Good Washington Times article about Castle Doctrine debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't understand why cutting and pasting are so difficult:

Shooting death fuels debate over guns
Valerie Richardson (Contact)
Monday, February 2, 2009

Sean Kennedy, a 22-year-old golf pro, drunkenly banged on the door, yelled obscenities and smashed a window as he tried to enter what he thought was his house.

But it wasn't his home. The house, located a block from Mr. Kennedy's residence, but showing the same house number, belonged to James Parsons. As Mr. Kennedy reached his arm through the broken window in an effort to unlock the back door, Mr. Parsons, who was inside with his girlfriend, shot and killed him.

Colorado Springs prosecutors last week exonerated Mr. Parsons, saying that he acted within the scope of the state's "Make My Day" law, which allows homeowners to use deadly force against intruders.

"A reasonable person in those circumstances would have believed that [Mr. Kennedy] was going to do a crime against them or their property," District Attorney Dan May said.

Nonetheless, the decision reignited debate over whether such laws allow homeowners to use more force than necessary in their defense. Critics argue that the laws, which have proliferated in recent years, have essentially given homeowners a license to kill.

"What's happening among gun owners is that there's less accountability and less responsibility," said Scott Vogel, spokesman for the Freedom States Alliance in Chicago, which opposes the "Make My Day" laws. "Gun owners are taking these laws and drawing their own conclusions and using them as a 'get out of jail free' card."

The debate is likely to intensify as more states adopt and expand such statutes. Since 1985, 16 states have approved "Make My Day" statutes - known to critics as "Shoot to Kill" laws - with more legislation expected this year, said Sam Hoover, staff attorney for the Legal Community Against Violence in San Francisco.

Besides Colorado, the 15 other states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota, Mr. Hoover said.

Even in states that have approved such laws, however, deciding whether the statute applies can be tricky. Colorado Springs prosecutors wrestled with the case for a month before deciding against filing charges in the Dec. 28 shooting.
About 10 p.m., Mr. Kennedy, who had been drinking at a Denver Broncos football party with friends, drove up in his truck to the house at 3212 Virginia Ave. and tried to enter. Police say he was looking for a house he shared with roommates at 3212 N. Institute St., located a block away. His blood alcohol level was later tested at 0.26, more than three times the legal limit of 0.08 for driving in Colorado.

When Mr. Parsons and his girlfriend heard the pounding at the door, they called 911 and pleaded for help. Mr. Parsons' girlfriend stayed on the phone for about 4 1/2 minutes, during which time the shots were fired.

"Oh, my God, he's coming in the back door," said the woman, who was not identified, during the call. "Are they on their way because - oh my God, he broke in the glass!"

At that point, Mr. Kennedy had walked around the house and broken a window next to the back door. He was reaching through the broken glass to unlock the dead bolt when Mr. Parsons fired three shots through the window with a .38 Special.

"Get the ambulance! I shot him," Mr. Parsons said in the background. "He broke his arm in the window, and he was coming in the house!"

Mr. May said the panicky call and efforts by the homeowners to deter Mr. Kennedy - they shouted for him to leave several times - offered proof that they were in fear for their safety.

The Colorado law states that "citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes," and that lethal force may be used against someone who illegally enters a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime or use physical force against the occupant.

"The evidence from the dispatch tape and from investigative interviews indicated that they were both terrified during this incident and were traumatized by these events," said Mr. May in a statement.

One point of contention was whether Mr. Kennedy could be considered an intruder, since he never actually entered the home. Prosecutors said that having his arm inside the house constituted breaking and entering.

"It doesn't have to be the entire body. His arm was in the house," Deputy District Attorney Gail Warkentin said. "Breaking and entering might have been breaking the lock on the screen door - it could be as little as that - but certainly after he had his arm in the house."

Mr. Kennedy's family remains distraught over the shooting, she said. After graduating from high school in 2004, Mr. Kennedy had worked as a golf pro at two Colorado Springs golf clubs.

"I spoke to Sean's father, and he's obviously grieving for his son. He told me he wished the homeowner had shown more restraint," Ms. Warkentin said. "He said his son didn't deserve to die."

Critics called the Kennedy case a classic example of a fatality that could have been avoided if the homeowner had taken evasive action - for example, leaving the house through the front door - but having a "Make My Day" law on the books makes it less likely that homeowners will do so.

"There's every indication that this gun owner could have shouted at this guy, yelled at him," Mr. Vogel said. "Instead, even though he hadn't been harmed, he just shot him. You didn't sense that he and his girlfriend were in immediate peril, and that used to be the standard."

Dudley Brown, president of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said the couple couldn't have known how violent Mr. Kennedy was, or whether he was armed.

"There's no such thing as 'shoot to wound.' That's only in movies," said Mr. Brown, a certified firearms instructor. "They made their best effort to let law enforcement deal with it, but here's a news flash for liberals: The police can't always be there when you're in trouble."

Despite the debate, "Make My Day" laws remain popular with state legislatures, with new bills introduced every year to implement or expand such laws.

In Colorado, a legislative committee last week heard testimony on behalf of a bill known as "Make My Day Better," which would extend the law to include businesses. But the bill was killed in committee on a straight party-line vote, with Democrats voting against and Republicans voting in favor.
 
I can't really see how any one else would have acted differently. They waited 4+ minutes on the phone before deciding to take action; as stated you can never know the intents of someone like that and you can't assume everyone out there these days is good folk.
 
I had this debate with a Brit in usenet, YEARS ago.

He claimed that people shouldn't have guns, because people who get insane drunk and then broke into other people's homes would get shot. He cited as justification a case in Texas where a Scotsman got drunk out of his mind. He eventually hailed a cab which he directed to a residential neighborhood (in Houston?) where he suddenly baled from the cab and took off running through the neighborhood. For no apparent reason, he scaled a high (6'+) backyard fence and proceeded to try to kick the back door in. The homeowner responded to the noise and told the drunken Scotsman (whom he did not know) to stop trying to kick the door in. The Scotsman continued, whereupon he was told that if he got through the door, he'd be shot. He managed to kick part of the door in and was promptly shot. The homeowner was of course, no-billed.

The Brit of course thought this to be a crime against humanity on a par with the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. My response? If you have THAT bad of a drinking problem, you need to stop drinking. If you can't or won't do that, and insist upon forcibly entering someone's home, expect to get SHOT. And don't expect any sympathy. Furthermore, I told him that if he didn't like that, he should stay in Britain, or go back forthwith. The Brit was quite offended by this response. I was quite amused by his indignant response and made light of it at great length.
 
Last edited:
Sean Kennedy, a 22-year-old golf pro, drunkenly banged on the door, yelled obscenities and smashed a window as he tried to enter what he thought was his house.
How do they know he thought he was trying to enter his own house? Did he leave a note behind? Did they hold a seances and communicate with the departed soul? Seriously, how do they know this?

But it wasn't his home. The house, located a block from Mr. Kennedy's residence, but showing the same house number, belonged to James Parsons. As Mr. Kennedy reached his arm through the broken window in an effort to unlock the back door, Mr. Parsons, who was inside with his girlfriend, shot and killed him.
Oops. I can't say I blame the home owner. It's not his responsibility to assess if the guy is drunk, crazed, or otherwise strike up a conversation and discuss why he's smashing his way into his home during the wee hours of the morning.

The drunk put himself into this situation, it's his own doing that got him killed. Look on the bright side, if he was so drunk he didn't know where he was or what he was doing, then it's likely he didn't feel any pain from being shot.

Colorado Springs prosecutors last week exonerated Mr. Parsons, saying that he acted within the scope of the state's "Make My Day" law, which allows homeowners to use deadly force against intruders.
Good for the DA! We need more rational DA's in this world... not ones out trying to make a name for themselves by putting anyone and everyone they can behind bars - guilty or not.

"A reasonable person in those circumstances would have believed that [Mr. Kennedy] was going to do a crime against them or their property," District Attorney Dan May said.

Nonetheless, the decision reignited debate over whether such laws allow homeowners to use more force than necessary in their defense. Critics argue that the laws, which have proliferated in recent years, have essentially given homeowners a license to kill.
Oh yes, those evil home owners are always out looking for someone to shoot. We need a license to kill because we so look forward to every opportunity to kill another person. We dream about killing innocent people. Once you buy a home, poof... you're an instant killer. All you need is a license.

Seriously, where do these people come from? No one wants to take another persons life.
 
Most folks in this situation would have done the same thing. I for one am thankful for the Castle Doctrine here in FL. It helps me to sleep better at night knowing that I won't have to spend the rest of my life in prison should I have the misfortune of having to kill an intruder in defense of my family and myself. If you are drunk enough and dumb enough to break into somebody else's home in the middle of the night guess what, you are probably going to be shot!

Welcome to the new liberal-socialist America. I can't believe we handed our country over to these moron...ah nevermind.
 
While I'm glad it was ruled a good shoot and reasonably so, I'm still slightly bothered by the actions of the couple. I live with roomates and fiancee stays over a couple times a week. She knows that if someone breaks in the house, I'll be holding up in my bedroom unless she is outside my bedroom or I can tell one of my roomates is being attacked. If someone is threatening to break in I'll be in my bedroom with my 12 guage in my hands and my snubby .357 in my jeans shorts (for sleeping) pocket, on the phone with 911. If they come through the door they catch 00' buckshot to the chest. But my property is insured and to me it is tactically more sound to defend from a room(master bedroom) with a single door and one small window than to watch the attacker come in.

Plus legally, you have less risk of being accussed of wanting some license to kill. Granted if the attack was so imminent that retreating rather than shooting woud have been very dangerous, than by all means. If I'm getting something to drink, usually wearing cut jean shorts with my snubby in my pocket (I don't wear it to bed, I just leave the gun in the pocket hanging from my nearby computer chair, but put it on when I leave my room) and someone smashes right through our porch sliding glass window and I can't get to my room, I'm lighting the guy up.

Glad it was ruled a good shoot, but I wish there would have been better tactics. Harder for the antis to rule all that foolishness when you are in your bedroom, last line of retreat, and using lethal force. As long as they didn't have kids or others in the house unable to get to their bedroom and they were unable to defend. There was no reason to sit and watch the guy break in. Dial 911, make sure the operator hears you screaming for the guy to stop, retreat, and if he tries to break into your room, and gets the door open, then light him up.

It's better to file a law suit with the guy not dead, then it is to worry about some anti prosecutor filing charges. And of course the anti trash who sometiems send death threats and what and accuse you of being a murderer.
 
What really bothers me about the article...

What bothers me is the use of the phrase, "Make my day." It's the 'CASTLE DOCTRINE." Why do anti-gunners and newsmen always try to invent new terms to deflect the debate away from the real issues?

"Make my day" is trivial pop culture tripe. "Castle Doctrine" is a well developed legal concept. We need to get the conversation back on track.

- - - Yoda

---------------
 
I agree with the new terminology being applied. It's appalling.

There is also something terribly wrong if you get so drunk that you don't know your own house and stop listening to reason. All the writeups seem to make it out as if he did nothing wrong.

It's a shame that both families have to go through this. It's very sad and tragic.
 
He should have stayed home and drank.

He was yelled at, and didn't listen.... they called 911, they were in fear of their lives. He broken the glass in, reached in to unlock the door... he was shot.

The homeowner did exactally what I would have done.
 
"What bothers me is the use of the phrase, "Make my day." It's the 'CASTLE DOCTRINE." Why do anti-gunners and newsmen always try to invent new terms to deflect the debate away from the real issues?

"Make my day" is trivial pop culture tripe. "Castle Doctrine" is a well developed legal concept. We need to get the conversation back on track.

- - - Yoda"

Actually, that's just how they refer to it in Colorado. That's not the MSM's invention, and it is actually considered a favorable term in Colorado.


Good article, although I wish Mr. Brown hadn't made the "liberal" comment. That probably turned off a bunch of otherwise neutral people who may have read this article. I don't understand why people make great arguments or statements, only to totally destroy it with some stupid political argument. Self defense should never be a political issue, its a human issue.
 
The audacity of anybody to suggest that a person should retreat from their own home in order to ensure the safety of an intruder is astounding.
 
Drinking kills. If you get really drunk and get into a car you may die. If you get really drunk and break into the wrong house, you may die.If you get really drunk and break into your house and cut open your arm on the glass you smashed to get in, you may die.
 
What would the opinion be if the drunk guy drove a car and killed himself and/or another?

This law is seldomly used in this manner.
 
well, that depends. if the drunk ran into another car and managed to kill Chris Cox, im sure the drunk would likely be considered a hero, and absolved of any legal issues against him for DUI or such.
 
It is always good to know that when seconds count the police are just minutes away.
 
I'm not a very good looking man and if I did what that drunken idiot did, I would expect any of you to shoot me. I mean, how would you know any better for Pete's sake.

What are you supposed to do? You see an ugly grown man like me breaking into your home and you are supposed to say "what are you doing"? Come on now!!??

I can just imagine myself, in a drunken state, trying to get into any of your homes. I don't think I'd last long!! ;)
 
In Colorado it's actually called the "Make My Day" law, not the castle doctrine. The reporter isn't making that up to sound sensational.
 
Nothing in the Colorado Statute refers to "Make My Day" law, that's just the snappy name that that media likes to use.

The Make My Day Law, more formally know as the Colorado Homeowner Protection Act, is encoded in the Colorado Revised Statutes at Section 18-1-704.5. That section of the Colorado Statutes is entitled "Use of Physical Force Against an Intruder."
 
Last edited:
I disagree with MagnumDweeb as well. Your house is your house, whether it be the outside wall or any part inside of that. To say that you must abide by rules of conduct/tactics (besides verbal warnings etc etc) while defending yourself is asinine. Pretty soon you MUST retreat from your house, and then who needs a gun if you can retreat?!

Get your gun of defense, call the 911 lady if possible, and obviously warn said intruder. Decide what line it is that the intruder would need to cross, once inside your dwelling, and if that person crosses it...stop the the threat. Not rocket science.
 
I also disagree with Dweeb. He said he lives with roommates, yet he would tuck into his room and wait. Well what happens if your roomie walks in after the break in? Thats a situation that can get really nasty. I personally would rather be sitting in my living room with that 12 gauge.
 
It's sad this drunken guy's family had to experience this, but it's ridiculous to even question the homeowner's right to do this. IMO they're being victimized twice...first the trauma of taking a human's life (and a nominally innocent human's life at that), then they have to sweat out a possible prosecution.

They did everything right...screamed at the guy to stop, called 911...waited almost FIVE MINUTES!!! They didn't shoot until he started to enter the home.
 
the problem with sitting in your living room is that you dont know whats going on. i'd rather be in a good spot where i can see whats happening without having to reveal my location. then give a verbal warning before anything else.

as to 'make my day', its just the way the media likes to call castle doctrine, to try and get people to associate castle doctrine laws badly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top