Littleton Co Craigslist home invasion

[Praxidike]

If someone stole my property, and is a the act of leaving with it w/o posing a threat to my life, I rather live without my "things" as opposed to taking a human life over an object. I don't care if the person is in the wrong or not, and I for one believe the law the way it's currently written is just fine.

With that said, whether you need a carry license to own or carry a gun or not, I think it's a good idea for a gun owner to take a carry class. Seems like many in this thread may benifit from taking one too.

 

[Gottahaveone]

What I can't understand, is why in the he-double toothpicks would you bring this person to your house? Not only was the seller in the wrong for the shooting, his security tactic's left something to be desired too.

If the item (pool table, etc) was too large to carry to an off site, public meeting place, I would have still initially met the buyer in such a location and taken a pic of his ID to email to myself and a buddy before taking them home. If the "buyer" knows his ID is out there, he would be far less likely to pull some crap such as this. If he was unwilling to provide an ID, we part company then and there.......

 

[Ash]

Sam, I frankly don't care what you think, regardless of here at THR and all. You can tow a line and do so. We here, many of us, feel differently than you. You don't speak for many here.

Shall I suggest others react towards somebody who tied me up, threatened my family, made off with our things and then drove away with our car the way I would? No, I won't.

But have it happen to you. Armchair quarterbacking is all we do here, but when you have been abused by such men, and know they will do so again to others (and have done so to others already), then you will know how you feel about these things. A cancerous leach upon society does not deserve consideration - he already does not offer it to others.

 

[Sam1911]

Again, your philosophy about crime, criminals, vengeance, and justice is not appropriate to discuss here. It is irrelevant and promotes an attitude toward the use of lethal force we CANNOT accept. Please do not bring it up again.

 

[LiveLife]

So the moral of the story is:

- Craigslist robberies are real

- Seller should have met the buyer at a public location (how about in front of the police station or places where there are video cameras?) - now the other robber KNOWS where the seller lives (scary thought)

- If public meeting was not avoidable, seller could have been armed when meeting the buyer at the house

So, we should not put ourselves in the seller's situation moving forward? When we lived in the city with high crime rate and incidents of home invasion robberies, we carried inside the house and even when working in the yard.

I hope things work out for the seller (and gets a sympathetic jury) but it doesn't look good from my stand point.

 

[thefish]

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".

So the question becomes, or will become, did the robber die from a GSW, or injuries due to reckless driving leading to a car accident?

what would the charges be if it was determined the robber died of blunt force trauma due to an accident caused by reckless driving? discharge of a firearm in city limits? Reckless endangerment?

 

[rondog]

So the question becomes, or will become, did the robber die from a GSW, or injuries due to reckless driving leading to a car accident?

From what I've read, the robber died from loss of bodily fluids leaking profusely from two new holes in his neck.

I haven't seen any reports of what gun was used, but I'm thinking perhaps an AR type.

 

[AlfonsDeWolf]

The perp running in the other direction, away from you is not defense of your life. Now if the owner with the gun jumped in front of the car being stolen and driven off, THAT could be listed as "defense". No, I'm not suggesting it.

 

[Praxidike]

The perp running in the other direction, away from you is not defense of your life. Now if the owner with the gun jumped in front of the car being stolen and driven off, THAT could be listed as "defense". No, I'm not suggesting it.

Pretty much sums it up. Anything else would be revenge, putting other people's lives in danger (one of those bullets being fired at the fleeing perp could hit someone else), putting your own freedom at risk, and could result in putting your family and loved ones through emotional and financial hardship all over stuff that can be replaced...

 

[typhun]

Quote:
Originally Posted by txblackout View Post
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.

Really?

And if you have homeowners/car insurance you probably have a means for recovery

 

[Sam1911]

So the question becomes, or will become, did the robber die from a GSW, or injuries due to reckless driving leading to a car accident?

what would the charges be if it was determined the robber died of blunt force trauma due to an accident caused by reckless driving? discharge of a firearm in city limits? Reckless endangerment?

If you're asking what the shooter could be charged with, I'm not sure of the specific naming of the offenses in CO, but you'd have Aggravated Assault or Assault with a Deadly Weapon at least. That would be if the fleeing suspect had lived. But he died. If he died from the gun shots, or died because he crashed his car because he had been shot, it really doesn't matter. It would still be a homicide and the charge would be Manslaughter or something like 3rd Degree Murder.

For the charge to be only that of discharging a weapon in the city limits, the shooter would have had to been firing at something other than a person.

 

[lemaymiami]

All we know about this is what has been made public so I'm sure there will additional (and maybe different info forthcoming). Clearly this will be "one to watch" and all of us will get a bit of education. Yes, at present, it looks like the victim needs a lawyer....

The use of deadly force needs to be carefully thought through in advance of any need... I know that many will see rough justice in the victim's actions (as reported) but what happens after the fact will be out of his/her hands. Even if not charged (or charged but later exonerated) this individual will face heavy (maybe even bankrupting) costs -and that's not the half of it if he's convicted of a felony as a result.

I've been on the scene of some wild shootouts years ago (cops almost 99% of the time get there after the action, thank heavens -since the "good guys" don't always win in shootouts...) and we almost never had all the facts at first. Sometimes we didn't learn what had actually gone down until weeks later - but that's another story...

 

[Warp]

And if you have homeowners/car insurance you probably have a means for recovery

Monetary reimbursement =/= recovery.

But you are talking about laws in a different state, not Colorado, they have no relevance here

 

[TomJ]

I wasn't there, so I won't guess as to what the homeowner's motivations were (revenge, prevention of future harm to others by these men, etc.). I will, tell you, however, that opening fire in a residential area under those circumstances is dangerous, to say the least and should be done only in the act of self defense, which this doesn't appear to be. He and his neighbors are fortunate a stray bullet didn't hit a neighbor, which is often the kind of thing you don't think about when you make an emotional decision. If one of my neighbors started shooting under those circumstances there'd be some unpleasantness between us.

 

[txblackout]

Who is liable for damage to his neighbors house? I would think the shooter

The city is no place to be shooting in the street. Too easy for a bullet to go into the neighbors house.

 

[AlfonsDeWolf]

@Sam1911......you did well here

 

[Shootshellz]

'You in a heap of trouble, boy!' Shooting at a fleeing suspect makes YOU the one being considered a 'cancerous leech' upon society. Better toe (not tow) the line unless you can do the time.

 

[Officers'Wife]

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]

OK, while I understand your theory of the dead felon it's still a matter of division of labor. (note sarcasm) Inside your home it's a personal matter and needs to be dealt with personally. Once they cross the property line it becomes police business and it would be rude to interfere no matter what your opinion of their competency.

Consider if you will- if the police are competent they are going to be upset about bullets flying in the public sector regardless of the outcome. Such things are an insult to the peace and dignity of a peaceful community which the competent officer is going to find distasteful and attempt to rectify.

If they are not competent having citizens show that crime can be stopped is going to highlight their incompetence and they will need to make an example of the survivor.

Neither instance is in your best interest.

In my case... I have this machinery around for one purpose, to protect my children. If a felon is a direct threat to my children it is a problem I take personally and will handle without regard as I have the silly notion my kid's right to breathe is a higher priority than that right in someone that might hurt them. Once they hit state road 114... That's Terry Risner's problem which Jasper County pays him a living wage to handle. it's silly to pay a workman to do a job then do it yourself.

 

[Warp]

'You in a heap of trouble, boy!' Shooting at a fleeing suspect makes YOU the one being considered a 'cancerous leech' upon society. Better toe (not tow) the line unless you can do the time.

RE: cancerous leech

I don't think that term means what you think it means

 

[Sam1911]

RE: cancerous leech

I don't think that term means what you think it means

Ha ha! No, probably not an apt term.

Firing a weapon into a public space certainly is very dangerous and would give cause for any bystanders or neighbors to fear for their own lives. It is completely unacceptable and illegal for very good reasons -- and the guilt for that act can only be set aside in cases where there was an immediate need to fire that firearm to save a life (or stop one or two other violent felonies). (And even so, any harm to bystanders can still be the subject of horrible civil judgments.)


So, the shooter could be considered a public danger, but "cancerous leech" implies a lot of things that aren't really apropos.

 

[lemaymiami]

Got to chime in again.... as a retired cop -most that I knew would be sympathetic to the "victim" while publicly saying the opposite... None of that would stop any cop from taking the guy into custody (sympathy only goes so far....). Guys like me (I know a dangerous generalization...) aren't any different from the general public in that regard. That said, I wouldn't want to see the law changed because very, very bad things could (and have) resulted from one individual or other taking the law into their own hands....

Some years back one of my officers, just before 9Am in a nice quiet residential area on a weekday fired a single shot at a group of fleeing felons (stolen car occupied by 4 to 6 kids) that had just bailed out on him after a chase. He stated that one of them had reached under his shirt as though going for a weapon (no I wasn't buying it -but that's another story.....) so he fired his weapon. No one was hit and we did round up every one of the fine young men involved (of course no bad guy weapon was found...). The moment I'll always remember was the look on the officer's face when I asked him where that bullet went - as we were looking downrange at all the nice houses. My officer looked like he was gazing at an open grave - his own.... It all worked out okay, we never found where that bullet impacted (and no one reported any injuries). Cops have all kinds of restrictive rules to follow -particularly involving guns - not so the general public. In an extreme moment any citizen can move from self defense to something criminal involving a weapon. That's part of the responsibility we all take on when we choose to own weapons and are prepared to defend our families if needed. Not something to be taken lightly at all...

 

[george burns]

Having been in a similar position, there are extenuating circumstances, such as the perp telling you he will return soon and kill your family, or if you call the cops I will kill you. Each case is different, and must be judged on it's own merit. My case the group had killed before, and were on their double digit crime spree.
So it's easy to say what you think that someone should do, but if you weren't there when it happened, it's really an uneducated guess.
If there is an exchange of words and these people have been stalking you or members of your family over time, it can change weather they pose a threat in the not only the present but the future if not stopped.
Like knowing your kids names where they go to school or your wife's information. Sometimes a successful business owner can run into a situation where it's not just black and white.
If someone knew your wife's name and told you they would back for her one night, do you think you would still consider the incident to be over?
These types of questions cannot be answered with certainty unless you know the whole story. If it was totally random, and you were out a TV set, and a few bucks, then no, but it could be much more than that.

 

[Warp]

Having been in a similar position, there are extenuating circumstances, such as the perp telling you he will return soon and kill your family, or if you call the cops I will kill you. Each case is different, and must be judged on it's own merit.

Even if the perp says that, I don't think self defense laws would allow you to chase down and shoot the fleeing individual. That whole imminent thing.


The rest of the post was unrelated conjecture that we have no reason whatsoever applies to this case in any way

 

[brewer12345]

George B., in that case the wife would be getting training in how to use a shotgun, we would be getting a third (much bigger and nastier) dog, etc. Shooting at a moving car in a suburban area with lots of budding innocent bystanders potentially around? Not so much. Personally, if I were the shooter's neighbor I would be pretty upset with them.

 

[elano]

Anyone who thinks they weren't driving the stolen cars to their next robbery is crazy. I'm tired of these punks with extensive records having their way in our society. The revolving door for criminals and laws that protect them over a victim gives them confidence to keep doing this crap.