Posted on 01/01/2009 12:56:02 PM PST by marktwain
Related Articles
Dec 30: Pounding on the wrong door a fatal mistake in Springs
Springs homeowners kill burglary suspect Dec 29:
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.—Prosecutors are considering whether a Colorado law meant to protect homeowners against intruders applies in the case of a man killed outside a house he thought was his.
The parents of 22-year-old Sean Kennedy said detectives have told them their son, who had been drinking, was shot Sunday night after breaking a window to try to get in through the back door of a house a block away from where he lived.
-------------------cut-----------------------------
"It gets murky if the door is broken but not open," he said. Investigators are also likely to consider whether Kennedy was warned before being shot.
While the people at the house called police to report that they believed a burglary was occurring, police have not said how long after the call the shots were fired.
"The time frame will be key," Webster said. "It sounds like they were trying to do the right thing and get law enforcement there."
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
“He wasn’t inside, and inside means inside.”
So, how much has to be inside for him to be inside?
“and its not incumbent upon the homeowners to determine an invader’s motives.”
Actually it is. For them to consider him a threat, they have to determine the motive. Thats not to suggest that they can’t error in there determination, but they do have to make one.
There could actually be valid non criminal reasons to break into somebody’s house. Suppose you were driving along and saw a fire in and upstairs window... knocked or rang the bell and nobody answered?
Or suppose you knocked on the window and for some reason it broke. You do ned to make a reasonable determination before you open fire if the person is outside your house.
Maybe they shot him through the glass ~ I did look for something about which way the glass was scattered but the cops haven't yet said. Could make a lot of difference.
“Actually it is. For them to consider him a threat, they have to determine the motive.”
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
You misinterpreted my message. I meant for YOU to give it up. I will defend myself and my home from criminal intrusion. If a “kid” is that drunk, that’s too bad, but he made the choice to get drunk. Once someone invades my home by breaking a window, and I’m in that home, I will protect me and mine. If you choose to do otherwise—I have no problem with that, either.
I think the grief-stricken father is keeping this thing going and wants the blame deflected away from his kid.
I feel bad for the father losing his son in such a way, but the homeowners had every right to believe the kid was a burglar and acted in self-defense, IMO.
“I believe that you are referring to the “reasonable person” doctrine.”
I covered that when I said “Thats not to suggest that they can’t error in there determination, but they do have to make one.”
“The home-owner had no way to determine his intent or sobriety, did he? “
If the kid had been blind, would you feel the same?
Tell your loved ones who like to do this sort of thing to stay out of Texas (or Florida, for that matter) since there wouldn't even be a question there.
Does CO have any version of a “Castle Law”? If this happened in Texas there would be no action against the homeowner, as there should not be here.
Post 8.
I think it is very relevant that he actually broke the window on the door, rather than just pounding on it.
The person was acting in a manner that indicated intent to enter a home that wasn't his, and Colorado law makes clear, “. . . or is committing or INTENDS to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry,”
The intent is clear, he was trying to enter the home, he was attempting a break-in, and the fact that it was not his home is immaterial, as the homeowner was defending himself and his family.
Drunk or not is no excuse for committing a crime. . . blind or not is no excuse for committing a crime (or intending to commit a crime). If it was, then all drunks and all blind people can commit crimes and say, well, I was drunk/blind and didn't know what I was doing driving over that little girl.”
Yes. It is only the intent of the homeowner that should matter, not that of the personn breaking into the house.
That is, as long as the homeowner thought he was in danger, he has the right, even the obligation, to act to protect himself and his family.
It’s tragic, but so are accidents and illness.
I have closely examined your post, and parsed it several times. I’m not sure what you are saying. I could take it either way. Could you please expand upon your answer?
“I think the homeowner is in some difficulty here.”
Possibly, the broken window puts that into some doubt though.
‘Change your street number, paint it a different color, replace your glass with stronger 1” plexiglas, and learn to recognize your neighbors (like I always do) and you won’t be so subject to irrational paranoia.”
Having someone break into your home is not paranoia. Regardless of whether they are your neighbor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.