- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 11,265
- Reaction score
- 2,921
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It seems that it's more than just protecting your property, the home owner has to also believe they could be harmed by the intrusion. Also, those are for protecting your home. Not sure how that would apply to one's business during off hours when the business owner remains on property with the hopes of ambushing an intruder.Yes.
Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.
In general, (one) or a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:
As of the 28th of May, 2010, 31 States have some form of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law. Alabama,[9] Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,[10] South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,[11] West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, Nebraska,[12] New Hampshire, and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.[
These state use differing forms of Castle Law:
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
per Wikipedia
Read about individual states here
Neither is yours. Unfortunately for you, my opinion is backed up by facts, and supported by the law. Yours isn't. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
the property owners are not in jail. proof that my opinion, in this case, is more accurate than yours. go matlock
Are there any states where it's legal to use lethal for to defend your property?
Setting aside, for the moment, the fact that you're making some poor assumptions here, you're also not applying Colorado law. Why don't you look that up (or find it in this thread) and try again? I'll be going away for several hours, so you've got plenty of time to do some actual research to form your argument.
Frankly, I am not interested in Colorado law. This is much less a legal debate than it is a philosophical one. Try to remember that.
If Colorado law is in conflict with my opinion on the matter, then in my opinion, Colorado law is in error and needs to be amended.
Good luck with that. They're still murderers according to my opinion.
edited for accuracy. they were charged and there was not enough evidence to convince the grand jury to send the case to trial.
under the law they are not guilty of murder. sorry mattlock, you lose.
How do you know that? Why are you so certain the grand jury did its job properly? Especially given that its conclusions are totally inconsistent with those of the civil jury?
According to your opinion. See? We could go back and forth like this all day, and not actually have a debate at all., Or you could grow some balls and actually tell me why, according to the facts that we have and the law as we know it, you think the grand jury reached the decision it reached.
Bull****. A page ago you were attempting to make a legal argument.
If the guy was already down from being shot, and on his back presumably unconscious, then why shoot another, what, 5 times into his back?
How about 7 more times?
How about 10 more times?
How about 15 more times?
Do you see that if you justify the man being shot 5 more times whil unconscious, you justify any number of shots being pounded into him?
It is good to defend oneself. It is not good to murder someone in a barbarian fashion. This is not a graphic movie. This is not Grand Theft Auto. You don't unload multiple shots into a presumably wounded and unconscious person on his belly.
doesn't matter why the grand jury reached the decision it reached...only what that decision was... and SURPRISE SURPRISE it was not that these guys were guilty of murder. sorry that you can't seem to accept that, perry mason, but it is the truth.
If the guy was already down from being shot, and on his back presumably unconscious, then why shoot another, what, 5 times into his back?
How about 7 more times?
How about 10 more times?
How about 15 more times?
Do you see that if you justify the man being shot 5 more times whil unconscious, you justify any number of shots being pounded into him?
It is good to defend oneself. It is not good to murder someone in a barbarian fashion. This is not a graphic movie. This is not Grand Theft Auto. You don't unload multiple shots into a presumably wounded and unconscious person on his belly.
It doesn't matter why the grand jury reached the decision it reached? That's interesting, because in your last post you said the fact that it reached that decision meant that there wasn't enough evidence to take the case to trial. Clearly, if the grand jury reached its decision for reasons other than a lack of evidence, your contention is baseless, which means that why the grand jury reached its decision is central to a contention that you've made. So I'll ask again, why do you believe the grand jury reached its decision based on lack of evidence? On what are you basing this conclusion? Other than wishful thinking that is.
Also, let's explore your reasoning a little bit more. You seem to be conflating a lack of conviction with a lack of illegal action. This is a remarkably stupid thing to do. Just because someone hasn't been convicted of a crime does not mean that they didn't commit a crime. I know you understand this, because you've referred to the victim as a thief, even though, due to his demise, he was never prosecuted for or convicted of any theft crime. So, I've got to ask, why the hypocrisy?
NOT bull****. I made a general legal argument because you asked for one.
Under Colorado law, you do not have the right to defend your property using deadly force, and self-defense was not at issue here. Again, if you disagree, look at the law and tell me why, specifically, you believe these guys did not violate it. Appeals to authority (i.e. the grand jury) will be ignored.
Did you really think I was going to pore over Colorado law as if it were the only legal or philosophical argument that was relevant? We are NOT arguing Colorado law here. Understand that.
well counselor, as both of us know someone is presumed innocent until that presumption is defeated by proof beyond a Reasonable doubt that guilt exists. if that proof is absent than the presumption of innocence is never swept away and thus the person was never "guilty of a crime" though we can say that he did commit the crime as a matter of opinion. For example, I assert OJ did murder his wife but I cannot say he is "guilty" of murder because that was never established beyond a reasonable doubt by the one decider that matter-the petit jury who tried his case.
If you don't want to argue Colorado law, I'd suggest you stop responding to my posts.
Did burglars trespass and were attempting to steal from the property owner? Yes? then I would say the property owner was justified in using lethal force.
I have been arguing the way Colorado law should be, not the way that it is. If I am restricted from arguing the way it should be, then it seems we have nothing left to argue.
I suppose you will next want to debate whether or not today is Thursday.
You've made a grand total of four posts on this thread:
1) In the first one, you claimed that I was "taking up with the side of criminals."
2) When I pointed out that that's stupid, and asked you, very specifically, to explain to me why what the three business owners did was not also a crime under the relevant law, you made a half-assed attempt to do so by a) fatuously alleging that the prosecutor must not have had a good case if he couldn't get the the grand jury to agree with him and b) inaccurately attempting to invoke the Castle Doctrine. This was pretty obviously an attempt to claim that what these guys did was not illegal. You were attempting to make a legal argument.
3) When I pointed out that you completely and totally misapplied the law, you backtracked, and suddenly started to claim that you're not interested in the law, but are, in fact, interested in a philosophical debate; and furthermore, that you are "not interested in Colorado law." This is funny, given that you chose to engage in a philosophical debate by responding to a post of mine that was not remotely about philosophy, and specifically and explicitly addressed the ramifications of Colorado law as it stands.
4) Now you're claiming that you've "been arguing the way Colorado law should be..."
This is, frankly, the most laughably and blatantly intellectually dishonest statement I've seen in recent memory.
A word of advice: Put the shovel down. You've dug yourself into a deep enough hole already.
But that's neither here nor there. In your last post, can I infer from your reference to arguing about what day of the week it is that you agree with me that it's fairly self-evident that these guys violated the law? If so, would you like to take a crack at explaining that to Oscar? Because he's been denying that fairly straightforward fact for about a hundred pages now.
squeal all you want mattlock, innocent until PROVEN guilty is a cornerstone of the american justice system. your OPINION doesn't prove these guys are guilty of anything.
squeal all you want mattlock, innocent until PROVEN guilty is a cornerstone of the american justice system. your OPINION doesn't prove these guys are guilty of anything.
And your opinion doesn't prove that they aren't. .
Why don't we compare our analysis of the situation and see which opinion has more merit?
They were found not guilty of murder.
However in a civil suit they were found guilty.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?