Make my day law

[zammyman]

New information have come to light about the shooting death of a 22-year-old Colorado Springs man who may have been mistaken for an intruder.
It now appears the victim, Sean Kennedy, had broken a window and was trying to get inside a back door when he was shot and killed by the homeowner Sunday night.
Kennedy had been drinking and his father has said his son probably thought the house was his own, which was only a block away.
The D.A's office is reviewing whether the homeowner who shot Kennedy is protected under the "Make My Day" law.

(http://www.krdo.com/Global/story.asp?S=9604233)

So apparently if you go into the wrong house because you're drunk, you're not an intruder. And if you're drunk and get shot by the homeowner, the D.A. can "review" if the homeowner is protected under the make my day law.




Don't misunderstand what I am saying, it's a tragic event. Just seems like there's no accountability for people's mistakes anymore.. like getting drunk and breaking into a house. :banghead:

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
Being drunk isn't a a legal defense for any other crime such as driving, rape or murder, so why should it be for home invasion?


.

 

[zammyman]

my thought exactly

 

[Cuda]

The DA in Colorado Springs is a jerk.

I feel sorry for the kid and my prayers go out to the family. But one qestion I would have asked the kid is why would you break a window in your own house to get in? Wouldn't knocking on the door been a better idea? If you were trying to avoid your parents because you were drinking wouldn't the noise of a window breaking wake them anyway?

But to reiterate The CS DA is a jerk. This from personal experience,

C

 

[7.62X25mm]

So now we need to screen intruders, check their ID and give them a field sobriety test? Then shoot them?

 

[Steve in PA]

The person shot without knowing who or what was at the door.

If you are going to automatically assume that it is someone "trying too break in".............then you should equally assume that it could be someone looking for help.......someone trying to warn you your house is on fire, etc.

No where in any of the articles that have surfaced to you see the homeower demaning to know who was at the door........they just shot.

Reminds me of the story I read years ago of the woman who shot through her closed bedroom door because she heard someone trying the knob.

Turns out it was her young daughter who couldn't sleep or had a nightmare or something and came looking for mommy.

Same principle.

 

[Treo]

I don't know that the DA in the Springs is a jerk, but if I understand Co. make my day correctly they have to be in your home and presenting a credible (however slight) threat. trying to break down the door would be iffy.

The very first case tried under the law was 5 kids breaking into a home to beat up the homeowner (or his son don't remember which) they beat him to a pulp over a perceived insult and told him they were going to get a gun and come back. The beatee made it to the gun cabinette before the beators made it out of the drive way. The beatee fired one shot, hitting the driver of the beators in the back.

He was aquitted.

Co Springs is a pretty gun friendly town

 

[andcam]

I think treo is right. If I remember right, an intruder has to present a creditable/perceived threat. Say, if the intruder were in the house. Also, the average man can cover 21 feet in under a second.

I guess it's all about how the homeowner tells the story, seeing that the "intruder" isn't around to say anything. I think that just because the DA is investigating doesn't mean that he will bring charges. Regardless, I hope the homeowner has a good lawyer.

 

[Treo]

My understanding is if the guy walks into your house & just stops, he's standing in your kitchen drinking you best T.J. Swan but not making and move toward you, you can't just shoot him. But, as soon as he picks up that bottle to pour another glass you can say he was reaching for a weapon and blow him full of so many holes the Easy Nights runs out like a sieve.

A credible (however slight) threat

 

[andcam]

That's what I meant. typed before thinking syndrome here...

 

[expvideo]

I'll protect my property. This ruling is rediculous.

The person shot without knowing who or what was at the door.

If you are going to automatically assume that it is someone "trying too break in".............then you should equally assume that it could be someone looking for help.......someone trying to warn you your house is on fire, etc.

The guy broke a window and was trying to unlock the door from the inside. When I need help from people, I knock.

 

[Treo]

What "ruling" nothings been ruled on yet

You can protect your property all you want just be advised if you step outside the law to do so, there will be consequenses

 

[chris in va]

So now we need to screen intruders, check their ID and give them a field sobriety test? Then shoot them?

Pretty much, yes. At least identify the threat. We're too much in a rush to shoot first.

 

[Bubba613]

Pretty much, yes. At least identify the threat. We're too much in a rush to shoot first.

Guy attempting to break into my house at night is all the ID I need to determine if he is a threat or not.

Let's say the guy was not drunk and had duct tape and a screw driver in his back pocket. Does that change the outcome? If so, the homeowner was justified in the actual case as well.

 

[divemedic]

This is what the law says:


18-1-704.5
(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.

Reasonable belief is the key here. This will probably at least go to the grand jury, maybe even to trial.

 

[subknave]

I think a lot would depend on what the homeowner did. Did he ask who it was, tell them he had a gun, do anything but shoot? You can't really rely on newspaper accounts for the facts as they have their own spin and often leave out what you might consider important details.
Either way I think the father was just trying to come up with an excuse when he said he mistook the house for his own. I think it is more likely he had a few drinks and decided to break into this house. Did it say what his BAC was?

 

[Jaybird78]

"Officer, I feared for my life and the lives of my family." and REPEAT

 

[pith43]

Reasonable belief is the key here. This will probably at least go to the grand jury, maybe even to trial.

Reasonable Belief is a given a wide latatude with the Make My Day law . In Colorado there have been very few convictions if the shooting occured during a breakin. The Make My Day law even extends outside the house onto your property... if you are threatened, you can respond with deadly force. i suspect this will go nowhere.

There was actually another bill in the legislature called the Make My Day Better law... it extended the rights to your car or place of business. I think it lost traction when we went "Blue", although Rep Cory Gardner (bill's sponser) is still trying to push it through. Colorado is still a pretty gun friendly State, I hope that doen't change.

 

[Kleanbore]

From divemedic:

This is what the law says:


18-1-704.5
(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.

Reasonable belief is the key here. This will probably at least go to the grand jury, maybe even to trial.

(Emphasis added).

According to my lay reading, the key here is whether or not an unlawful entry has in fact been made.

That's not clear from the report.

It now appears the victim, Sean Kennedy, had broken a window and was trying to get inside a back door when he was shot and killed by the homeowner Sunday night.

Castle laws vary from state to state. In some cases entry must be forceful in addition to unlawful to justify the use of deadly force. In others, it is permissible to use deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry.

It is essential to know the law in your state.

 

[akodo]

The person shot without knowing who or what was at the door.

B.S.

The shooter knew exactly who was being shot 'unknown unauthorized threat!'

the shooter knew it wasn't his son coming in late, uncle pete playing a prank, or a uniformed fireman coming in through the window to do a rescue.


Should you not shoot the man with the ski-mask and bloody knife who just came through your door because you can't identify the person because of the mask? Maybe it is crazy uncle steve playing a prank!

Identify the target does NOT mean 'know the guy's name'

 

[punkndisorderly]

However drunk/stoned/high this cat was, I seriously doubt that he was just at the wrong house. Especially since he broke in.

Laws like these really make me wonder what in the heck lawmakers are thinking. When someone is in a self defense situation, they make the best decision they can under the circumstances they are in using the little information they have. Any rational person would deem someone breaking in your window and climbing through as a threat. Second guessing and monday morning quarterbacking based on things that homeowner couldn't know is just plain wrong.

If someone kicks in my door in the middle of the night, I should be protected by the law, not victimized further by the law. If said door kicker turns out to be a girl scout just checking to make sure I got my yearly order of cookies, there is no way I could have known that at the time.

 

[Kleanbore]

The shooter knew exactly who was being shot 'unknown unauthorized threat!'

??? That doesn't make sense....

Should you not shoot the man with the ski-mask and bloody knife who just came through your door...

But how about the man who has not come through your door, as in this case? That's likely to be what the outcome will hinge on.

Where I live I would have been justified. The Colorado law seems to require a successful unlawful entry into the dwelling before deadly force is justified.

 

[trlcavscout]

If this guy can get off on the "make my day law" then the guy in CS should be ok.
http://www.barkingdogs.net/newscoault.shtml

He shot his neighbor through the front door with a shotgun.

Now when I lived in Las Vegas it was different, my CCW class told me that not only did they "have" to be in the house, but I would have to prove that I had no other exit before I could have shot? Luckily I never had to test it.

 

[Loomis]

The drunk probably tried his key, it didn't work, tried the doorbell, no one answered, then got mad and started wandering around looking for a door that worked, then finally decided the he11 with it, i'm going in a window.

I could totally see that happening. Drunks do dumb things. We aren't talking about your average drunk though. This would be a seasoned alcoholic that wakes up without a clue where he is or how he got there.

As a homeowner, I myself would prefer to give an intruder the option to flee or back off before I shoot...unless he's actually completely inside then it's bullets first, other options second. But I don't see how the law should be requiring me to do that.

 

[benminer]

The D.A. is doing his/her job. This was a homicide and in order to qualify as a justifiable homicide there needs to be a defense, which it seems pretty clear that there is. Nevertheless the DA is still required / obligated to confirm that.

I do not read the article to mean that the DA is leaning towards pressing any sort of charges; merely that it's being investigated as it should be.