It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Homeowner fatally shoots robbery suspect; one still at large • Littleton, CO

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   


Deputies found the shooting took place at a residence where the homeowner had listed items for sale on Craigslist. The homeowner said two Hispanic men arrived to look at the items, then produced a gun, tied up the homeowner and robbed him, the sheriff's office said.

The two men then left the home, with one man attempting to steal the homeowner's vehicle and the other suspect in a 1990s gold Mustang.

The homeowner was able to free himself and confront the suspects outside, firing several shots at them in front of the house.


Homeowner fatally shoots robbery suspect; one still at large

So, two men enter his house and tie him up. He frees himself and pursues firing at the fleeing gentlemen.

Unfortunately, he was only able to dispatch one of them.

This is likely to be a very contentious case.

I believe this will result in a prosecution and be resolved with a jury nullification.
edit on 27-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Home invasions and what ever happens to the perps from a home owner trying to protect themselves and their property should be a non issue. If someone broke into my home, I would not think twice about what their intentions might be nor would I feel bad if I ended their lives.

I have 1 Safe Space and that is my home!



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Agreed, the complications arise when common sense is subjected to statutory definitions and various inevitable interpretations.

The grey area created by legislative specificity is what comprises your property. In my mind, if I know that a now fleeing assailant is the same person who just assaulted me, I am obliged to do what I can to protect civilians from armed criminals. That means killing them, not slowing them down or speaking harshly at them.

If they were in the house still it wouldn't be a difficult point to make. It only becomes clouded when the assailant traverses the threshold of the domicile.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

In most places, as long as it takes place on your property and you have reason to believe that you were in danger of grievous bodily injury or death, it will be considered justified. The grey area, IMO, concerns whether or not the criminals were fleeing when shot at and one was killed. In many jurisdictions, shooting a fleeing suspect is a no-no, and claiming that the reason was to protect the public from potential violent crime in the future is not a justification for using deadly force.

So, IMO, it will come down to whether or not the criminals were already fleeing before the shots were fired. If so, I think the homeowner may have some legal problems on his hands.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I agree with your assessment.

My own attempt to insert the open ended "protect the public" defense was meant to draw attention to the opaqueness of any argument demanding that one stand down from pursuing a criminal due to their geospatial location.

It's a lot like the imaginary transfer of jurisdiction at the town border. Do the police stop chasing you because you crossed into another town?

I expect this to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law with the defendant being the victim of the robbery. I am certain that a competent lawyer would give the jury no choice but to convict him on the letter of the law but acquit him on the spirit of it using their only tool, jury nullification.

The fact that one of them survived always complicates these cases as well.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I'll bet the home owner is going to go to jail. I have my concealed carry and its only self defense as I understand the law if you are in fear for your life. Once the crooks left his home, he was no longer in danger...I mean that scenario is almost exactly like one painted as an example in the NRA handgun safety course...he should of gotten their plate number, called the cops and let them do what they do.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket

I think so too.

Nobody thinks he shouldn't have shot the fleeing assailants for any reason other than the technical caveats you describe. It would be different in a highly populated area like a packed city street or if he was reckless in his targeting.

That makes this a great example of bad law and an opportunity to strike down the statutes that limit self defense.

In my opinion, there is no better potential demonstration of the impracticability of such laws than a high profile jury nullification.
edit on 27-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
There should be allowance for the state of fear one must be after having a gun pointed at you then being tied up.
One's adrenaline would be pumping so hard I couldn't hold them to account for anything they did to the perps.
Why the law just ignores that aspect and pretends like everyone should be clear thinking and just let them get away in peace or be prosecuted blows my mind.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Yes, there are lots of good arguments to be made.

Fear of the perpetrator's return being foremost among them but, I still think the best argument is responsible civic regard.

If a dog bites a person, you put it down.
edit on 27-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
legisource.net...

The victim here is probably going to face serious charges. Colorado's archaic laws do not provide for defense of property, only defense of life.

Here, in reality land, the guy deserves a handshake and a free box of rounds. If the entire US dealt properly with theft and abuse, as this gentleman did, we'd see the US become one of the safest, least crime ridden nations on Earth. Instead we're handcuffed by mamby-pamby bullcrap that feeds into the commercial prison system's pockets while ensuring a revolving door of repeat offenders. Dead men have the lowest level of recividism out of all the various groups of criminals, never forget that.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

His lawyer might start opening statements off with something like...

Dear International Divorce Court, wait... that isn't right.

Dear Jury..

Ahh, anyway you know what I'm trying to say. Unless the story isn't reporting someone we should all know I don't even know why they are charging him, unless the are following the letter of the law.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Correct, it would seem inevitable given our understanding of the "castle" defense.

If we are to fix these bad laws we need a precedent and I think this might qualify for a righteous jury nullification.

Who knows, maybe there is evidence that he was reckless and it will not be exemplary but, if there isn't, I can't see a jury allowing him to go to jail for it.

That would put the issue squarely in the public dialog as a self defense issue which is where it belongs.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Even though I think this man should not be charged and deserves a pat on the back, I can't see him getting out of being charged. I'd hope it would end with some kind of greatly reduced charge resulting in no jail time.

The bad guys were already leaving and the threat had passed. All he had to do was nothing other than call the police as he was safe. That's the only thing the law will see and it is a fact.

Lets hope they find a way to at least make the charge a minor one that won't disrupt his life or take his freedom.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: gpols
a reply to: burdman30ott6

His lawyer might start opening statements off with something like...

Dear International Divorce Court, wait... that isn't right.

Dear Jury..

Ahh, anyway you know what I'm trying to say. Unless the story isn't reporting someone we should all know I don't even know why they are charging him, unless the are following the letter of the law.


They have to follow the letter of the law so, I don't begrudge the necessity of judicial consideration.

We can all agree that there is a point at which justified response becomes vigilanteism. The question is whether that point is in your kitchen, at your door, in your driveway, on your sidewalk or on the street in front of your house.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Even though I think this man should not be charged and deserves a pat on the back, I can't see him getting out of being charged. I'd hope it would end with some kind of greatly reduced charge resulting in no jail time.

The bad guys were already leaving and the threat had passed. All he had to do was nothing other than call the police as he was safe. That's the only thing the law will see and it is a fact.

Lets hope they find a way to at least make the charge a minor one that won't disrupt his life or take his freedom.


Let's hope that is the worst that happens to him.

There have been a few acquittals like the guy in Texas a couple of years ago.

What I want to see is an open repudiation of the statutory constraints to self defense in the form of a nullification.
edit on 27-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Once the suspect leaves the home you have to use the laws of citizen's arrest.

That means you have to force him to endanger you or threaten you.

If he is stealing your car force him to endanger you to drive the car away.
cops do this all the time and shoot suspects.

If he is armed with any weapon you can shoot him any time.
In this case the Hispanic men were armed with a gun that endangered the home owner as he attempted a citizen's arrest on HIS property.
If ether made a threatening move that looked like they were going for a weapon that is cause to shoot.
You have the right to arrest criminals that are on your property and threatening you.

It all depends on what you tell the cops when they get there.

i was a security officer on a navy research base.
edit on 27-1-2016 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

That's my understanding as well.

Here's a hypothetical for discussion, let's suppose that the assailants turned to leave the house at just the moment when he freed himself and produced his weapon.

If he shot them inside the house but while they were leaving, what would be the presumed judicial outcome?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
The article didn't state which man had the gun. If the guy taking his car did, he might have pointed it at the home owner which could be meaningful.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
The article didn't state which man had the gun. If the guy taking his car did, he might have pointed it at the home owner which could be meaningful.


Yes, it might not get to trial if the circumstances allow them to summarily dismiss the charges. That's not how these things usually happen though. Prosecutors aren't known for letting potential convictions fall out of their dockets, justice be damned.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Yeah thats pretty sketchy. I've never had trouble selling on CL but I'm always thinking of stories like this.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join