Littleton Co Craigslist home invasion

spottedpony posted:

Craigslist purchase goes bad in Denver suburb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both articles say pretty much the same thing.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/24...gslist-ad.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/d...st-ad-36489235

Click to expand...

Details are sketchy, still changing. Note this was in Jefferson County, not in the City and County of Denver, although Littleton CO is part of the so-called Denver Metropolitan Area.

The short of it, gleaned from KWGN news at 7PM MST, is that Craiglist potential buyers met seller at his home in Littleton CO, tied up him and his family, robbed them, then escaped in two cars, one stolen, one owned by the seller.

Seller untied himself, got his own gun, went outside and shot at one of the cars, killed the driver, identified as David Martinez, who had an extensive record. He crashed not far away. I am not clear right now as to whether the car he shot at was the stolen car, but I expect it was not his own.

At present, the DA is deciding if charges against the homeowner will be made, and is looking at Colorado's "make my day" law. Some authority (I did not catch his name or basis of authority) stated that the "make my day" law only pertained to situations within one's home. (He did not mention "business.")

That's the way I understand it right now from my notes from the TV report, which I was prepared to take in advance. Expect details to change as more facts are determined.

Terry

Sounds like he took the shot for revenge.

As I understand the CO make my day law, the homeowner would not be protected by the law if the facts turn out to be described. You can only whack an intruder in your home.

If he truly chased the guy and shot him he's in for trouble. Once the crook is leaving you aren't defending yourself anymore (especially once he has left your home).

Which is why the law is faulty. People who are in the act of theft forfeit their rights according to natural law.

Steel Horse Rider said:

People who are in the act of theft forfeit their rights according to natural law.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that a business owner who finds a child pocketing some candy, could justly (in that perfect world of natural law) deprive said person of their right to life?

Not only do people in the act of theft not become subject to capital punishment (i.e. execution) even when caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced by the state, people who have already committed a crime and are then leaving certainly do not pose a direct and immediate continued danger to life which might justify using lethal force on them.

The distinction will probably seem minute or even unfathomable to some, but it is very real. If someone's invad-ing your home, and assault-ing you and ty-ing you up, you would be in a position that meets the descriptions of threat of death and grave injury which the various states use as justifications for lethal force, when constructing their self-defense statutes.

Once the threat is leaving or has left -- even with all your "stuff" and in your car -- you are no longer in such a position. Your life is no longer being threatened. The law recognizes no further reason by which you may use deadly force against the perpetrators.

Not for vengeance. Not for honor. Not for recovering property (with a tiny and limited caveat for Texas).


Now, prosecutors sometimes find these cases a bit awkward to pursue, and they may decline to press charges for various reasons, but they often DO and those folks who were sure they were the "good guys" can end up with long prison sentences.

Well, I didn't want to add any of my own opinions except for speculating that he wouldn't shoot at his own car.

However, not being a lawyer, it seems that just because he wasn't protected by that law, it doesn't mean that a jury can't find that somehow it was a justifiable homicide anyhow.

After all, he did threaten the homeowner's family and apparently the two "buyers" had guns. I'm only being half-serious here, but since this presumably prohibited person was in possession of a firearm and (presumably) driving a stolen car, he was at that instant, in the prima facie act of committing two felonies. I'm not clear on this, but I think stopping a felony in progress by use of deadly force is justifiable in some states.

Let alone two felonies in progress.

What say the THR jury?

Mr. Ettin?

Terry

Based on what has been posted so far, assuming all of that is accurate or close enough, it sure seems the shooter/homeowner was outside the law.

I can understand the prosecutors finding it...awkward...as Sam1911 said...hard to care much that a home invader got shot.

holding my tongue for the most part, but one less piece of trash on the street needing "cleaned up" IMO. but for what its worth I wouldn't have shot him for fear of legal repercussion.

It's hard to have much sympathy for the dead felon, but given the situation described it does sound like a bad shoot and the victim has opened himself up to potential jail time. [emoji45]

FWIW - he fired on both his stolen vehicle and the car the perps came in. The stolen vehicle crashed into a neighbor's house and the driver died later, the other perp escaped in a gold colored 90's Mustang, "with possible bullet holes in it".

Steel Horse Rider said:

Which is why the law is faulty. People who are in the act of theft forfeit their rights according to natural law.

Click to expand...

Right to live is the first and foremost right under natural law (followed by personal liberty, and only then followed by pursuit of happiness), and you have every right to defend yourself and your family by any means available.

That's where self-defense starts, and stops. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction anywhere where you can shoot people who are running away; the moment they are, it's police business.

That said, I'm always in favour of lenience in sentencing in cases like this, if it comes to that. The home owner cannot be said to pose a risk to society, which is, theoretically speaking, the primary purpose of throwing someone to in jail.

Some of the responses here reinforce my opinion that attending a State required class and learning the applicable laws pertaining to the use of deadly force before being issued a carry permit is a really good idea. When the subject comes up among my friends and family I even recommend gun owners who only keep their gun at home and have no intention carrying a concealed weapon take a similar class. Massad Ayoob succinctly defines when the use of deadly force is justified and he is consistent in that opinion. Some of the posters here should look it up sometime.

It isn't politic here, but frankly, I think a man should have the right to shoot people fleeing with his property. Fleeing with nothing, no. But after terrorizing me and my family, robbing us, and making off with our car after a good faith business invitation, I would probably have shot, too. Yeah, I know, the pile on starts - snarky comments will be the rule.

Frankly, I'm glad David Martinez is dead. A long list of preying on others now ends with a period. The home owner shouldn't be tried - not especially if we're supposed to understand the Ferguson rioters. My friend, his wife, and small son were mugged in front of their friend's apartment once. He got kicked in the face while on the ground while his wife got kicked in the side. They pointed guns gangsta style at his family, threatened their lives, caused bodily harm to the adults and would have hurt the kid except the guy's kick went too high.

I have no patience for thugs and have no pity if their crimes lead to their deaths.

There were certain felonies that using deadly physical force to prevent escape from was legal under the law for LEO in NY. They taught us an acronym, "DR. BARKS", it included Deadly physical force, Robbery, Burglary of a residence, Arson, Rape, Kidnapping, and yes, Sodomy. Also Escape 1, that is escape from prison after being convicted of certain top felonies, which basically only a prison guard might have knowledge of a prisoners status. Certain SCOTUS rulings may have altered the list.

My agency still prohibited us from doing this, only cause for using deadly physical force was to stop the same from being used against us or others. They did not even include a vehicle being used against you as deadly physical force unless shots were being fired from the vehicle.

Don't recall if non peace officers had the same ability to prevent such escapes under the law.

There was a famous case of a LEO shooting a burglar as he was hopping a fence leaving a burglary scene. Went to SCOTUS where the cop's conviction was upheld. Training included this and we all got the message.

It isn't politic here, but frankly, I think a man should have the right to shoot people fleeing with his property

Click to expand...

Well, it also isn't terribly politic to say so, but WE (that is, THR) DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU THINK THE LAW SHOULD BE, and we aren't going to discuss that.

Here we deal with the practicalities of self-defense and the law as it stands. There are important legal principles at work in a case like this and anyone who thinks they might someday pick up a weapon to defend themselves needs to understand them very well. It is incredibly important that we discuss them and explain them.

However, flights of fancy about how things aught to be in your perfect society are completely useless to us and detract from the important work we do here. Your anarchist views about killing anyone you judge to be guilty of wronging you are simply (and fortunately) IRRELEVANT and we will not entertain any such discussion.

Period.

Judge Jury and Executioner...... sounds like a fast track to Justice.

I must have missed that year in school when they taught about those things.

I'm no lawyer, but in Utah, the law says that:

76-2-402 Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1)
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the
person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury
only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious
bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person's imminent use of
unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Click to expand...

A forcible felony is defined as:

(4)
(a) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem,
aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape,
forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child,
aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76,
Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Person, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title
76, Chapter 6, Offenses Against Property.

Click to expand...

However, burglary of a vehicle is specifically excluded:

(c) Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except
when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the bad guy drove the vehicle toward the victim of the home invasion while he was trying to get away from the scene, or perhaps the bad guy threatened the victim with a firearm while attempting to leave the scene. If either of these things happened, then these new acts could have presented an immediate risk of serious bodily injury to the victim, and the victim's shots could have been justified under 76-2-402 (1) (a). We can't say whether this is the case here, though.

Also, of course, Colorado law applies to this case, not Utah law.

I wonder what the law says in other states...

bad shoot. In texas it would be ok after dark.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Plan2Live said:

Some of the responses here reinforce my opinion that attending a State required class and learning the applicable laws pertaining to the use of deadly force before being issued a carry permit is a really good idea

Click to expand...

No.

PS: You don't need a carry license to have a gun in your own home, as was the case here...so this is a moot point that is way off topic.

txblackout said:

bad shoot. In texas it would be ok after dark.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Click to expand...

Really?

Wow, we really don't want to get off into OTHER STATE'S laws here.


(But some have pointed out that the reality of homeowner's and vehicle insurance pretty much precludes any legitimate claim to 9.42,3,A there, in most cases.)