POLL: Make My Day Law, Protects a man who shot and killed his neighbor. Read for details and your thoughts.

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Millennium
Which is the whole argument Vic. The Prosecutor doesn't agree with the law as it is worded, and neither do I. BTW, where does it say he actually entered? To me it seems as if he was standing on the porch. Secondly, look at how broad it is written. Might commit a crime? WTF is that? I guess I will move to Colorado and shoot anyone who comes near my house. Afterall, they MIGHT be committing a crime.

Okay. First, the prosecutor has no say in the law or how it is written (except as much as any other individual citizen). He has a job to do, and if he doesn't like it, he might want to consider getting another.
Second, I agree with you that the law is too broadly written, which is why I don't completely agree with it. The "might" part is very troubling.
As for Colorado, go ahead but (IMO) high altitude deserts are nice places to visit (once you get over the altitude sickness) but not to live.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
No one knows if the neighbor shot the dog. Was he convicted of it?
It didn't sound like a social call. The dead guy broke the window on the neighbors with a 3 foot club. If I was in my house and someone was breaking out the window on my door with a 3 foot club, I would have to surmise that they were attempting to break down my door in an attempt to attack me. If they succeeded in breaking in and entered my house, they would be shot.
Around here, the Jehovah's Witnesses used their fists to knock on door, not 3 foot clubs.

Did he enter the house?

The article is to vague.
Generally, the law says if you fear for your life, you can shoot. You wouldn't fear an irate person swinging a 3 foot club?

 

[ReiAyanami]

so as long as u can lure somebody into your house who shouldn't be there u can kill them all?!

i'm surprised nobody went on a halloween rampage and slaughtered a bunch of "uninvited" children. i'm sure they'll change the law after that. "but judge, tiny aliens and zombies were invading my house"

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Argo
Wtf??? Soon we'll start shooting people just because they "looked at us funny". Unless the guy was actually in the process of hitting him with a club there the is no way that murder can be justified.

I'm sorry, but that's horseshit. If you bust down my front door with a club in hand, I will rightly assume that you are not there to borrow a cup of sugar, and I will shoot you in the head.

Where did it say he busted down his door and entered the house?

The story doesn't say that. Argo's suggestion that one should wait until the offender is inside and swinging before one puts up a defense is what I was responding to.

However, the story does say that "The district attorney says Hammock broke out the glass on Griffin?s front door and then Griffin shot him", so I will add that if you break the glass next to my front door, and I believe you are trying to enter my house, I will shoot you in the head.

How do you know they are going to enter your house? I have heard of millions of incidents where someone just busts out a person's glass and cusses them out. They aren't going to attack them, but just vandalize their property. Plus, I would like to see pictures of the door. You could bust out the glass around my front door, but you wouldn't be able to enter unless you were a midget or had a key to the deadbolt. How can we really judge or give an assessment when we don't have the evidence or all the facts?

You're right. If you break the glass next to my front door, I will politely ask what you intentions are, and if you answer "I'm going to enter your home and hurt you or your family", I will shoot you in the head.

 

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
No one knows if the neighbor shot the dog. Was he convicted of it?
It didn't sound like a social call. The dead guy broke the window on the neighbors with a 3 foot club. If I was in my house and someone was breaking out the window on my door with a 3 foot club, I would have to surmise that they were attempting to break down my door in an attempt to attack me. If they succeeded in breaking in and entered my house, they would be shot.
Around here, the Jehovah's Witnesses used their fists to knock on door, not 3 foot clubs.

Did he enter the house?

It doesn't say if he entered the house. However, it DOES say that he broke the glass on the front door with a club, that could easily be construed and WILL be construed as breaking and entering. The deceased could have been breaking the glass to unlock the door or to open it from the inside or something because he couldn't from the outside.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: FallenHeroanytime you take a gun and point it at someone, you better be ready to kill, otherwise you should have never pulled the weapon in the first place.

why's that? Can you not shoot someone in the leg to prevent them from harming you, but to not kill them so they suffer at the hands of the law and legal punishment they deserve? or MUST you shoot them in the face/heart/stomach?

Yes, you MUST.

Because if you don't, you're very likely to get killed yourself. I suggest you take some gun training courses.

 

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: FallenHero

anytime you take a gun and point it at someone, you better be ready to kill, otherwise you should have never pulled the weapon in the first place.

why's that? Can you not shoot someone in the leg to prevent them from harming you, but to not kill them so they suffer at the hands of the law and legal punishment they deserve? or MUST you shoot them in the face/heart/stomach?

im saying that if you are NOT ready to kill, do NOT pull that weapons. You don't have to kill though, but its obvious that you have never fired a weapon in your life. When shooting, you aim for the largest part of the body to make sure you hit. Go ahead and aim for my leg when I am moving around, you will find it much more difficult to hit than my chest is. I'll aim for your chest first shot, and more than likely, even if you fire first, I will hit you first if you are aiming for my leg.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
No one knows if the neighbor shot the dog. Was he convicted of it?
It didn't sound like a social call. The dead guy broke the window on the neighbors with a 3 foot club. If I was in my house and someone was breaking out the window on my door with a 3 foot club, I would have to surmise that they were attempting to break down my door in an attempt to attack me. If they succeeded in breaking in and entered my house, they would be shot.
Around here, the Jehovah's Witnesses used their fists to knock on door, not 3 foot clubs.

Did he enter the house?

It doesn't say if he entered the house. However, it DOES say that he broke the glass on the front door with a club, that could easily be construed and WILL be construed as breaking and entering. The deceased could have been breaking the glass to unlock the door or to open it from the inside or something because he couldn't from the outside.

Until he enters it is not B&E. It can't be construed as anything until the actual act happens.

 

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
No one knows if the neighbor shot the dog. Was he convicted of it?
It didn't sound like a social call. The dead guy broke the window on the neighbors with a 3 foot club. If I was in my house and someone was breaking out the window on my door with a 3 foot club, I would have to surmise that they were attempting to break down my door in an attempt to attack me. If they succeeded in breaking in and entered my house, they would be shot.
Around here, the Jehovah's Witnesses used their fists to knock on door, not 3 foot clubs.

Did he enter the house?

It doesn't say if he entered the house. However, it DOES say that he broke the glass on the front door with a club, that could easily be construed and WILL be construed as breaking and entering. The deceased could have been breaking the glass to unlock the door or to open it from the inside or something because he couldn't from the outside.

Until he enters it is not B&E. It can't be construed as anything until the actual act happens.

You think a jury of fellow house owners would think so? I don't. To break the window on the door, your weapon has to extend beyond the window, this entering the house. Maybe his arms did too, the article is not very descriptive. But any jury of fellow homeowners would call it breaking and entering and be done by lunch.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Millennium
Which is the whole argument Vic. The Prosecutor doesn't agree with the law as it is worded, and neither do I. BTW, where does it say he actually entered? To me it seems as if he was standing on the porch. Secondly, look at how broad it is written. Might commit a crime? WTF is that? I guess I will move to Colorado and shoot anyone who comes near my house. Afterall, they MIGHT be committing a crime.

Okay. First, the prosecutor has no say in the law or how it is written (except as much as any other individual citizen). He has a job to do, and if he doesn't like it, he might want to consider getting another.
Second, I agree with you that the law is too broadly written, which is why I don't completely agree with it. The "might" part is very troubling.
As for Colorado, go ahead but (IMO) high altitude deserts are nice places to visit (once you get over the altitude sickness) but not to live.

His job is to prosecute criminals and help protect society. I think he has more of a right to condemn a law, especially when it makes him unable to properly do his job. Prosecutors condemn laws all the time as do defense attorneys. It is a process of the system, especially when the law is preventing the criminal justice system from doing its job. Sure, you can say it should be up to the judge, but how often does an AG or a prosecutor, or a defense attorney challenge a law? All the time. A judge can't rule on the validity of a law unless it is challenged. Most citizens don't have the resources to research and file a case on their own. A prosecutor sure does, and his public statement about the law can help more citizens be aware and lead to the overturning of this blatantly asinine law.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
No one knows if the neighbor shot the dog. Was he convicted of it?
It didn't sound like a social call. The dead guy broke the window on the neighbors with a 3 foot club. If I was in my house and someone was breaking out the window on my door with a 3 foot club, I would have to surmise that they were attempting to break down my door in an attempt to attack me. If they succeeded in breaking in and entered my house, they would be shot.
Around here, the Jehovah's Witnesses used their fists to knock on door, not 3 foot clubs.

Did he enter the house?

The article is to vague.
Generally, the law says if you fear for your life, you can shoot. You wouldn't fear an irate person swinging a 3 foot club?

If he was making a motion to attack me then yes. If he was just busting out my windows and cussing me out then I would call the cops. I would call the cops in either case.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: FallenHeroanytime you take a gun and point it at someone, you better be ready to kill, otherwise you should have never pulled the weapon in the first place.

why's that? Can you not shoot someone in the leg to prevent them from harming you, but to not kill them so they suffer at the hands of the law and legal punishment they deserve? or MUST you shoot them in the face/heart/stomach?

Yes, you MUST.

Because if you don't, you're very likely to get killed yourself. I suggest you take some gun training courses.

Gun training clasess and stop watching movies and thinking all that stuff is real.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Argo
Wtf??? Soon we'll start shooting people just because they "looked at us funny". Unless the guy was actually in the process of hitting him with a club there the is no way that murder can be justified.

I'm sorry, but that's horseshit. If you bust down my front door with a club in hand, I will rightly assume that you are not there to borrow a cup of sugar, and I will shoot you in the head.

Where did it say he busted down his door and entered the house?

The story doesn't say that. Argo's suggestion that one should wait until the offender is inside and swinging before one puts up a defense is what I was responding to.

However, the story does say that "The district attorney says Hammock broke out the glass on Griffin?s front door and then Griffin shot him", so I will add that if you break the glass next to my front door, and I believe you are trying to enter my house, I will shoot you in the head.

How do you know they are going to enter your house? I have heard of millions of incidents where someone just busts out a person's glass and cusses them out. They aren't going to attack them, but just vandalize their property. Plus, I would like to see pictures of the door. You could bust out the glass around my front door, but you wouldn't be able to enter unless you were a midget or had a key to the deadbolt. How can we really judge or give an assessment when we don't have the evidence or all the facts?

You're right. If you break the glass next to my front door, I will politely ask what you intentions are, and if you answer "I'm going to enter your home and hurt you or your family", I will shoot you in the head.

So can we start shooting those that throw rocks at windows too? What about kids that do stupid stuff like that as well? Maybe hit their baseball through your window? Shoot 'em!

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
No one knows if the neighbor shot the dog. Was he convicted of it?
It didn't sound like a social call. The dead guy broke the window on the neighbors with a 3 foot club. If I was in my house and someone was breaking out the window on my door with a 3 foot club, I would have to surmise that they were attempting to break down my door in an attempt to attack me. If they succeeded in breaking in and entered my house, they would be shot.
Around here, the Jehovah's Witnesses used their fists to knock on door, not 3 foot clubs.

Did he enter the house?

It doesn't say if he entered the house. However, it DOES say that he broke the glass on the front door with a club, that could easily be construed and WILL be construed as breaking and entering. The deceased could have been breaking the glass to unlock the door or to open it from the inside or something because he couldn't from the outside.

Until he enters it is not B&E. It can't be construed as anything until the actual act happens.

You think a jury of fellow house owners would think so? I don't. To break the window on the door, your weapon has to extend beyond the window, this entering the house. Maybe his arms did too, the article is not very descriptive. But any jury of fellow homeowners would call it breaking and entering and be done by lunch.

A jury doesn't decide what charges someone will be arraigned on. It is the prosecutor's job to decide that. He can then take it before a grand jury for an indictment, or ignore getting an indictment and charge him period. A jury decides guilt and not what charges will be filed.

 

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: FallenHeroanytime you take a gun and point it at someone, you better be ready to kill, otherwise you should have never pulled the weapon in the first place.

why's that? Can you not shoot someone in the leg to prevent them from harming you, but to not kill them so they suffer at the hands of the law and legal punishment they deserve? or MUST you shoot them in the face/heart/stomach?

Yes, you MUST.

Because if you don't, you're very likely to get killed yourself. I suggest you take some gun training courses.

Gun training clasess and stop watching movies and thinking all that stuff is real.

I have taken gun training courses and aim very good at shooting. However, I feel confident enough in my skill that I could shoot someone in the leg and just keep them in the gun's sights until the police arrive. I do not want to be responsible for the death of someone unless they were ultimately trying to kill me.
And what does the movies have anything to do with this? In the movies, the cops can shoot worth sh!t, they always miss, and when they do hit, people die and fly five feet in the air. No relevance.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Argo
Wtf??? Soon we'll start shooting people just because they "looked at us funny". Unless the guy was actually in the process of hitting him with a club there the is no way that murder can be justified.

Come break down my door & try telling that to me.



It's just a .22 (for now) but I'll empty the entire clip of Stingers into you.

Viper GTS

As far as I understand he didn't bust into his appartment. It sounded like the guy was just yelling at him from the outside. Sh*t like that happens every day. If i shot every neighbor that came over, knocking on my door and yelling I'd have killed 3 people by now.

well now there is a difference between coming over and knocking on my door and yelling and coming over with a 3ft club and breaking the window.

if you come over bang on my door and yell at me i will just call the cops and ignore you. if you come over with a 3ft club break out my window i will shoot you.

IF the guy was still on the porch that does add something else to it. But the guy had a weapon and did smash a window to the house. tough decision. i think if i was in his shoes i might have done the same thing.

his life is worth less to me then my wife and daughters.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: GroundZero

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
There should be one more option on the poll.

Anyone who hurts an animal should be beaten within an inch of their lives and the shooter should be hung!

ooooo do i smell peta??????

No PETA is a bunch of extremist weirdos! But I am a HARD CORE animal lover.
And I think that the punishment for such crimes should be equal to those for doing the same to children.
ok, now i sound like an extremist weirdo.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: FallenHeroanytime you take a gun and point it at someone, you better be ready to kill, otherwise you should have never pulled the weapon in the first place.

why's that? Can you not shoot someone in the leg to prevent them from harming you, but to not kill them so they suffer at the hands of the law and legal punishment they deserve? or MUST you shoot them in the face/heart/stomach?

Yes, you MUST.

Because if you don't, you're very likely to get killed yourself. I suggest you take some gun training courses.

Gun training clasess and stop watching movies and thinking all that stuff is real.

I have taken gun training courses and aim very good at shooting. However, I feel confident enough in my skill that I could shoot someone in the leg and just keep them in the gun's sights until the police arrive. I do not want to be responsible for the death of someone unless they were ultimately trying to kill me.
And what does the movies have anything to do with this? In the movies, the cops can shoot worth sh!t, they always miss, and when they do hit, people die and fly five feet in the air. No relevance.

You are so full of sh!t. Hitting a moving target is much different that shooting at some targets once a month. Either you shoot for center mass or you are an idiot. You don't try to wing someone, especially if they are ARMED as well. Your moniker fits you well.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Argo
Wtf??? Soon we'll start shooting people just because they "looked at us funny". Unless the guy was actually in the process of hitting him with a club there the is no way that murder can be justified.

I'm sorry, but that's horseshit. If you bust down my front door with a club in hand, I will rightly assume that you are not there to borrow a cup of sugar, and I will shoot you in the head.

Where did it say he busted down his door and entered the house?

The story doesn't say that. Argo's suggestion that one should wait until the offender is inside and swinging before one puts up a defense is what I was responding to.

However, the story does say that "The district attorney says Hammock broke out the glass on Griffin?s front door and then Griffin shot him", so I will add that if you break the glass next to my front door, and I believe you are trying to enter my house, I will shoot you in the head.

How do you know they are going to enter your house? I have heard of millions of incidents where someone just busts out a person's glass and cusses them out. They aren't going to attack them, but just vandalize their property. Plus, I would like to see pictures of the door. You could bust out the glass around my front door, but you wouldn't be able to enter unless you were a midget or had a key to the deadbolt. How can we really judge or give an assessment when we don't have the evidence or all the facts?

You're right. If you break the glass next to my front door, I will politely ask what you intentions are, and if you answer "I'm going to enter your home and hurt you or your family", I will shoot you in the head.

So can we start shooting those that throw rocks at windows too? What about kids that do stupid stuff like that as well? Maybe hit their baseball through your window? Shoot 'em!

Isn't there already a DevilsAdvocate on this forum?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Argo
Wtf??? Soon we'll start shooting people just because they "looked at us funny". Unless the guy was actually in the process of hitting him with a club there the is no way that murder can be justified.

Come break down my door & try telling that to me.



It's just a .22 (for now) but I'll empty the entire clip of Stingers into you.

Viper GTS

As far as I understand he didn't bust into his appartment. It sounded like the guy was just yelling at him from the outside. Sh*t like that happens every day. If i shot every neighbor that came over, knocking on my door and yelling I'd have killed 3 people by now.

well now there is a difference between coming over and knocking on my door and yelling and coming over with a 3ft club and breaking the window.

if you come over bang on my door and yell at me i will just call the cops and ignore you. if you come over with a 3ft club break out my window i will shoot you.

IF the guy was still on the porch that does add something else to it. But the guy had a weapon and did smash a window to the house. tough decision. i think if i was in his shoes i might have done the same thing.

his life is worth less to me then my wife and daughters.

I can tell you of a case that I know about personally. A guy was waving a railroad cross tie at a group of kids. Instead of calling the police they hit him with a baseball bat and he died. They were all charged with murder and convicted. The law frowns upon people taking justice in their own hand when they have an out. If you have decent doors you can call the police. If he does try to enter(reaching for the doorknob or attempting to bust the door out of the frame, then it would be much different.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Argo
Wtf??? Soon we'll start shooting people just because they "looked at us funny". Unless the guy was actually in the process of hitting him with a club there the is no way that murder can be justified.

I'm sorry, but that's horseshit. If you bust down my front door with a club in hand, I will rightly assume that you are not there to borrow a cup of sugar, and I will shoot you in the head.

Where did it say he busted down his door and entered the house?

The story doesn't say that. Argo's suggestion that one should wait until the offender is inside and swinging before one puts up a defense is what I was responding to.

However, the story does say that "The district attorney says Hammock broke out the glass on Griffin?s front door and then Griffin shot him", so I will add that if you break the glass next to my front door, and I believe you are trying to enter my house, I will shoot you in the head.

How do you know they are going to enter your house? I have heard of millions of incidents where someone just busts out a person's glass and cusses them out. They aren't going to attack them, but just vandalize their property. Plus, I would like to see pictures of the door. You could bust out the glass around my front door, but you wouldn't be able to enter unless you were a midget or had a key to the deadbolt. How can we really judge or give an assessment when we don't have the evidence or all the facts?

You're right. If you break the glass next to my front door, I will politely ask what you intentions are, and if you answer "I'm going to enter your home and hurt you or your family", I will shoot you in the head.

So can we start shooting those that throw rocks at windows too? What about kids that do stupid stuff like that as well? Maybe hit their baseball through your window? Shoot 'em!

Isn't there already a DevilsAdvocate on this forum?

I'm just being logical. Everyone else is trying to be billy-bad-ass or think emotionally.

 

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: FallenHeroanytime you take a gun and point it at someone, you better be ready to kill, otherwise you should have never pulled the weapon in the first place.

why's that? Can you not shoot someone in the leg to prevent them from harming you, but to not kill them so they suffer at the hands of the law and legal punishment they deserve? or MUST you shoot them in the face/heart/stomach?

Yes, you MUST.

Because if you don't, you're very likely to get killed yourself. I suggest you take some gun training courses.

Gun training clasess and stop watching movies and thinking all that stuff is real.

I have taken gun training courses and aim very good at shooting. However, I feel confident enough in my skill that I could shoot someone in the leg and just keep them in the gun's sights until the police arrive. I do not want to be responsible for the death of someone unless they were ultimately trying to kill me.
And what does the movies have anything to do with this? In the movies, the cops can shoot worth sh!t, they always miss, and when they do hit, people die and fly five feet in the air. No relevance.

You are so full of sh!t. Hitting a moving target is much different that shooting at some targets once a month. Either you shoot for center mass or you are an idiot. You don't try to wing someone, especially if they are ARMED as well. Your moniker fits you well.

Well if they were armed as well its a different story, but if they weren't I would take my time and try to not kill them. Sorry for having a little bit of leniency and care.

 

[Ornery]

Gimme Back My Bullets

• On the night of November 21, 2000, Jean Zamarripa was alone in her Colorado Springs, Colorado home when she heard a noise in her backyard. The widow turned on her outside lights, but couldn't see where the noise was coming from. "Who's out there?" she asked. Suddenly a man, later identified as Anthony Peralez, rammed his shoulder against the dead-bolted back door, ripping it from its hinges. Zamarripa, who had armed herself with a handgun, emptied it into the intruder. She reloaded, then called police. Peralez ran out to his car, but wrecked it as he was fleeing the scene. He was taken to the hospital for gunshot wounds to the chest, then arrested. The wounded man was suspected of being the serial rapist who had been preying on elderly women in the same neighborhood for several months. A police spokesman said, "[Zamarripa] did everything right and kept her wits about her. She's a hero not because she shot someone, but because of all the clear thinking and everything she did prior to the shooting." The shooting fell under Colorado's "Make My Day" law and no charges were filed against the homeowner.

THE "MAKE MY DAY" DEFENSE

• The "make my day" statute creates certain additional rights of self defense. Section 18-1-704.5, C.R.S. provides that the occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force against a person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling, if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime in addition to the unlawful entry and also reasonably believes that the intruder might use any physical force against any occupant.
  
  The statute goes further than other forms of self defense by providing for immunity from prosecution (as well as from civil liability) rather than merely establishing an affirmative defense. Based on this difference, the Supreme Court held that the burden of proving applicability of the statute rests on the defendant, who must prove applicability by a preponderance of the evidence.42 Resolution of the issue should be conducted by way of a pretrial hearing. Conflicting evidence as to the applicability of the statute must be resolved by the trial court, and appellate courts will defer to the trial court's findings.43 A defendant who loses at the pretrial hearing may still present self-defense to the jury.44
  
  It is generally assumed that the make my day defense is available against the full range of charges in which self defense is available, as discussed above. Appellate decisions have held the defense available against charges of first degree murder,45 second degree murder,46 first degree assault,47 second and third degree assault48 and heat of passion manslaughter.49 Several of the terms in the statute have been litigated. The term "dwelling" is defined in 18-1-901(3)(g), C.R.S., as "a building which is used, intended to be used, or usually used by a person for habitation." In People v. Cushinberry,50 the Court of Appeals held that a defendant sitting on a window sill in his apartment building stairwell when the victim confronted him was not entitled to the protection of the statute because the stairwell, which was a common area and not part of the defendant's apartment, did not constitute a dwelling for the purposes of the statute.
  
  The phrase "unlawful entry" has also been the subject of litigation. The Court of Appeals has held that a person who invited another into his home could not claim the protection of the statute because an invitee does not make an "unlawful entry."51 The trial court had interpreted the phrase "unlawful entry" to include the concept, familiar from burglary cases, of remaining unlawfully after an initially proper entry. The Court of Appeals noted, however, that the legislature did not include the remain unlawfully language in the make my day statute.
  
  In People v. Malczewski52 the defendant used force against a police officer who was attempting to enter the defendant's home to follow up on a report of a baby in danger inside the home. The trial court found that the officer's entry was illegal and that the defendant could reasonably have believed that the officer was about to commit the crime of kidnapping. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the entry was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement and finding no evidence to support a reasonable belief that the officer was about to commit a crime.
  
  The most recent Supreme Court discussion of the "unlawful entry" language occurred in People v. McNeese.53 The issue was whether an entry in violation of an oral agreement in a lease constituted an unlawful entry. The trial court granted the defendant immunity from prosecution on the ground that the entry was unlawful, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. A majority of the Court held that the appropriate question is whether the entry was "a knowing violation of the criminal law." The Court also held that the appearance of an unlawful entry does not satisfy this standard: there must be an actual unlawful entry.
  
  While the Court suggested that this entry, in violation of the lease agreement, did not meet this standard, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings on the question. Justice Erickson concurred in the remand, but argued that the appropriate definition of unlawful entry was "an entry into a dwelling in violation of criminal law." Justice Scott dissented, arguing that the majority was ignoring the plain language of the statute and engaging in judicial legislation. All three opinions contain significant discussions of the statute and should be read by anyone with a make my day case.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
No one knows if the neighbor shot the dog. Was he convicted of it?
It didn't sound like a social call. The dead guy broke the window on the neighbors with a 3 foot club. If I was in my house and someone was breaking out the window on my door with a 3 foot club, I would have to surmise that they were attempting to break down my door in an attempt to attack me. If they succeeded in breaking in and entered my house, they would be shot.
Around here, the Jehovah's Witnesses used their fists to knock on door, not 3 foot clubs.

Did he enter the house?

It doesnt matter if he entered the house. If you watch the news clip it will explained that the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled in past cases the porch of somebodys house is considered inside. The neighbor was shot on the porch.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
No one knows if the neighbor shot the dog. Was he convicted of it?
It didn't sound like a social call. The dead guy broke the window on the neighbors with a 3 foot club. If I was in my house and someone was breaking out the window on my door with a 3 foot club, I would have to surmise that they were attempting to break down my door in an attempt to attack me. If they succeeded in breaking in and entered my house, they would be shot.
Around here, the Jehovah's Witnesses used their fists to knock on door, not 3 foot clubs.

Did he enter the house?

It doesnt matter if he entered the house. If you watch the news clip it will explained that the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled in past cases the porch of somebodys house is considered inside. The neighbor was shot on the porch.

What news clip?