An Avoidable Tragedy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Posted by Ton:
I'm a firm believer is the use of either a flashlight or weapon mounted light when using a firearm at night. It may be cumbersome, and create a tactical disadvantage, but it is 100% necessary to ensure you actually identify your target.
Click to expand...
I keep a hand-held light. The gun is the same one I carry indoors and out, and it does not have a light.

I also have low luminosity battery-powered LED candles in sconces here and there, and they not only provide sufficient illumination to see where people are , they also cast shadows of anyone moving.

However, I don't believe that yelling "who's there?" at a silhouette in the darkness is a practical solution to the problem. In the event that it is an intruder, the best case outcome is they run off, and the worst case outcome is they respond with gunfire.
Click to expand...
It isn't a good solution to darkness, but it can still prevent one from shooting an innocent. Your failure to recognize someone in your house uninvited would shake you up, but it is not necessarily a reason for shooting. It could well be someone who had been visiting a neighbor, who had come to render aid in the event of an inadvertent cell phone call. Or maybe the fire chief in plain clothing.

If you happen to have been in bed at the time, you should be able to access cover and get ready. If the person responds to your challenge by trying to point a firearm, you still have an insurmountable advantage.

Should your challenge result in an innocent responding, it will have avoided a tragedy. Should it result in the flight of a criminal actor, it will save you more grief than you can imagine. If in the extreme unlikely event that it might cause a violent criminal amor to try to get to you, you were in grave under before uttering anything, whether you knew it or not.
 
http://www.ronhazelton.com/assets/uploads/general/Snap-Power-on-Wall.jpg

These start at about $10-15. They take about $.10 a year in electricity. They have an expected life span of 25 years. If you can't flip the breaker off and wire an outlet you need to learn how to do that task.

I have a different model wth only one LED in each of my public rooms besides my hold out position. I can stand in the hallway by my bedroom and have enough light to ID anyone within view. Since the lights are far away from me, it also makes it difficult to see me in my much darker position.

Also cuts down significantly on the number of times we bump into things in the dark. Hasn't been a problem while watching movies.
 
As with all firearms tragedies, this is a failure of multiple rules of firearms handling. That's why the rules are the way they are, redundancy. You can't break just one rule and have a tragedy.

A life-threatening emergency (or the perception of one) is no excuse to not follow the rules. This is a violation of II and IV.

http://thefiringline.com/Misc/safetyrules.html

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET


How exactly to meet the requirements of Rule II is open to debate. Following Rule II is NOT open to debate, by any sensible person.
 
The guy who shot his son is a trigger happy idiot. IMHO

You don't shoot what you can't see. Period. No excuses, no exceptions.
 
Pax said:
Yeah, that's how you end up shooting your son's best friend that he snuck into the house to spend the night, after the kid had a fight with his parents.
Click to expand...

With all due respect if you sneak into my house in the middle of the night that's a risk you assume.

All our kids are grown and gone but everyone of their friends would have come to the front door and rang the bell in that situation and they would have been welcomed.
 
Sharkbite said:
Being stupid does not rate the death penalty. Even if it should
Click to expand...

First, let me say that I'm not going to just fire blind but my first responsibility is to my family not to some neighbor kid who had to have broke in to get there.

I wake up in the middle of the night and the first thing I do is reach over and touch my wife. If she's there anyone else in my home isn't supposed to be there.

Again I'm not going to open fire blindly but if the unidentified person in my home makes any threatening move or gesture the identification process is over.

Several years ago there was an incident in Colorado Springs in which the home owner found an intruder in his basement and ordered him out of the house. According to the home owner the intruder turned around and started walking back towards the room he'd come from, took 3 steps, turned and fired at the homeowner. Homeowner fired back and the guy took off.

You broke into my home, I don't owe you a damn thing
 
With all due respect if you sneak into my house in the middle of the night that's a risk you assume.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah and the resident may well avoid criminal and civil liability.

BUT--if it is a wrong address (typo in a text message) or a plain clothed police officer chasing a man with a gun or an unexpected relative or someone coming in to warn yo about a fire, the resident would never live it down.

And his having posted such a sentiment in a public forum could well put him in a rather bad light in criminal or civil court
 
He recounted later how incredibly large the hole was in the end of the 1911 that met him held in my mother's hands
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I know exactly what that feels like--it's amazing how incredibly focused you can become on the twitching of the finger on the trigger.
 
Old Marsman said:
And his having posted such a sentiment in a public forum could well put him in a rather bad light in criminal or civil court
Click to expand...

18-1-704.5 Use Of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder ("Make My Day Law")

1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute
safety within their own homes.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, 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.
3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

Or , you know, not.

Again I am addressing Pax' hypothetical specifically. The neighbor kid who snuck into my home in the middle of the night uninvited.

The Colorado state legislature says I have the right to expect absolute safety with in my home.

1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

If you go out of your way to illegaly enter my home without my permission you assume 100% of the liability for your actions. Not me.
 
Last edited:
If your kid invited him, he's not legally an intruder.

It's not my kid's home it's mine

And remember he doesn't have to be an intruder I just have to reasonably believe he's an intruder.

Middle of the night, you snuck in my back door, while you're making your way through my living room to the basement stairs you hear my bedroom door open and you don't call out "Hey Mr. Glum it's me neighbor kid, Glum kid said I could come over!" ? Explain how I wouldn't have a reasonable belief that you're an intruder.

And in your hypothetical you said he snuck into my home.

Now you explain to me a scenario where my kid invited him and then went back to sleep instead of going upstairs to meet him when he got there.

Again, if you enter my home illegally in the middle of the night (which would include any method other than someone in my family opening a door and letting you in) you assume all responsibility for the danger you placed yourself in.
 
Last edited:
If you can afford to own a gun and ammunition, you ought to be able to afford a flashlight or some night lights.

Shining a bright light into a possible intruder's face isn't putting you at a tactical disadvantage, it's allowing you to identify whether there is a threat.

Home defense and self protection isn't tossing grenades at noises we hear in the brush on the other side of the wire. We need to identify a threat before we use force.
 
Just woke up, high on adrenaline and shooting people you can't see well enough to identify is a recipe for disaster.

Sure, a "who is there" or using a light might mean you lose the element of surprise or give away your position, but most of us don't live in an action movie and an unknown in the house is more likely to be an unexpected guest (eg. friend of the kids or the wife), or kids sneaking in, then some ninja assasin shooting at the light.

Where I live, I know of a few examples of tragedies like this which happened over the past few decades, and I know of a number of examples of home owners defending themselves and their property with guns (typically, without having to shoot anyone) but I sure as hell don't know an example where someone was killed because he took the extra half-second to check who he is shooting at.

While the law might allow you in some jurisdictions to shoot an intruder without asking any questions, few people live in such circumbstances where any unknown in the house is 100% guaranteed to be an intruder, meaning you're still required to check whether the unknown is an intruder or not. Where I live you're additionally required to determine if the intruder is a threat, which, while not ideal for every situation, does entice people to use force when they actually have to.
 
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, andwhen the occupant

reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any
occupant.
Click to expand...

Youve missed some mighty important elements in that law
 
Moonglum said:
...my first responsibility is to my family...
Click to expand...
So to protect your family you kill your teenage son or someone your son invited into your (and his) home?

Moonglum said:
...18-1-704.5 Use Of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder ("Make My Day Law")...
Click to expand...
Obviously you don't understand the law. CRS 18-1-704.5 reads (emphasis added):
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, 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.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.​
Click to expand...

Those conditions specified in paragraph (2) of 18-1-704.5 must be satisfied in order to justify the use of lethal force. So if your child comes home unexpectedly --

  1. State each and every fact and basis in law for your determination that he has made an unlawful entry to your (and his) home.

  2. State each and every fact and basis in law for your reasonable belief that he has committed, or intends to commit, a crime in your (and his) home.

  3. State each and every fact and basis in law for your reasonable belief that he intends to use force against you or someone else in your (and his) home.

Moonglum said:
....I just have to reasonably believe he's an intruder....
Click to expand...
No, that's not what the law says. CRS 18-1-704.5(2) says:
...against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling....
Click to expand...
There's nothing there about a reasonable belief. The reasonable belief language applies to the issue of the intruder having committed or intending to commit a crime (other than the uninvited entry) and the intruder's intent to use force against a person.

See also People v. Phillips, 91 P.3d 476 (Colo. App., 2004), at 481:
...there was no evidence the victim's entry into the house was unlawful, and therefore, no basis on which a reasonable jury could have acquitted defendant under the make-my-day statute.....
Click to expand...

See also People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo., 1995), at 309 -- 310, emphasis added:
...A prerequisite for immunity under the "make-my-day" statute is an unlawful entry[/B] into the dwelling. Id.; People v. Drennon, 860 P.2d 589, 591 (Colo.App.1993);.... The explicit terms of the statute provide the occupant of a dwelling with immunity from prosecution only for force used against a person who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, but not against a person who remains unlawfully in the dwelling. Drennon, 860 P.2d at 591.

The Guenther reasonable belief standard relates only to the defendant's state of mind once the intruder is inside the dwelling:

There is nothing in section 18-1-704.5 suggesting that the General Assembly intended to broaden the conditions for statutory immunity to include a home occupant's right to use any degree of physical force against another person solely on the basis of an appearance, rather than the actuality, of an unlawful entry into the dwelling by that other person. The legislature adopted a "reasonable belief" or "appearance" standard in section 18-1-704.5 only with respect to those other statutory criteria for immunity relating to the intruder's conduct inside the dwelling. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that the failure to include a similar "reasonable belief" or "appearance" standard with respect to the unlawful entry element of immunity was the result of deliberate legislative choice.....
Click to expand...
 
The Colorado Springs DA will certainly charge you with homicide for shooting your kid's friend because you are too stupid to identify the child before you shoot him. The DA won't care about your Dirty Harry attitude, and neither will a jury.
 
The problem I have with these scenarios is that they're not one size fits all. I have to be able to take any given scenario and adapt it to my reality.

My wife and I are the only people living in our home. Our youngest child moved out 14 years ago.

I wake up, reach over and put my hand on my wife and I've just accounted for everyone who is supposed to be in my home. Under those conditions any reasonable person would assume that anyone else in the house is an intruder who was there illegally.

Now, that doesn't give me the right to blindly open fire if I go out of the my bedroom and find some unknown person in my living room but it does bolster my reasonable assumption that the unknown person is a threat to me and it lowers the threshold on my decision to fire or not to fire considerably.
 
Moonglum said:
The problem I have with these scenarios is that they're not one size fits all....
Click to expand...
No, your problem is that you're not looking at what the law is. You're looking at what you want it to be.

Moonglum said:
...I have to be able to take any given scenario and adapt it to my reality....
Click to expand...
We're not discussing your reality. We're discussing reality, whatever that might be at the time.

Whatever your particular situation is at this moment might not be the way things will be when/if you find yourself facing a use-of-force decision. You might have house guests. You might be a house guest. You might be on vacation with a bunch of people in a cabin somewhere.

I've been in those situations and will likely be again -- and in variations on those sorts of situations. Tonight, it'll just be me and my wife here in our home -- as it is most of the time. But over Christmas we had a number of folks sleeping over. And several months ago, we were at a family cabin in the mountains sharing it with seven other people.

We can not predict the future. We don't know where we'll be or what the "scenario" will be if/when we've got a critical incident on our hands. We need to understand the applicable laws and have the requisite skills to be able to assess the situation and make appropriate decisions, whatever that particular situation might be.
 
Hey Frank, there's more case law than that to look at. Look at the case of the drunk coed in Boulder who walked through an unlocked front door, ended up in the bedroom an got shot no charges filed


http://abcnews.go.com/US/drunk-woman-wanders-colorado-couples-home-shot/story?id=16435998

Sean Kennedy never even made it all the way into the house before being shot no charges filed


http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/0...d-against-colorado-man-who-shot-intruder.html

My biggest problem with the moderation here (and at the high road) is arrogance of the moderators. You guys assume you're always right and you get bent out of shape if anyone dares to question your "expert opinion".

I never said I'd blast anyone I found in my home no questions asked I said (Quite specifically) that if you're sneaking around my house uninvited (the idea that my hypothetical kid invited the neighbor kid wasn't introduced until later) in the middle of the night that you assumed that risk not me. If you don't believe me ask Zoey Ripple, I'm pretty sure she's out on parole by now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top