"Make My Day" Law?

[Shotgun 1]

Does Colorado really have a "Make My Day" law, or is that just a nickname for their castle law?

Quote

A 21-year-old woman who was shot after she wandered drunk into a Colorado couple's home in the middle of the night will face charges of felony trespassing, her lawyer said on Saturday.

Zoey Ripple walked through an unlocked screen door leading into the bedroom of the couple, who said they shouted for her to leave before the husband fired a single gunshot in the dark when she kept coming into the room.

Ripple, who was unarmed, was shot in the hip during the incident on Wednesday in Boulder, Colorado. In a 911 call, the couple said she appeared to be "kind of stoned or something."

Police said Ripple's blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit. She is recovering in a hospital, her lawyer, Colette Cribari, said.

An arrest warrant for Ripple is expected to be issued in the coming days and she plans to turn herself in, Cribari said, citing conversations with prosecutors.

The couple is not expected to face any charges because of Colorado's "Make My Day" law, which allows people to use deadly force against home intruders, Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett has said.

Cribari called the felony charge too severe for Ripple, who is a recent graduate of the University of Colorado in Boulder.

"She wasn't trying to commit a crime. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time," Cribari said. "You would hope getting shot would be enough punishment."

(Reporting by Kevin Gray)

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-shot-colorado-homeowner-face-trespass-charges-211625176.html;_ylt=A2KJjbxxcsFPdT0AoWjQtDMD

[ryoder 1,384]

Third paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

18-1-704.5: http://jeffco.us/jeffco/sheriff_uploads/revised_statutes.htm

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[BartsDaddy 4]

No that is the nicname that opponents of the law lile to give it.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[headoverheels 291]

I'm no fan of guns, but I have absolutely no problem with anyone plugging someone who has invaded their home, even if it isn't necessary to protect themselves. e.g. if they perp is merely carting off worldly goods. This case is unfortunate, but that's just unfortunate.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

No that is the nicname that opponents of the law lile to give it.

OK, that makes sense. I assumed it was a nickname, but I was wondering why anyone would want to call it that. Makes Colorado gun owners sound like they're sitting at home waiting for an excuse to shoot someone.

But in this story, I agree the homeowners had every right to shoot the intruder.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

No that is the nicname that opponents of the law lile to give it.

OK, that makes sense. I assumed it was a nickname, but I was wondering why anyone would want to call it that. Makes Colorado gun owners sound like they're sitting at home waiting for an excuse to shoot someone.

No, that would be the states with the "Do you feel lucky punk?" laws.

[masterrig 1]

I don't see a problem, except for the 'intruder'. She was where she did not belong. The homeowner gave her fair warning and fired the shot. Her (the intruder) being drunk is no excuse. Seems fairly open and shut. I think, she should face charges.


Chuck

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I don't see a problem, except for the 'intruder'. She was where she did not belong. The homeowner gave her fair warning and fired the shot. Her (the intruder) being drunk is no excuse. Seems fairly open and shut. I think, she should face charges.


Chuck

what is sad it that we even have to have laws that protect people on their own property in cases like this

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No that is the nicname that opponents of the law lile to give it.

OK, that makes sense. I assumed it was a nickname, but I was wondering why anyone would want to call it that. Makes Colorado gun owners sound like they're sitting at home waiting for an excuse to shoot someone.

No, that would be the states with the "Do you feel lucky punk?" laws.

No. That's the law when being civilly sued for medical bills, pain & suffering after having shot said intruder.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

No that is the nicname that opponents of the law lile to give it.

OK, that makes sense. I assumed it was a nickname, but I was wondering why anyone would want to call it that. Makes Colorado gun owners sound like they're sitting at home waiting for an excuse to shoot someone.

No, that would be the states with the "Do you feel lucky punk?" laws.

No. That's the law when being civilly sued for medical bills, pain & suffering after having shot said intruder.

Nope. That would be the "Have better aim" law.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

No that is the nicname that opponents of the law lile to give it.

OK, that makes sense. I assumed it was a nickname, but I was wondering why anyone would want to call it that. Makes Colorado gun owners sound like they're sitting at home waiting for an excuse to shoot someone.

No, that would be the states with the "Do you feel lucky punk?" laws.

No. That's the law when being civilly sued for medical bills, pain & suffering after having shot said intruder.

Nope. That would be the "Have better aim" law.

I have been schooled.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Zep 0]

I think the home owner should be sentenced to at least a months range time,
or ordered to buy a short barrel scatter gun.

The girl should be sentenced to complete a behavioral course with the Shah.

Gone fishing

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I don't see a problem, except for the 'intruder'. She was where she did not belong. The homeowner gave her fair warning and fired the shot. Her (the intruder) being drunk is no excuse. Seems fairly open and shut. I think, she should face charges.


Chuck

what is sad it that we even have to have laws that protect people on their own property in cases like this

I really agree with you.


Chuck

[AndyBoyd 0]

I know I will get spanked by the pro-gun crowd for this, but please believe me, I am by no means anti-gun. Here is my take on this incident. This was a young college girl who had way too much to drink, and somehow got into the wrong house. Was she in the wrong? Of course. Did the homeowner have the right to use deadly force? I reluctantly agree that he did. But the reason I do not have a gun in my home is because I do not want to shoot someone like this. Yes, again, the homeowner had the right to shoot. But if he had killed her, he would have had to live with the fact that he killed a drunk, lost, harmless college kid for the rest of his life. I don't want that on my conscience. The risk I take is that I may not be able to defend myself against the real bad guy that breaks in. So I live with that risk. I guess I'd rather live with the risk of getting hurt or worse because I'm not armed than the risk of shooting some drunk, harmless kid and having to live with the guilt.

I hope I haven't riled up the pro gun crowd too much. I repeat that I respect the right to bear arms and also this homeowner's right to do what he thought he needed to to defend himself. Fire away, so to speak, pro gunners.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I hope I haven't riled up the pro gun crowd too much.

Why? What are they going to do to you - yell at you? The horror.

Speak your mind.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

I know I will get spanked by the pro-gun crowd for this, but please believe me, I am by no means anti-gun. Here is my take on this incident. This was a young college girl who had way too much to drink, and somehow got into the wrong house. Was she in the wrong? Of course. Did the homeowner have the right to use deadly force? I reluctantly agree that he did. But the reason I do not have a gun in my home is because I do not want to shoot someone like this. Yes, again, the homeowner had the right to shoot. But if he had killed her, he would have had to live with the fact that he killed a drunk, lost, harmless college kid for the rest of his life. I don't want that on my conscience. The risk I take is that I may not be able to defend myself against the real bad guy that breaks in. So I live with that risk. I guess I'd rather live with the risk of getting hurt or worse because I'm not armed than the risk of shooting some drunk, harmless kid and having to live with the guilt.

I hope I haven't riled up the pro gun crowd too much. I repeat that I respect the right to bear arms and also this homeowner's right to do what he thought he needed to to defend himself. Fire away, so to speak, pro gunners.

Bolding mine.

I'm about as pro gun as it gets. But I'm also realistic about the potential consequences of a mistake.

You have calmly and rationally (so it seems, anyway) evaluated the risks and consequences of being armed. YOUR decision is that the risks aren't worth it.

As long as you don't assume that your choices should apply to everyone else too, then I'm fine with your choices.
They aren't my choices, but I don't assume that my choices should apply to everone else either.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I know I will get spanked by the pro-gun crowd for this, but please believe me, I am by no means anti-gun. Here is my take on this incident. This was a young college girl who had way too much to drink, and somehow got into the wrong house. Was she in the wrong? Of course. Did the homeowner have the right to use deadly force? I reluctantly agree that he did. But the reason I do not have a gun in my home is because I do not want to shoot someone like this. Yes, again, the homeowner had the right to shoot. But if he had killed her, he would have had to live with the fact that he killed a drunk, lost, harmless college kid for the rest of his life. I don't want that on my conscience. The risk I take is that I may not be able to defend myself against the real bad guy that breaks in. So I live with that risk. I guess I'd rather live with the risk of getting hurt or worse because I'm not armed than the risk of shooting some drunk, harmless kid and having to live with the guilt.

I hope I haven't riled up the pro gun crowd too much. I repeat that I respect the right to bear arms and also this homeowner's right to do what he thought he needed to to defend himself. Fire away, so to speak, pro gunners.

I don't think the pro-gun crowd will have a problem with your post

You made a decision for you which is YOUR right.

The point is you have the right to make the choice to begin with

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

what is sad it that we even have to have laws that protect people on their own property in cases like this

You have to have a law like this because it is generally against the law to shoot people.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

what is sad it that we even have to have laws that protect people on their own property in cases like this

You have to have a law like this because it is generally against the law to shoot people.

Not if someone is in my house who is not supposed to be there isnt.

And you proved my point

There has to be stand your ground laws to protect the innocent from those with attitudes like you demonstrate here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Quote

Quote

what is sad it that we even have to have laws that protect people on their own property in cases like this

You have to have a law like this because it is generally against the law to shoot people.

Not if someone is in my house who is not supposed to be there isnt.

And you proved my point

There has to be stand your ground laws to protect the innocent from those with attitudes like you demonstrate here

Dure, don't be so fucking obtuse.

If you make a law that says it is illegal to shoot people, then you have to make seperate laws indicating when it would be legal to shoot people.

It is just simple logic.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

But the reason I do not have a gun in my home is because I do not want to shoot someone like this. Yes, again, the homeowner had the right to shoot. But if he had killed her, he would have had to live with the fact that he killed a drunk, lost, harmless college kid for the rest of his life. I don't want that on my conscience. The risk I take is that I may not be able to defend myself against the real bad guy that breaks in. So I live with that risk. I guess I'd rather live with the risk of getting hurt or worse because I'm not armed than the risk of shooting some drunk, harmless kid and having to live with the guilt.

Andy, there are many who think just like that and nobody can beat you down for you personal preference.

I just hope you never have to face that situation and have to live with the results of not being able to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Many who use your process have gladly changed their mind, after the fact, when it happened to them. Just sayin'.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

what is sad it that we even have to have laws that protect people on their own property in cases like this

You have to have a law like this because it is generally against the law to shoot people.

Not if someone is in my house who is not supposed to be there isnt.

And you proved my point

There has to be stand your ground laws to protect the innocent from those with attitudes like you demonstrate here

Dure, don't be so fucking obtuse.

If you make a law that says it is illegal to shoot people, then you have to make seperate laws indicating when it would be legal to shoot people.

It is just simple twisted logic.

FIFY

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[devildog 0]

You're free to do w/e you like in that regard. But I would wager that the number of people that accidentally break into a home (like the one in this story) are a lot less than those that break into homes to commit crimes. As such, statistically speaking, if a stranger is in your house -- especially late night -- and isn't leaving when you yell at them, you're better off shooting than not. Just my .02.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[wmw999 2,121]

Why is it twisted? Should one be able to do anything one wants in one's own home?

Defense is one thing, offense is another. If you say it should be unnecessary to allow someone to shoot intruders, how do you differentiate between intruders, and just shooting someone who's in your home that you pissed at? Or should that be OK, too?

Laying out when it's OK means that there are times when it's not OK. And htere probably are times when it's not OK to shoot someone in your own home.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[AndyBoyd 0]

You are right. I hope I never have to face that situation either. There is risk either way. I'm sure there are also folks who will regret forever their decision to have a gun in their home. But as I've said, I have no problem with the safe and responsible gun owner.