I have no problem determining that my television is worth more than the life of some scumbag who breaks into my house to steal it.
By Alan Prendergast
By Michael Roberts
By Michael Roberts
By Amber Taufen
By Patricia Calhoun
By William Breathes
By Michael Roberts
By Melanie Asmar
When the law was first proposed by two Republican legislators, it met stiff resistance from an unusual covey of prosecutors and liberals. Some denounced it as a "license to kill" that would pitch Colorado back to the vigilante justice of its frontier days. Others predicted that it would be manipulated by "gun nuts" to settle domestic or neighborhood disputes without fear of prosecution.
Many of those fears haven't panned out. While the law has sometimes been invoked in an absurd way — as part of a self-defense claim in the shooting of a troublesome relative or a drug dealer peddling ersatz merchandise — such claims have rarely been successful in court. Supporters of the law say it's working as intended, sparing crime victims from the ordeal of prosecution and having some residual, albeit hard to quantify, benefits to public safety.
"Make My Day just takes care of an edge issue," says Dave Kopel, the Independence Institute research director who's been involved in a lawsuit seeking to clarify the state's recent ban on high-capacity magazines. "It's not like it was illegal to shoot burglars before. You might occasionally have district attorneys who exercise bad judgment in these situations, but I think most DAs were using their discretion properly. It didn't change much in practice."
Kopel notes that his late father, Jerry Kopel, was a vocal critic of Make My Day when he was in the state legislature. "But the effects have not been the parade of horribles that people were worried about," he adds.
"I think it's an effective law, and it's been clarified over the years," says Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey. "When it comes up, which is rarely, we don't have trouble determining whether charges are warranted or not."
In fact, the measure is so popular that in recent years lawmakers have proposed amending it to encompass the protection of businesses as well — a step that makes Morrissey and other prosecutors uneasy, since it could well expand the use of deadly force in a wide range of situations. Once considered controversial, Make My Day is pretty tame compared to the sanctioned mayhem arising from more freewheeling interpretations of self-defense that have come after it, such as Florida's "stand your ground" statute — currently the subject of national debate, thanks to the O.J.-sized media attention devoted to the George Zimmerman trial. But that could change if Colorado's law is extended to confrontations outside a person's residence.
Count Al Michaud as one of the law's biggest fans.
Police treated him well after the shootings, Michaud says. "They wanted to give me a medal because I helped do their job. I think the law's great. I think when something like this happens, they should give us money and parade us around town and say how great we did."**********
What's known in legal circles as the "castle doctrine" — the idea that your home is your castle and you have an inviolable right to defend it — is deeply grounded in English common law. Yet the effort to pass a home-protection statute in Colorado at the height of the Reagan era touched off a surprising political firestorm. The law had an even rougher reception in the courts, thanks to a particularly nightmarish early test case.
Bill sponsor Vickie Armstrong, then a state representative from Grand Junction, says the idea for Make My Day arose out of town meetings with citizens who complained that the existing self-defense law was too vague or confusing. Some said the law put too much burden on the home defender to prove an imminent threat and to show that the amount of force used was "reasonable" under the circumstances.
"A lot of people were concerned about protecting themselves," Armstrong recalls. "Theoretically, you couldn't use any more force than the person who was in your home [did]. And people were concerned about getting sued."
In language similar to that of a 1984 measure passed in California, Armstrong's bill allowed the use of deadly force to defend against someone who has illegally entered your residence. "It was very narrowly drawn," notes Jim Brandon, the bill's co-sponsor in the state Senate. "It had to be in the house, not on the porch or in the yard."
Brandon and Armstrong regarded the measure as a modest clarification of the right to self-protection, not a radical expansion of that right. It wasn't nearly as drastic as laws other states would soon pass, authorizing deadly force to prevent an intruder from attempting entry or eliminating a "duty to retreat" before whipping out your gun. Nor was it as all-encompassing as the "stand your ground" laws that would okay terminating threats with extreme prejudice but without regard to location. Yet some Democrats in the Statehouse were appalled; they described the Armstrong-Brandon proposal as a "shoot-'em-in-the-back" bill that elevated property crimes to capital offenses, sanctioning summary execution of some kid out to swipe your TV.
Brandon countered that no citizen should be required to determine an intruder's motives or level of weaponry before acting. "A young lady shouldn't have to ask, 'Are you here for my life or my jewels?'" he says. "I got asked, 'Do you think a man's life is worth your television set?' My response was, 'The guy who wanted the television set was willing to gamble his life. Stay out, and you're still alive.'"
I have no problem determining that my television is worth more than the life of some scumbag who breaks into my house to steal it.
Call them and they will tell you the same... ATFDenver I Field Office Group Supervisor 950 17th Street, Suite 1700 Denver, Colorado 80202 USA Voice (303) 575-7690 Fax (303) 575-7691
No, no law directly refers to A64 and removes your right to 2A, however, gun ownership and purchase is FEDERALLY regulated and you cannot own or purchase a firearm if you use drugs scheduled by the federal government of which marijuana is one. It is not that difficult to understand. It has and always will be prohibited if you use drugs that the federal government lists as a scheduled drug. Colorado does not have its own ownership regulations pertaining to firearms. It is ILLEGAL for medical marijuana users AND recreational marijuana users to purchase and own a firearm. If someone comes to the state to purchase marijuana and they live in another state, they still cannot own or purchase a firearm since it is federally regulated.
A moronic troll needs hooked on phonics to understand this post. My point is that we should publicize any expansion of the law as much as we have been inundated with the Zimmerman trial by the media. Troll started arguing the finer points of the trial of which the troll was wrong anyway since the troll has taken all liberal media reports as facts.
Yes, it should be expanded and publicized to the same extent as the Zimmerman trial. People intent on breaking the law when in someone else's domain need to know there is more than their freedom at risk. I would not condone use of deadly force on anyone fleeing though.
This should help you improve..... https://www.hookedonphonics.com/
And since you can't understand my post, the reason Zimmerman was mentioned was in regard to publicizing any expansion of the law as much as the trial had been publicized you idiot.
And since you can't understand my post, the reason Zimmerman was mentioned was in regard to publicizing any expansion of the law as much as the trial had been publicized you fucking idiot.
Your comprehension is at a 2nd grade level since you can't understand my post. Go back to trolling, you are the moron with your response to something that wasn't expounded upon. A jury has made the call so build a bridge...Zimmerman's domain according to Florida state law is wherever he has a legal right to be and no evidence was presented to say otherwise. Get off the drugs and get into reality.
I still don't understand where people come up with the idea that it is somehow a morally superior point of view, to be a VICTIM OF A VIOLENT CRIME. Rape, theft, larceny are all against the law. Citizens that abide by the laws have the right to own their own wealth, and be secure on their property, or in their dwellings. The police are not charged with, or capable of being present at every law breaking event in the area. (city, county, block, pick a place) An armed society is a polite society! I guess it goes back to child rearing. Discipline, fear of reprisals and consequences appear to be a thing of the past. In a world where every one is a winner, it makes sense that no one else has the right to privacy, or to be successful!
I compared many states 'right to defend oneself' w/ that of Florida's, 'Make my day', & I have not been able to come up w/ much of a difference ....
I'd like to publish some of these comments in our letters to the editor section, ideally with the author's full name. if that's okay, e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The logical, and essential, premise of "Make My Day" laws (an extension of common law or statutory principles governing trespass or breaking and entering) is that only a limited number of people, such as family members or police armed with a warrant, may lawfully enter someone's home without express permission.
The obvious problem with extending the "Make My Day" defense to businesses is that the public is not only welcome, but actively encouraged, to enter most businesses.
As "business invitees", their entry into and presence in the business is completely lawful. It therefore becomes much more difficult to distinguish between those who are "fair game" (such as those who attempt to rob a store or bank with a weapon) and those whose actions, even if unlawful, do not justify the use of deadly force.
It would therefore seem that current law, which already, in accordance with traditional "self-defense" standards, permits business owners to use deadly force to defend themselves against an imminent threat of great bodily injury or death (especially with benefit of surveillance video) sufficiently protects businesses.
Of course, my perspective is undoubtedly influenced by the fact I do not operate a medical marijuana or liquor store. :)
Moreover, there can be no denying that extending "Make My Day" laws to retail businesses might significantly stem the horrendous plague of shoplifting to which retailers are subject, and thereby reduce the "tax" they in turn must impose on law-abiding citizens to cover their "shrinkage".
Against this benefit one must weigh the dangers of a crazed "Soup Nazi", or chef enraged by a complaint about his sole meuniere, getting the drop on a hapless diner.
Fuck em. Break into my home, die. Simple as that. I don't really care what anyone else thinks about it and make my day law or no, I would react in exactly the same way. I am tired of the punks, thieves and miscreants getting all the breaks. They want to show how tough and mean they are? Tell that to Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson. Tough guys aren't tough with a bullet in them. My personal favorite is Mr. Colt.
It is a good law. people need to be able to protect themselves with out fear of son prosecutor charging them. Most do not realize the the prosecution has no duty to pay the successful defendant's legal fees which can run into 7 or more figures. For real criminals that is no a consideration but for the rest of the population it is.
Now to over turn the ignorance of the last set of ant-gun legislation.
@marcy ... spoken like the vile amoral cunt that you are.
@Stephan Reuchlein ... additionally, possession of a Firearm while committing Drug crimes is a separate Federal Offense, which ads a 5 year MINIMUM MANDATORY prison sentence -- consecutive -- to the drug sentence.
@Stephan Reuchlein "People intent on breaking the law when in someone else's domain need to know there is more than their freedom at risk"
Apply that to the Zionist Pigs who occupy Palestinian Homelands.
Hi, Juan: The essential difference is that "make my day" laws extend the common law "castle doctrine" to the use of deadly force against someone unlawfully in your home, regardless of whether the intruder is threatening you with imminent death or serious bodily injury (whereas reasonable perception of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury is normally required to support a claim of self-defense outside the home).
So, under "make my day" laws, the homeowner or lawful resident is presumed to be entitled to shoot a burglar or other unlawful intruder without proving the intruder was a physical threat.
Prior to the advent of "make my day" laws, lawful residents had to prove a self-defense claim (reasonably perceived threat of death or seriously bodily injury) if they killed a burglar or other unlawful intruder.
Once "make my day" laws were passed, burglars or other unlawful intruders were on notice that merely entering someone's home could get them killed, whether or not they were armed or threatening the homeowner.
Advocates of "make my day" laws contend they help reduce the rate of burglary, though the evidence is clouded by improved police techniques and increased incarceration rates.
They have very occasionally been exploited (often unsuccessfully) by those bearing a grudge or seeking to eliminate competition (for a lover, in the drug business, etc.) to invite a victim into one's "castle" on false pretenses for the purpose of murdering him or her.
They have also protected numerous homeowners or residents from unjust prosecution by law enforcement (who don't like citizens taking care of business for them) for blowing away an intruder.
On balance, the benefits of such laws, in my judgment, greatly outweigh their undeniable potential for abuse.
Perhaps the most effective means of reducing burglaries and thefts is to reduce drug addiction, which is the motivation of a huge proportion of property crimes.
One approach is Singapore's, which is death after show trial for the possession of controlled substances.
Another is that attempted by some European countries, which is legalization, even to the extent of supplying addicts with needles and drugs, coupled with intensive counseling/treatment, etc., etc.
Neither is ideal, but either would be better than our current system, which helps sustain huge demand for illegal drugs and restricts supply just enough to keep the profits very high for the domestic and foreign cartels that control the trade.
That is, given the billions in profits to domestic and foreign cartels (we only hear about the foreign ones, though it should be obvious they could not transport or sell their product without the assistance of very powerful domestic cartels) that can then be profitably laundered through banks, restaurants, real estate developments and other apparently legitimate businesses, a lot of money is thrown at politicians to persuade them to maintain the status quo. Very bad public policy, but very good for a lot of apparently legitimate businesses and corrupt pubic officials.
Here is a good summary of the origins and operation of the "castle doctrine" and "make my day" laws.
@tahosa65 ... your amoral homicidal tendencies are noted.
@DonkeyHotay Yeah, in 1950s westerns. In the real world, survivors shoot first.
Right! Since you are in charge of deciding what a coward is ...
Thank you for clarifying . It is still very close ....
Translation: MMD Laws = Homicidal Cowardice Codified
@ianbrettcooper ... killers and cowards shoot first.
@Mark897 Hi Mark897, you've been nominated for our 2013 web awards as one of the best commenters of the year. Email me at email@example.com and let us know if you can come. Thanks!
You're quite right, "Juan"; it's not always easy to understand the distinction, yet it's REALLY important to understand when confronted with an apparent intruder in one's home.
Given his apparently sociopathic outlook (reflected in his vile personal attacks, e.g., calling "marcy" a "c--t" for disagreeing with him above, one cannot help wondering whether "DonkeyHotay" finds "make my day" laws objectionable because he/she fears he/she may one night, while exploring others' homes, find him/herself the victim of its presumption of justifiable homicide.
Donkey prefers to be a victim. Here, take my purse, here take my TV, here take my car, here take my money just please, please, please Mr Badguy please don't hurt me.
After all, it's just a terrible thing if people breaking into your house get shot and killed. The world would be such a boring place if it ran short of burglars.
@DonkeyHotay @Mark897 I'm not widely regarded as being afraid of much of anything.
I have no idea who you are, but such personal attacks as a substitute for reasoned discourse are a common sign of inferior intellectual capabilities.
You should really run for office or seek judicial appointment. You have demonstrated you are very well qualified, at least in Denver.
@Mark897 "in this nihilistic age in which the probability of burglary, rape or homicide by addicts or predators is MUCH higher than it was 50+ years ago"
Nonsense. That's just your abject cowardice and fear talking.
With respect, would it be better to expose homeowners, in this nihilistic age in which the probability of burglary, rape or homicide by addicts or predators is MUCH higher than it was 50+ years ago, to the high risk of bankruptcy and/or prison after being forced to defend themselves against a charge of murder by the very State that failed to protect them from criminals?
You may think so. I do not.
We would likely agree, however, that "make my day" laws are an inefficient means of solving the root problems that have dragged our once very safe society into the gutter, and rendered innocent citizens fair game for all manner of predators.
Until we more forcefully attack the root problems, "make my day" laws will remain a necessary evil in a world increasingly full of evil.
Since vigilantism, though I am inclined to favor it as a means of dealing with rapists, child molesters, and meth and heroin dealers, is for good reason barred by the Constitution (at least to the extent it is perpetrated by citizens as opposed to law enforcement), we must look for other solutions, such as: giving up on the silly notion of "treatment" for sexual predators; early identification through genetic and psychological screening of addictive personalities, and intensive monitoring and treatment to steer them away from abuse; some form of legalization of all drugs, or less dangerous alternatives, coupled with VERY severe penalties (like Singapore's) for going outside lawful channels to sell or obtain them.
@azlefti @DonkeyHotay @tahosa65 You sir are correct. Calling someone a "coward" or using the one single instance of a self defense gone wrong to justify your refusal to recognize that in the real world, you are responsible for your own defense, is laughable. With or without this law, everyone has a right to self defense. It's an "unalienable," right along with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I would not seek out the opportunity to exercise that right. On the other hand, I would never hesitate to take another's life to protect me or mine. They make that choice when they come into my home uninvited or accost me without reason. You want to take what is mine? Be ready to give all you have in the effort.
@CloudGang "There is nothing in my home worth dying for....."
Your wife and children must be so proud of you ...
@tahosa65 ... what part of the Constitution grants you homicidal powers of summary execution ?
Fire away, coward!
Man Shoots and Kills Apparent Intruder ... His Own Son!
@CloudGang @DonkeyHotay @tahosa65 @ianbrettcooper
Americowards have cut and run from every war they've started and lost since Korea ...
... all of them against far smaller, weaker and poorer sovereign nations.
Another one, filed under Cowards Shoot First !!Retired Cop Fatally Shoots Own Son, After Mistaking Him For Burglar
CHICAGO — A retired Chicago police officer accidentally shot and killed his son early Tuesday, after mistaking him for a burglar, the officer’s family said.
Michael Griffin, 48, was killed at his father’s home in the 5300 block of North Delphia Avenue. His family said Griffin’s father, retired Chicago Police Detective James Griffin, mistook Michael for a burglar.
The Cook County Medical Examiner’s office said Michael Griffin died of a gunshot wound to the head.
Good Shot !!
Meanwhile a trigger-happy cowardly cop shoots first -- killing his own son!
OLD FORGE, NY – State troopers say a police officer in New York shot and killed his son, mistaking him for an intruder.
Troopers say Parry Police Department Officer Michael Leach called 911 to report the shooting early Saturday.
He was staying at the Clark Beach Motel and shot someone he believed to be an intruder. But the man turned out to be his 37-year-old son, Matthew Leach, according to the Syracuse Post-Standard.
Troopers say Leach used his department-issued .45-caliber Glock handgun in the shooting.
Police say that a pair of robbers went to the home of an acquaintance, where they held that man and his family at gunpoint while demanding money and prescription medication. The mother of the homeowner, who was in a different room, reportedly realized what was happening and grabbed a handgun. She then fired in self defense and defense of her family, striking one home invader and sending the other running, police say. Two suspects, including one with a gunshot wound, were reportedly apprehended by police. None of the victims were harmed, police say.
Yet again, we have another woman who was able to defend herself and her loved ones with a gun. Had this woman not been armed, she and her family could have been, victimized in their own home by a pair of dangerous attackers. Fortunately, this woman was armed for self defense, and as a result was able to save herself and the rest of her loved ones. Once again, armed self defense works.