Curious to see thoughts on this. 21 year old intoxicated intruder shot after being told to leave home. Looks straight forward to me.
I’m glad to see people actually defending their property despite the central government takeover these days.
No, this does not seem like a good example of property rights defense. Did you see the picture of the girl? You can’t tell me that the couple had ample reason to fear for their lives. A drunken/stoned college girl of 21 does not pose a threat, and firing a shot (in the dark!?) and actually hitting her tells me the guy should learn how to use a firearm before he actually pulls a trigger.
Trespassing on someone’s property is not justification for shooting them, especially when the trespasser is obviously impaired. But admittedly, there may be more to the story. This is my initial impression.
It says they are psychiatrists. Maybe they thought they were under attack from one of their loopy patients, and not just a drunk.
I think their claim of putative private defense is legitimate, but I don’t think the trespassing charge is. “Trespassing” is really a crime in terms of public law - it’s not as if they could lay a civil charge and claim damages. My biases lead me to suspect that they are persuing criminal charges because they want this girl to “get help”, and they think this will achieve it.
Dude, if you try to negotiate with someone who’s breaking into your house and continues walking forward despite your requesting them not to, you’re a moron. Good luck fending for yourself when the crazies come loose during the economic collapse and ensuing chaos. Ever heard of Hurricane Katrina?
The article was unclear with respect to some details. It sounds like there was a length of time that transpired and the coupled identified her as a young woman. I just wonder whether or not based on the visual evidence they had available that they shouldn’t have concluded it was a drunken college student. Again, look at her picture. The woman said in the 911 call they were looking at her and she kept coming in. It just seems they had time to evaluate the threat level. It even sounds from the story that the husband may not have been aiming at her, as if he were trying to scare her or something. I don’t know.
I fully concede I could be wrong here, but the way the story is related raises some questions for me.
I’m with Lewis. We don’t know enough details, but from what it sounds like, actually shooting the girl seems excessive. And Lew may be right the guy was just trying to scare her. (Who shoots someone in the hip?)
Is that where the US Army confiscated people’s firearms?
Good luck defending in that scenario…
Pelvic shots are taught in failure to stop scenarios when the aggressor is too far away for a reliable cns attack (headshot). Although I doubt thats what transpired. Who knows? (Its hard to aim firearms with a shattered pelvis.)
this technique is not endorsed by everyone in the firearms community. This post is for informational use only.
I’d say a shot to stop her (not kill her) was reasonable given that the government has prevented/banned any route to legitimate defense/prevention in this scenario.
You make a point, Aristophanes, but my main point is that the looting occured to begin with. People who own weapons who are not prepared to use them to defend his or her property make owning the weapon futile. That’s my only point.
So, should we use our firearms to stop the people who are trying to confiscate them (the U.S. Army)? Or teenage girls who wander into the wrong area?
Indeed, that appears to be the goal here. From the article:
Also from the article:
It’s not at all clear to me that the girl intended to use force. If she was hammered, then I seriously doubt that she had any such intent.
One question I have is whether the homeowners were able to ascertain that she was a highly intoxicated 21-year-old female before shooting her. However, I’m skeptical that it was so dark that they couldn’t more closely determine her age, gender, or size. So I think they may have used excessive force.
of course they are justified in shopoting her. she was in their house in the middle of the night and told to leave and refused.
its unfortunate that the government is filing charges even after the homeowners sound like they don’t want any charges filed against her.
is it legal to file charges even if the property owners don’t want to file charges?
Do you think they would’ve been justified in shooting her in the head? Why or why not?
We agree here. Of course, the government wants its cattle citizens to be productive, and it doesn’t think they’re productive when they “abuse alcohol”.
Of course it is. In the government’s view, all crimes are against itself (as representative and guardian of “the social order”).
What is the Colorado legal standard for determining excessive force in the defense of a home?
“Do you think they would’ve been justified in shooting her in the head? Why or why not?”
Yes. But any rational person wouldn’t do that, and they didn’t. Although, with a handgun, if you’re not that good at aiming and your very nervous and shaking, you could aim for the body and still hit the head. That’s the chance you take when you walk into someone else’s house in the middle of the night and refuse to leave.
Why should I care?
With all due respect, I think that’s an attempt at having your cake and eating it too. If you think they would’ve been justified in shooting her in the head, then why does it matter whether doing so would be “rational”?
I don’t consider refusing to leave someone’s home to prima facie constitute a threat against the homeowner’s life and thus justify lethal force to be immediately employed against the trespasser. So if Ms. Ripple had died from the gunshot wound, I would consider Mr. Justice to be guilty of murder.
Seems kinda…relevant don’t you think?
“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.”
And then,
“To be immune from prosecution under this section a defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had a reasonable belief that the intruder was committing or intended to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry. This inquiry focuses on the reasonable belief of the occupant, not on the actual conduct of the intruder.” People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).
If you’re not going by Colorado legal standards, whose standards are you going by when reviewing this case?