rear stock and buffer spring | Leapers UTG 3x12x44 SWAT Accushot - EZ Tap w/ illuminated reticle |
UTG Adjustable bi-pod | UTG ring scope mounts | Blackthorne 5.56 NATO Upper w/ 20" Bull Varmint Stainless Steel Barrel |
Magpul handguards w/ Delta Ring conventional gas tube setup (no piston) | Chrome Del-ton Bolt Carrier Group | DMPS Charging Handle |
DMPS Trigger | Magpul Trigger Guard | ProMag AR-15/M4 Heavy Duty Recoil Pad | 3 point SWAT Sling and sling hooks |
Nebo Tactical Flashlight and Laser Combo | 3 magpul picatinny rail mounts | Tactical Ergonomic Pistol Grip |
TMS Sling Swivel w/ Base | (20) - 30 round magazines |

Draw
Reply
#10
Pulling a gun means pretty much that= removing it from the holster.

Shooting someone and having a gun ready in hand , just in case are two different things.
Reply
#11
The hiking situation is interesting. My interpretation of law is that you can use force to forcefully remove someone from your property if they will not leave. It doesn't clearly define what force is, but my guess is that it will be quite difficult to prove that simply displaying a holt weed weapon was considered brandishing considering the trespassing. As for these marijuana thieves who were shot, I agree that legally this was irresponsible but if you go onto someone's land to steal property, if there is no threat of bodily injury or death, and showing your weapon is considered brandishing, then really what threat can a property owner legally display to prevent a theft in progress on their property outside of a domicile? Sounds like none.
Reply
#12
(11-07-2016, 10:56 AM)coloradominuteman Wrote: The hiking situation is interesting. My interpretation of law is that you can use force to forcefully remove someone from your property if they will not leave. It doesn't clearly define what force is, but my guess is that it will be quite difficult to prove that simply displaying a holt weed weapon was considered brandishing considering the trespassing. As for these marijuana theocracy who were shot, I agree that legally this was irresponsible but if you go onto someone's land to steal property, if there is no threat of bodily injury or death, and showing your weapon is considered brandishing, then really what threat can a property owner legally display to prevent a theft in progress on their property outside of a domicile? Sounds like none.

You might be able to use force (not sure on that, myself), but not deadly force. For deadly force to be used, there has to be a threat against oneself that might cause grievous bodily injury or death. 

If inside a home, AND the aggressor gained entry illegally (i.e., wasn't originally invited in) AND is in the process of committing a crime AND uses some level of force against a legal occupant of that dwelling - then you can use deadly force against the intruder, even if the threat was simply advancing threateningly in your direction.

But outside of the dwelling itself (i.e., the actual structure, not the land upon which it sits), then Self Defense rules apply, and Castle Doctrine does not.
JackRock
Lakewood, CO
http://ryancash.co
Charter Member, Bristlecone Shooting Center
Reply
#13
interesting. there was another shooting regarding a marijuana burglary and first degree murder charges have been dropped.

http://dpo.st/2fO5Wtr
Sig Sauer P250 .40 S&W sub-compact
Trijicon night sights
(3) 10 round magazines.

Remington 870 12 ga. pump shotgun
Uncle Mike's Sling Mounts & Hooks | 15 shell sling | 56 shell bandolier | 25 shell belt | 4 chokes | Synthetic Black
10 shot Briley Extension Tube | Plano takedown hardcase

Custom Built AR-15
Surplus Arms & Ammo AR-15 Lower | 5.56 NATO or .223 compatible |
UTG 6 pt adjustable rear stock and buffer spring | Leapers UTG 3x12x44 SWAT Accushot - EZ Tap w/ illuminated reticle |
UTG Adjustable bi-pod | UTG ring scope mounts | Blackthorne 5.56 NATO Upper w/ 20" Bull Varmint Stainless Steel Barrel |
Magpul handguards w/ Delta Ring conventional gas tube setup (no piston) | Chrome Del-ton Bolt Carrier Group | DMPS Charging Handle |
DMPS Trigger | Magpul Trigger Guard | ProMag AR-15/M4 Heavy Duty Recoil Pad | 3 point SWAT Sling and sling hooks |
Nebo Tactical Flashlight and Laser Combo | 3 magpul picatinny rail mounts | Tactical Ergonomic Pistol Grip |
TMS Sling Swivel w/ Base | (20) - 30 round magazines |

Draw
Reply
#14
Story is quite different from the first artical.
Reply
#15
(10-15-2016, 07:46 AM)bufordtjustice Wrote: The way The artical makes it out ( I know it's the liberal anti gun media) , is that the home owner was picking them off with no threat of violence to himself.
The way I understand castle doctrine is that, shooting someone without them posing a threat to life and limb is only allowed inside of the home

I'll have to remember not to attend any parties at your place.
Seriously, legal authorities are going to examine the circumstances of any fatal shooting very scrupulously, and first appearances may give an impression quite different from the final determination. Enticing someone into your home, in order to shoot them, is hardly going to pass legal criteria for a justifiable shooting.
If you want to increase the likelihood of being absolved after some type of home invasion shooting, what you want to do is be clear, honest, and cooperative. If the first words out of your mouth to 911 are "I just exercised my Castle Doctrine and my lawyer's on his way," you will have ladled on a big thick layer of suspicion on yourself. Between the DA, and if advised, at that point, your attorney, a temperate discussion may occur at which time your rights and legal position are going to be debated. You, personally, are not any final legal authority, and have no business bringing up anything fancier than "I thought he was going to kill me."
Reply
#16
Gunsane
I know my post was not very detailed but you are trying to twist into something it is not.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)