Posted on 09/25/2013 9:00:35 AM PDT by catnipman
The homeowner pointed the gun at Carter and told him to "hit the ground" several times, police reported. Carter instead attempted to back out of the house and made it out the back door onto the patio, but the homeowner again demanded that he lie down and fired a single shot into the ground. Carter then complied, according to reports.
Longmont Police Cmdr. Jeff Satur said Tuesday that the investigation remains open and he cannot comment about additional details. He said the Boulder District Attorney's Office is reviewing the case to make sure the homeowner did not violate any laws during the altercation.
(Excerpt) Read more at timescall.com ...
How long will it take the criminal to find an attorney to sue the homeowner for unnecessary pin and suffering?
Boulder, the other ‘Red’ meat...
should have shot him dead....legal in Colorado....dead men tell no tales..and can´t hire an attorney
While I agree with your sentiment, I’ll bet the local D.A. would have been all over it looking feverishly for a loophole to prosecute the homeowner.
“Warning shots are not allowed anywhere that I know of. Usually a misdemeanor. Just have to use an “authoritative command”. “Get Down M F or I’ll blow your MFn brains out. Works, have done it. Otherwise let him go, unless you want to do “hand to hand” combat.
“Officer, in spite of my handgun, he attacked me and I felt in danger of death or serious bodily harm. So, I kept firing until the threat was neutralized. After which, I called 911 to report the event.”
The bias on the left is to put the innocent, non-violent law-abiding citizen in jail, and to set free the violent criminal.
(why?)
Cuz criminals take money from the hard working producers in a sort of ‘income redistribution.’
“Armed with a Ruger .357” If anything like the 3” GP100, the muzzle blast and report from a full house .357 mag. were no doubt, ahem, “authoritative.” No wonder the perp immediately complied. His ears are probably still ringing.
Boulder. 5 square miles surrounded by reality..
You mean like he's doing now?
LOL, yep...
Yes, just like he’s doing now.
Sounds like BS re warning shots.
Link?
If it was a .357 mag he’d have surely crapped his panties.
Actually, to do it right, like the cops, you need 3 or 4 neighbors shouting different commands at the same time.
You also need to have a dog handy to absorb the excess lead.
I shot a 681 with .357 one time w/o ear muffs outside once.
Oh god that hurt.
Warning shots are never a good idea, especially in the city. They’ll go on you harder for that than for whatever you’re holding the perp, unless he killed somebody.
Although it is poorly worded, and we are justified by experience in assuming malevolence in a DA's office against the homeowner, this statement does not say that they are trying to find a way to prosecute the homeowner. The DA is legally obligated to review the incident. But his office is likely populated by numbnuts that don't know they are stepping in a pile of PR crap making a statement like this.
Although I know I am morally entitled to shoot any person that breaks into my home, the problem with a "warning shot" from a legal point of view is that I would be indicating that I was not in immediate fear of my life. Because if I was, I would shoot the man, period. Job done.
Before anyone screams at me, IMO I have no choice but to assume anyone in my house has fatal intentions and act accordingly. To do otherwise would be pretty stupid. But the law could see it as shoot him or let him go. Warning shot turns it into a gray area. We want to avoid bureaucrats and gray areas.
Heh, yep. Nicest thing about Boulder is how close it is to Colorado.
My partner on the police force shot a .357 behind my head when we were looking for a rabid coon, which we found in a graveyard. I was driving and he said “There it is’. He drew and fired inside the car, right behind my head. I sincerely thought he shot my head off. I’m still deaf in my right ear and Ohio WC wouldn’t recompense for it.
“But I tried to fire a warning shot...He stepped in the way!!!!”
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it......
Agreed that they're a bad idea, but the OP claimed they were illegal everywhere. Calling BS until I see a source that says otherwise.
Yes. Inside the house is piercing a fatal barrier. You are correct to assume if someone is in your house they mean to do you great bodily harm. Fire away...make the first shot count, no sloppiness!
As for the statement from the DA office, I disagree and if I were the homeowner I’d be lawyered up yesterday because it sure as heck *does* look like they’re looking for something to mollify the bad people in the community. Discharging a firearm inside the city limits is a serious crime.
Yeah, I’d like to see the source as well. That language doesn’t sound very “official.”
I am in complete agreement with that. Regardless of how the DA acted, I would get a lawyer and speak only through him from the get go.
did you guys stay partners?
Inside the car had to just about bust an ear drum.
Let me revise my thought on the intention of the DA based on his statement.
Even if the homeowner violated some law against a warning shot, or some other esoteric law, the DA has the discretion not to charge him.
Rereading the statement with that in mind, yes it does sound like the DA is looking for some way to stick it to the homeowner. Since the *victim* (homeowner) is obviously not a danger to the community, the only purpose for doing so would be to make an example of him to deter others from defending their homes.
This is why DH always says for ME to get the .357 or shotgun. As a small female with precious children (and animals) it would be far harder to prosecute.
“Officer, he was IN the house and said he was going to kill and rape me, my daughter, my son and our dogs. What else could I do?”
Besides, that, I am a better shot...
Well, I never wanted to ride with the SOB again and I couldn’t tell the hospital EXACTLY how this happened, without turning the bastard in. So the medico’s looked at me, said it was not job related and gave me something for pain. My regular partner ( he was off that night) knew something was wrong, but I wouldn’t take time off because he would have been alone. All in all, I screwed up, had a hell of a headache for two weeks and missed out on disability payments
In my home town, when I was a lad, we had an officer get into big trouble once when he was shooting at a cat. He wouldn’t have gotten caught except he blew one of the bubble-gum machines off the roof of his car....
“The homeowner pointed the gun at Carter and told him to “hit the ground” several times, police reported. Carter instead attempted to back out of the house and made it out the back door onto the patio, but the homeowner again demanded that he lie down and fired a single shot into the ground.”
This was the homeowner’s mistake. If the burglar is in the home (not on the patio), the homeowner is probably justified is using deadly force under Colorado’s Make my Day Law. As soon as the burglar is out of the home, then standard self-defense law applies. To shoot, the homeowner needs a reasonable belief that his or another’s life or limb is in imminent danger. With the burglar backing out of the house, he probably cannot prove that.
There is no provision in Colorado law authorizing warning shots.
PC BS. If there is no law against warning shots, they shouldn’t be able to charge him with anything. If I was on his jury, I would vote not guilty, and give him a medal.
In the AF in 1971, we had 2 or three get in the wire. I tried to corral them in an area of the bomb dump, when Major B. came riding up with his M-16 in a staff car sedan. We searched the area, got a couple bursts off at them but they got back over the wire. He yelled at our Sgt. “You F’d up! We had them right here!!” He threw the rifle into the back seat of his car, fully charged with safety off and in ‘auto’ mode and it went off blowing two holes in the roof. I calmly turned and said “No Sir. You just F’ed up.” He WAS PISSED.
If this was inside City Limits, there very likely *is* a law against "discharging a firearm." "Warning shots" would be "discharging a firearm." The discharge law is there because there are idiots who shoot up in the air, and there is a risk of injury to some unknown person blocks away when the bullet returns to earth.
Remember this is Longmont, in Boulder County, which is a bit bigger than 5 square miles. So Boulder city insanity concentrated in county power impacts much more conservative communities like Lafayette, Erie, Longmont.
Firing warning shots is an indication of misuse of deadly force. If you truly fear for your life, you shoot to kill, not wound, maim or warn.
Also, firing your gun at anything other than your intended target (the intruder) can be considered reckless endangerment.
Those are the laws here in this great state...you can look them up for your state if you want.
Possibly, but it is still PC BS, and I still wouldn’t find him guilty in this context. I’d just consider it a citizen’s arrest.LOL
Me too. It’s a pity he’ll have to waste thousands of dollars on attorneys to get it before a jury.
Agreed.
The homeowner should have said the gun accidentally discharged instead of saying he fired a warning shot. We all know that guns do stuff to create problems all on their own-not the people holding the gun./sarc
“If there is no law against warning shots, they shouldn’t be able to charge him with anything. If I was on his jury, I would vote not guilty, and give him a medal.”
I was unclear I think. Under most local laws in urban areas, discharging a gun is illegal, unless the use of deadly force is permissible. In your home, in CO, deadly force is almost completely permissible as long as you have any belief that the intruder may mean harm to you or your family. So pretty much always and as long as the person you shot entered the home illegally. But outside the home, you have to have an actual and reasonably belief that the intruder is about to kill or maim you or another person.
So if an intruder backs out of your house and isn’t holding a gun, you would probably not be justified in the use of deadly force under the later standard, which applies when a person is outside the home. Therefore, a warning shot is probably an illegal discharge of a firearm.
In any event, there is no justification for warning shots. The chance of an innocent person being injured is much higher for warning shots than for aimed shots at center of mass. But here, there was probably no legal justification for an aimed shot at center of mass as the intruder was retreating and outside the home.
Try telling that to Obama and Kerry. They were crowing about firing warning shots at Syria just a week ago.
-PJ
Bookmarking.
The DA is fishing. Hope the guy gets off.
I still wouldn’t punish him. He didn’t shoot the guy. He just held him for the police. He probably saved someone else from a robbery.
dead men tell no tales,but their parents sell t-shirts and go on Oprah and hire an attorney for a civil suit.
“I fired once as he came at me but I missed. But then he dropped to the ground and started whining ‘don’t shoot me, don’t shoot me!’”
Except I guess I wouldn’t have missed if he were in my house.
And had a big blue/black spot in his vision from the muzzle blast flash.
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.