“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?
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.
“If the kid had been blind, would you feel the same?”
He was blind, blind drunk.
Unless he’s using his cane to knock on the door then how would the homeowners know? Do drunk blind people usually drive?
What if he had a gun of his own, made it into the home and killed both of the people living there?
So any time I hear glass break in my home at 2 AM I need to first ascertain whether the person is blind?