Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: SYG Laws working in Colorado

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,189
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by grnamin View Post
    Would have been nice if the state was made to pay the defendant's attorney and court fees.
    Here in WA, we have a law just for that.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
    The price of liberty is, always has been, and always will be blood: The person who is not willing to die for his liberty has already lost it to the first scoundrel who is willing to risk dying to violate that person's liberty! Are you free?
    --- Andrew Ford

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NN, VA
    Posts
    2,180
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Wow... DA Dan May can suck on a D...

    Honestly, I've never understood this "criminal's safety" mentality that the libs seem to have.
    "SEND IT" happens to be my trigger words...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Southern CA
    Posts
    2,173
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by _Stormin_ View Post
    Honestly, I've never understood this "criminal's safety" mentality that the libs seem to have.
    You are not alone my friend.

    Don't want extra holes in your chest or head? Don't go out rapin', robbin', and killin'. Seems so simple that even a liberal voter or politician could understand it.
    "Literally EVERYTHING is in space, Morty." Grandpa Rick Sanchez

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,886
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by _Stormin_ View Post
    Wow... DA Dan May can suck on a D...

    Honestly, I've never understood this "criminal's safety" mentality that the libs seem to have.
    It comes from the fact that they, and way too many other people, identify more with the criminal than with an armed home owner.

    They think along the lines of "that could have been me, or somebody I care about who felt they needed to take something for whatever reason" and they can rationalize a lot of scenarios where they might have to break into a house for this or that reason.

    They have a harder time identifying with somebody who would protect their possessions by force of arms, let alone take responsibility for using deadly force. They think more along the lines of "if somebody broke in my house I'd run out the back door and call the police." Typically most of the things they have are very replaceable, especially if they have insurance.

    There are few things, or people, they'd risk their own lives to protect and they can't fathom the idea that somebody else might kill them to protect their property or loved ones. They really believe that no matter what they do, at any time they should simply be allowed to drop any weapons, put their hands in the air and surrender without incident. They operate under the mentality that in the real world you can simply call "time out" and get a do over.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    976
    Feedback Score
    0
    Hope he can sue the county somehow. Michael brown family got over a million and he actually tried to kill a cop.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    889
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by grnamin View Post
    Would have been nice if the state was made to pay the defendant's attorney and court fees.
    That is how we roll in Washington. Get found not guilty because of self defense the state has to pay all your legal bills including witnesses... we don't get a lot of self defense prosecutions in this state.
    Damien

    If a large number of people are willing to kill you for saying something, then it probably really needs to be said. .

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,221
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    In this case there were two significant factors:

    First. the homeowner did not shoot an intruder in his home but in a detached garage that was 25 feet away from his home. The homeowner saw his bicycle lying in the backyard and went back to investigate.

    The negligent homicide count alleged that he was guilty of a "gross deviation" from what a reasonable person would do in his place. Prosecutors said he should have waited in his house and called police, or else used his pistol to hold the intruder at bay.

    Second, the homeowner shot the criminal in the back three times. His story was that the guy was lunging at him when he shot him. If his story is accurate, the attacker rapidly turned and by the time the defender realized it he had shot him three times in the back. Force Science Institute came up with a study about human reaction time and how long it would take to register that someone had turned around in a gunfight and stop firing: http://www.forcescience.org/articles/shotback.pdf

    As noted firearms instructor Tom Givens of Rangemaster.com has stated, "'In just about every single instance I know of where a permit holder or other lawfully armed citizen was charged after a shooting, he went outside his home or vehicle to confront someone "suspicious" or involved in some petty behavior like vandalism. You will get all the heartache you need in this world without going out of your way to get more.'
    Last edited by Ed L.; 06-28-17 at 23:26.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,886
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed L. View Post

    As noted firearms instructor Tom Givens of Rangemaster.com has stated, "'In just about every single instance I know of where a permit holder or other lawfully armed citizen was charged after a shooting, he went outside his home or vehicle to confront someone "suspicious" or involved in some petty behavior like vandalism. You will get all the heartache you need in this world without going out of your way to get more.'
    I'm going to disagree with Givens. You can interdict a lot of tragedy by addressing the goblins before they gain access to your home, your loved ones and anything else you care about. Talk to anyone who survived a home invasion and ask them if they would have gone outside armed to confront their attackers if given the chance.

    Wholesale dismissal of everyone who "goes outside" or "gets out of their vehicle" is MMQB and very flawed. Sure in many cases a person who doesn't "go outside" or "get out of their car" doesn't get charged with a shooting and that is because in quite a few they are killed by their attackers because they didn't recognize or respond to the threat soon enough.

    I wonder about a person who see's something strange enough on their property they feel compelled enough to "investigate" and bring a gun, but decides it isn't worth doing because they might get charged if something goes wrong.

    Certainly it's a hard game to play at 2am. Is it the neighbors kid stealing beer out of my garage refrigerator or is it another Richard Chase waiting to happen? Most reasonable people hope they never shoot somebody going after nothing more than free beer, but those same people also wouldn't want a Richard Chase or Danny Rolling type to actually get into their house.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wakanda
    Posts
    18,863
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Grand58742 View Post
    Good for him. I'm glad this turned out in the right for him. But the perp certainly deserves to be a Darwin Award nominee. How dumb to you have to be to break into a Special Forces guy's house?

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/28...-day-case.html



    Nice that the SYG laws actually worked in this case. And it sounds like the DA won't appeal the decision.

    Good to hear the home owner cleared, as he should be. Doubt that the oxygen thief knew the guy's military background.




    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    It comes from the fact that they, and way too many other people, identify more with the criminal than with an armed home owner.

    They think along the lines of "that could have been me, or somebody I care about who felt they needed to take something for whatever reason" and they can rationalize a lot of scenarios where they might have to break into a house for this or that reason.

    They have a harder time identifying with somebody who would protect their possessions by force of arms, let alone take responsibility for using deadly force. They think more along the lines of "if somebody broke in my house I'd run out the back door and call the police." Typically most of the things they have are very replaceable, especially if they have insurance.

    There are few things, or people, they'd risk their own lives to protect and they can't fathom the idea that somebody else might kill them to protect their property or loved ones. They really believe that no matter what they do, at any time they should simply be allowed to drop any weapons, put their hands in the air and surrender without incident. They operate under the mentality that in the real world you can simply call "time out" and get a do over.

    Nailed it.

    Last edited by Moose-Knuckle; 06-29-17 at 05:36.
    "In a nut shell, if it ever goes to Civil War, I'm afraid I'll be in the middle 70%, shooting at both sides" — 26 Inf


    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." — CNN's Don Lemon 10/30/18

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wakanda
    Posts
    18,863
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed L. View Post
    First. the homeowner did not shoot an intruder in his home but in a detached garage that was 25 feet away from his home. The homeowner saw his bicycle lying in the backyard and went back to investigate.

    The negligent homicide count alleged that he was guilty of a "gross deviation" from what a reasonable person would do in his place. Prosecutors said he should have waited in his house and called police, or else used his pistol to hold the intruder at bay.

    Second, the homeowner shot the criminal in the back three times. His story was that the guy was lunging at him when he shot him. If his story is accurate, the attacker rapidly turned and by the time the defender realized it he had shot him three times in the back. Force Science Institute came up with a study about human reaction time and how long it would take to register that someone had turned around in a gunfight and stop firing: http://www.forcescience.org/articles/shotback.pdf

    This is easy.

    Had the burglar not been trespassing with intent to commit a felony on the home owner's property none of this would have happened.

    Thank all that is holy that the jurors were not bleeding hearts.
    "In a nut shell, if it ever goes to Civil War, I'm afraid I'll be in the middle 70%, shooting at both sides" — 26 Inf


    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." — CNN's Don Lemon 10/30/18

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •