Man acquitted of murder under Make My Day law

TheeBadOne

Moderator
A jury Wednesday ruled a shooting death last year was self-defense under the state's Make My Day law, acquitting Gary Lee Hill, who was accused of first-degree murder for killing a man who had assaulted him in his home but was in his car when he was shot.

The Make My Day law permits people to use deadly force to protect themselves from intruders into their homes.

Hill, 24, declined comment as he was leaving the courthouse.

“He’s not guilty. Justice has been done,” said his mother, Kathy Jastrab. “He didn’t deserve to even be here. Those kids beat him and robbed our home. There was no reason for him to even be on trial.”

The jury deliberated for about six hours, after being handed the case late Tuesday. Fourth Judicial District Judge Robert Lowrey presided over the two-week trial.

Hill was acquitted on charges of first-degree murder with extreme indifference, and two counts of menacing, in the shooting death of John David Knott, 19. The shooting happened Sept. 5, 2004.

“He got away with murder,” said Knott’s sister, who would only identify herself as Tina. “He was my only brother. My kids only uncle. This is a sad day.”

According to testimony, Hill had been having a party that night at the house at 513 Potter Circle. He got into an argument with Allesandra Ash and Amanda Padilla over Padilla’s missing purse. Padilla admitted punching Hill. He brandished a rifle and ordered them to leave.

The women left, called Padilla’s boyfriend, Knott, and Ash’s boyfriend, Anthony Padilla. They went back to Hill’s house and entered Hill’s basement room, where he was sleeping.

Padilla testified she hit Hill three more times, and once more with brass knuckles, causing his head to bleed. They fled the house. Hill got a high-powered rifle, loaded it and fired once from the porch into the car Knott was driving. Knott crashed the car into a house and died.


link
 
why would they call it that. "make my day" law. The name makes even me extremely skeptical of it.

Stand your ground or castle doctrine....good names
Make My day-now THAT sounds like blood will be runningin the street.
 
Sounds like that guy's actions precipitated his "need" to shoot someone.

And if those guys were fleeing in the car, I don't see why he had to shoot.

I'm all for using so-called "make-my-day" laws to defend those who are attacked in their homes or wherever they have a right to be, when they justifiably use force to defend themselves. But this seems a shady application of that law.

Hill picked up a rifle when ordering the women to leave? Because a woman punched him? That seems kind of out of hand, but I don't know how serious the situation was when he faced it.

Sounds like he was associating with real scumbag people. The girl came back and punched him with brass knuckles?! What kind of girl has brass knuckles?! And even if they belonged to her scumbag boyfriend (who was too stupid to just turn over his girlfriend's missing purse deal to the police), what kind of girl takes them, puts them on and uses them to hit someone?!


Shady goings-on all around, here.


Where did this take place, anyway?


-azurefly
 
why would they call it that. "make my day" law. The name makes even me extremely skeptical of it.

Stand your ground or castle doctrine....good names
Make My day-now THAT sounds like blood will be runningin the street.


It's called that because ANTI-GUNNERS are the ones who gave it the name! And when the anti-gun press writes about it, they of course use the nasty name for it, rather than the appropriate name for it.

This should surprise no one.


-azurefly
 
Brass Knuckles are considered lethal weapons (at least here in Oregon).

Other than that, I don't know how to respond, have to think about it further.

Wayne
 
It happened in colorado springs. I imagine it was anti-SD people who came up with the name "Make My Day," but all the pro-gun people I know like it too.

For the most part in Colorado if you shoot somebody in your house who was obviously an intruder and there to commit a crime, there are not any charges filed and you're not even taken away. You are also exempt froom civil suits.

I don't understand why they allowed him to shoot at someone who was leaving the situation. He wasn't still in the house, he wasn't still a threat by any means ... seems like a bad interpretation. I'd say this guy got REAL lucky ...
 
+1 to that.

The guy was shooting at persons that were no longer a threat. True, they did endanger his life, but they were not an immediate threat to him or anyone else at the time the gun was fired.

Bad shoot, REALLY lucky guy.

I hope nobody else gets the idea that this law protects you if you shoot a fleeing offender.
 
I agree, and my thought was that questionable shootings like that are NOT what the RKBA movement needs right now. The anti's point to cases like that as examples of why we can't be trusted with guns.

I dunno where that happened, but you wouldn't get away with that in MD or VA. You can't shoot a fleeing person unless someone's life is in immediate danger (as in, he's driving and about to drive over your wife). The basic rule of thumb: if a cop can't shoot in a given situation, neither can you.
 
The jury did the right thing.Thugs beat him up in his own house and hes supposed to just let them drive away? The 19 year old punk who died deserved it.
 
Yup, we only think of it as a bad shoot because we know how poorly the laws are currently written in many places when it comes to self-defense. IMO the jury did the right thing.
 
If he'd shot the thugs in his house I doubt anyone here would argue it.

But when you shoot someone who's trying to drive away it's not self defense, it's an execution.

It's not like they were strangers. They had a history, and if you knew it all you might salute those "thugs" for giving this guy a dose of his own medicine.

But because he executed him, he was not there to testify at the trial.

Guns, like Karate, are for Self Defense.
 
Back
Top