DA says Make My Day Law protects man who shot, killed neighbor in barking

[denverbill]

DA says Make My Day Law protects man who shot, killed neighbor in barking dog dispute

http://www.9news.com/storyfull.aspx?storyid=20786

AULT - A Weld County man accused of killing his neighbor last week in a squabble over a barking dog will not be prosecuted. The district attorney says the shooting was justified under Colorado’s Make My Day Law.


Richard Hammock, 48, died Nov. 2 from a shotgun wound. His dog had been shot with a pellet gun and he went to his neighbor’s house to confront him about the incident.

Hammock was carrying a three-foot club when he went to 33-year-old Eric Griffin’s home. The district attorney says Hammock broke out the glass on Griffin’s front door and then Griffin shot him.

<snip>

This is just sickening. This asshole murderer shoots his neighbors dog because it was barking. When the understandably upset dogowner confronts him, the fucker shoots him dead with a shotgun. And he walks scot-free. Fucker should be facing the death penalty, IMO.

[ibegurpard]

1. What are you supposed to do when someone bashes out your windows

with a three foot club? Offer them tea?
The asshole who shot the dog definitely deserved to get his clock cleaned but the guy should've called the cops or something. You don't go and confront your neighbor with a three-foot club and not expect to find trouble.

[denverbill]

3. Well, in the first place, I don't fucking shoot anybody's dog.

So generally speaking, my neighbors aren't going to bash in my fucking windows.

[ibegurpard]

16. I'm not defending anyone here.

They both sound like neanderthals. However, you don't go bash your neighbors windows in with a club and not expect trouble. Conversely, you don't shoot your neighbor's dog and not expect trouble.

[GreenGreenLimaBean]

64. Where does it say the shooter shot the dog??

I think assumptions are being made that the shooter also shot
the dog, but the story only says the dog was shot, not who shot it.

Based on the fact that man busts down your window and enters your
house with a 3 foot club, I believe shooting him was justified.

What would anyone do in his situation?

[denverbill]

79. Here's another partial account.

<snip>

The incident began when Griffin allegedly shot Hammock's lively miniature pinscher, named Mojo, with a pellet gun on Nov. 2, police said. The dog's yipping irritated Griffin, Ault Police Chief Tracey McCoy said.

The Hammocks rushed their dog to a veterinary clinic when it yelped in pain and had trouble breathing, Diane Hammock later said. A pellet had pierced Mojo's lungs and lodged in his side; X-rays showed at least one other pellet in the dog's hindquarters from a previous shooting, she said.

The Hammocks left Mojo at the vet's office and returned home that evening. While Diane Hammock went inside to call police to report that their dog had been shot, Richard Hammock went outside to park the car, she said.

Then he went to confront Griffin over Mojo's wounds.

------------------
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1758284,00.html

[private_ryan]

80. your logic is missing

the dog shooting happened. The guy screwed up but that doesn't mean he should've sat there as the guy beat him with a three foot pole.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

110. No. He broke a window in the guy's door with a 3 foot pole.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

6. I suppose you could the police?

[atre]

36. Well, the law generally says you can use no more force than is reasonably

necessary to defend your life. If someone comes at you with a club, you must exhaust all your alternatives before aiming and pulling the trigger. This could mean threatening the guy, and it also could have meant calling the cops. There are good reasons why this is the general rule when a defendant asserts self-defense, and there are really no good reasons why the state legislature should have abrogated that general rule.

This law and the application of this law are both huge injustices. I would not vote to re-elect this crappy D.A., nor would I vote to re-elect any crappy state legislator that voted for this crappy law.

[private_ryan]

83. call the cops?

by the time the show up you're dead and he can say he tried to convince him to stop. Everyone has the right to defend their life. However, I hope at least they charge him with the dog shooting

[benburch]

2. I have a slightly different take on this...

When somebody comes through my front door by smashing his way in with a club, I have to believe that he intends me severe bodily harm! And I have a right to defend myself against this.

No, the fellow should never have shot the dog, but that ought to have become a police matter. Taking it to the step of breaking and entering with a weapon was totally wrong.

[denverbill]

4. Cool. So if I shoot your dog, I can kill you too.

This is absurd. I can't believe you are defending this excrement.

[Stuckinthebush]

29. Are you saying, Denverbill

That because this main shot a pellet at the guys dog, that he has the right to kill the man - or at the very least, threaten him with bodily harm?

And if so, does this idiot who shot the dog have no recourse but to stand there and accept his punishment?

In our society it is illegal to harm domestic animals intentionally. The dog shooter could be charged with animal cruelty and should be. However, the owner of the dog screwed up by confronting the shooter with a club as he smashed in the shooter's door clearly intending to bash the shooter's head in. So now we have a separate case. We have breaking and entering with the intent to kill or maim. At this point, the law allows the owner of the house to do what is necessary to protect himself from death. I don't think it is a hard stretch to defend this nasty human being for defending himself and his property. It has nothing to do with how horrible a person he is, it has to do with the law and common sense.

One can be a progressive and still support another person's right to defend himself from death.

[denverbill]

46. Generally speaking, I do support that right.

I don't support the right to provoke someone into a blind rage and then kill him.

The murderer two chances to avoid this. #1, don't shoot the guys dog. Problem solved. #2, lock your goddamned door after you shoot the guys dog.

The victim was outside the murderer's house. If he'd broken down the guy's door and was advancing on him, ok, then it's legal, although not entirely justifiable still. The murderer would have had ample opportunity to call the police while waiting, gun in hand, for the victim to break down his door.

This crime makes a mockery of the right to self defense, IMO.

If I ever want to murder my neighbor and walk away scot-free, I've got a great way to do it. Provoke the hell out of him, and if he even steps foot on my front porch, shoot the son of a bitch dead, and claim he was threatening me.

[benburch]

58. Lets modify the scenario a bit.

Hey, it is the responsibility of the neighbor to control his own blind rages.

Period.

OK, so, I get your 18 year old daughter pregnant, and then tell her to get lost. You grab a crowbar and start bashing in my door. What am I supposed to do? Call the cops? They take 11 minutes or more to get to the average call in Chicago. I'd be dead by then. Try to reason with you? Get real. No, if I have a weapon, I use it. Doesn't matter than I am a cad that lead a virgin into sin; You have no right to kill me.

-Ben

[denverbill]

68. Let's modify if again.

Let's say I'm a cheapshot artist. I have a grudge against you, my neighbor. One day, out of the blue, I walk up behind you and whack you upside the head with a big stick, then run. You chase me to my house and in the door, where I shoot you dead.

Make my day.

[benburch]

71. Doesn't change too much...

... assuming you followed him in with a weapon.

If I am attacked by you, and you run away, I call the police, that is my duty.

I have no right to become a vigilante and follow you into your home for rough justice. At the point at which you ran away, any action on my part ceased to be self defense.

This is why we have laws.

This is why we have police.

If I were to accept your take on things, then I could follow the perp into his house, kill him while he is trying to call the cops, and that would be somehow OK?

Nope.

No matter how upset you are at an attack which has ended, there is NO excuse to start a new attack. Totally different incidents that the law MUST take care of as though they happened in isolation.

All I can say is; Don't try to get into my house by breaking and entering with a weapon, unless you want to get real friendly with my ancient Remington and some good quality buckshot.

-Ben

[denverbill]

73. Here's the law.

Section 18-1-704.5, C.R.S. provides that the occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force against a person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling, if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime in addition to the unlawful entry and also reasonably believes that the intruder might use any physical force against any occupant.



The intruder doesn't need to be armed. If I can coerce you onto my property, I can legally kill you. I could steal your dog, hang it by neck from my front porch, and when you come to rescue it, shoot you dead.

[Stuckinthebush]

75. Ohhhhh!

OK...I have been confused about your position here. You aren't as concerned about this specific case as you are about the wording of the law.

Well, I'd agree with you then. The wording is ambiguous enough to allow me to coerce you into my yard and then have me shoot you and say that it was in self defense.

However, in the situation presented, the shooter did have a legitimate concern that his brains were going to be splattered all over the wall.

But we are in agreement with the wording of the law.

[benburch]

76. Coerce?

Damn, you'd make a great defense atty.

If I enter your house and it is apparent that I mean to do you harm, then you have ever right to kill me. Period.

"if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime in addition to the unlawful entry and also reasonably believes that the intruder might use any physical force against any occupant. "

If you cannot legally defend yourself in this situation, you are a dead man.

Which would you rather have?

Hell, if I were you in this situation, I'd use lethal force regardless of the law. Better to be serving time than pushing up daisies!

-Ben

[denverbill]

77. OK stuckinthebush and benburch.

We obviously are never going to agree on this, so I'll wrap my thoughts up.

The killer deserves jail. He shot a man's family pet, then killed the man, and he will suffer neither jail nor financial harm.

That's wrong, and any law that lets him walk away is wrong also. The man is a menace to society, and belongs in jail.

[benburch]

78. Equating a dog's life with a human's life

Will never fly with me, so I guess we will never agree.

I firmly believe that you are totally wrong on this issue.

However, I would charge the shooter with animal cruelty should it be possible to prove he shot the dog. (Which as far as I can see is only an assumption here, both on our part and on the part of the neighbor who was trying to kill him with a club.)

Again, whatever the law is, if you enter my home in that fashion, you are getting a bellyful of buckshot. Period. And I'll let the law sort things out after that.

-Ben

[Lorien]

87. Yep

also, in many states such an act against an animal would at least get the guy a psych evaluation, because psychologists have noted for years that murderers often start their careers with killing or torturing animals (especially pets), and such people need help-or at least need to be watched -before they turn to human prey. A disregard for an animals life is not far removed from a disregard for ALL life. Unlike the general Freeper theory that all animal lovers hate humanity, actually animal lovers are among the greatest humanitarians-like Gandhi-and those that view animals with contempt are often less than fond of the human race as well.

[Stuckinthebush]

88. OK

Although I think we agree that the law is poorly written.

I agree with you that the man is a menance. No argument here. Where I (and I do believe, benburch) differ is that we see the two events as separate events under the law (dog shooting/breaking and entering), and that while the crazy dog shooter should certainly be punished through fines or jail time for shooting the dog, he should not be punished for defending himself against a club-weilding man entering his house for the sole purpose of bashing his head in. That is self defense.

[sendero]

89. Texas...

... has a similar law. If you break into my house, you lose all rights.

Now technically, it is not clear that he had actually entered the house. In Texas, if you shoot someone under such circumstances he'd better be INSIDE the house.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

93. Unless it is after dark

From what I have read in other places, in texas you can use deadly force to protect any property after dark.

[saigon68]

5. Agreed Life ain't fair

When you Fuck with the Bull sometimes you get the Horns!!!!

I can tell you---- most people I know would shoot the ASSHOLE breaking his way into their house with a 3 Foot club, after smashing the glass.

Or as Harry Said

O.K. Punk make my DAY!!!

Dude screwed up when he trespassed with the club

Who said the dog was killed??

[Punkingal]

7. I agree with you, denverbill...

shooting our dog would be like shooting a member of our family. I have no idea what my husband might do. But there is a difference between a club and a gun. I wonder if he even gave the guy a chance, or just shot him?

[denverbill]

12. The killer had options too.

Jesus, if my neighbors dog was bothering me with barking, I think I'd call the cops. If my neighbor bashed out my front door, I think I'd call the cops.

The killer is a social misfit who took the law into his own hands, and, thanks to the gun-nuts, walked off scot-free.

If there was any justice in the world, this asshole would at MINIMUM being doing 10 years. Make my day laws were designed to protect honest citizens from criminals, not fucking nutcases from the law.

[short bus president]

15. gave the guy a chance?!?

He smashed in the front windows with that club. That's enough of a chance. He was obviously not there to carry on civil discourse. Dog incident notwithstanding, breaking into someone's home with a weapon (club, knife, axe, or otherwise) is an invitation to a hot lead piercing. Bull/horns sentiment is spot on.

[Minstrel Boy]

8. This story is made even more disturbing by

the justifications offered here in the killer's defence.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

23. It happens every time. There were a few arguing that the teen shot

down in Fla. while playing "ring and run" was a justified shooting even though the kid was shot in the back while running away.

It's sad.

[atre]

37. I think that was in N.C.

...and that did truly piss me off. At least THAT D.A. tried to prosecute, IIRC.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

44. I remember that one, but there was another in Fla.

St. Pete, I think.

I think if these people had used a knife instead of a gun they would have been prosecuted without question (Think about it, in the Fla. case the guy would have had to chase the kid down to kill him if he used a knife).

The pro gun people are so afraid of gun control that they instinctively defend any gun crime that occurs in the area of a home owner vs. any percieved threat. Knee jerk reactions to say the least.

[Stuckinthebush]

24. What would you do, Minstrel Boy?

Forget the dog shooting part.

If a person breaks in your door with a large club, and is threatening you with bodily harm (those clubs can kill and maim), then what do you do? Do you run? Do you scream? Do you get a club so it will be a fair fight? Do you call the police in hopes that they will get there before your crazed neighbor bashes your head in?

I am at a loss to see how this guy was in the wrong to defend himself against an individual that was obviously intending him harm.

[denverbill]

33. Forget the dog shooting part? That's convenient.

Especially since it changes the entire nature of the story.

This piece of shit shot his neighbors dog. What the hell did he expect would happen? Nothing?

Tell you what? How about I catch your kid walking past my yard and beat the hell out of him. Then wait for you with a loaded shotgun.

Self defense my ass. This guy provoked an attack on himself and then responded to the attack with deadly force. It's damned close to pre-meditated murder, IMO.

[Stuckinthebush]

41. There is a big difference between shooting a dog and a child

There is also a law against cruelty to animals. The man with the dog should have called the police. Since he decided to take the law into his own hands and commit a crime to do it, he put his life at risk. While the guy who shot the dog was wrong to do that and should be prosecuted for that act, he was correct in defending himself against another human who intended to kill or maim him in his own home.

[denverbill]

48. Well, personally, I hope this asshole gets run out of town.

And every town he moves to afterwards.

If I was his neighbors, I'd put signs all over my yard pointing to his house and calling him a killer. I would make his life a living hell.

Guns are a poor substitute for brains and balls.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

49. Damn! You go, DenverBill!

There are others here who feel the same way.

[Stuckinthebush]

54. I wouldn't disagree with that

But I still defend his right to shoot at an intruder who intends to kill or hurt him.

He is still an asshole, but is an asshole with legal rights.

[ibegurpard]

59. And I wouldn't disagree with you either

They really ought to look into prosecuting the hell out of him for shooting the dog.

[denverbill]

66. Sorry, but that seems a bit cheap.

A human being is dead directly as a result of this guy's actions.

Charging him with cruelty to animals would have been like charging Goering with possession of stolen property after WWII.

[Robb]

81. I disagree

The only time there's a big difference between shooting a dog and shooting a child is if it's not my dog. God help you if you harm my dogs.

The apparent tragedy here is that the owner chose a club, and not a gun, to go after this prick.

And before you say I don't value human life, guess what: not all of it.

[Minstrel Boy]

82. well, as has been said,

forgetting "the dog shooting part" omits the outrage which provoked the reaction from the murdered neighbour, so what are we left with?

Still, I'll answer your hypothetical: what would I do if a maniac tried to break into my home and do me harm? I hate to be such a Canadian about this, but it wouldn't occur to me to do anything but call the cops and get to the most secure room in the house. I'm fortunate that response times are pretty damn fast here, and that such incidents are almost always hypothetical constructs.

[bahrbearian]

95. How can you forget the Dog shooting Part

Isn't that what started it If the Killer wouldn't complained in a civil fashion using the Law he wouldn't have to Murder his neighbor..

[Stuckinthebush]

97. But even if connected, they are two separate incidences

OK...you make me mad enough for me to want to kill you. I still don't have the right to break into your house and try to kill you. The shooter had the right to defend himself from deadly force inside his own home.

I am not defending the shooter's previous actions of shooting at the dog.

Let's be clear here - the article does not say the shooter killed the dog, he shot at the dog with a pellet gun. That action rarely (if ever) kills a large animal like a dog.

The shooter was wrong to shot at the dog. He should have handled his complaints via the authorities. When he shot the dog, the dog owner should have called the cops immediately and should never have taken a 3-foot club over to the shooters house, break in the door, all with the intent of harming the shooter. That is foolish and illegal.

[Swede]

101. I am appalled that people here think it's ok to shoot this guy.

Thank god we live in Canada where there is no cowboy justice.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

102. Unfortunately NRA shills and trogdolites wander our streets and

cities like modern day vampires hungry for blood and any excuse to extract it.

[Stuckinthebush]

103. What do you do in Canada

when someone breaks into your home with the intention of killing you?

[Swede]

106. Geez that's never happened to me,or anyone else I know yet.,when it does

I'm sure it is worth 30,000 gun deaths a year.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

111. I'm beginning to think that some people actually spend time fantacizing

about break-ins and what-not where they can play hero with a gun like they see in the movies.

I think it's basically due to either a poor level of education or sociopathic behaviour caused by drug or alcohol poisoning.... Maybe a combination of the both. Could be the lack of proper parenting. Things didn't use to be like this. The gun nuts seem to show the same sort of blind obedience to the pre-gun line as freepers do to whatever Limbaugh says.

It's a sad situation that some would defend killings like this, but they do.

[Stuckinthebush]

115. This isn't about fantasy

This is a real story about a real guy (a real jerk, actually) who had a man break into his house with a 3 foot club with the intention of smashing his head in like a pumpkin.

I guess if we are living in fantasy, we could fantasize that it would be proper to discuss the situation with the club-wielding maniac and hope he doesn't our head in with the club. Perhaps, we could run around the couch like in a sit-com while frantically dialing 911 on the phone. Or even, we could throw a pot full of hot coffee in his face like I've seen in the movies. All of these might work.

However, you have a split second to think. A man bashes in your door with a club coming after you. You have a gun. You value your life (and perhaps the lives of your family). You shoot. You stop the crazed club-wielding man in his tracks and you and your family are safe.

Believe it or not, I am a very strong proponent of stricter gun laws. I hate guns and will not have one in my home or near my family. I think our society has gone nuts over the 2nd amendment - there is no way in hell the founding fathers gave me the right to bear an automatic rifle designed to kill people in war. So, given all of this, I would be one of those individuals who would be running for my life in this situation probably wishing I had a shotgun.

But, I can defend this man's actions as stated in the law and based on common sense. When you and/or your family are threatened with death, you should do everything you can to protect yourself. Sure, it is nice to have a lofty notion of non-violence, but my family needs me to be alive.

The person in this story who bears the most responsibility for the outcome is the guy who bashed in the door with a club intending to do harm to his neighbor. I don't care what the circumstances that led to this action are, he knew the guy had a gun and he also knew that he would use it. But he bashed in anyway hoping to get to the guy before he could shoot. Not smart.

The bottom line is that people have the right to defend themselves against death whether it be with a gun, knife, club, or pot of hot coffee.

[Stuckinthebush]

114. Good news for you

But it happened to the guy in this story. He defended his life, otherwise, he would be dead.

[MetaTrope]

9. The shape of social discourse in Amerikkka

Bang.

[kimchi]

10. I agree.

A club is no match for a gun.

If someone shot my pet, I'd damn sure confront them. I think the dead man wasn't thinking straight--he should have figured that anyone who would shoot an animal might also shoot a human. He was looking for revenge and found a nutcase.

So sad, that people resort to violence. As has been shown so many times, it escalates beyond control.

[chopper]

11. so, throw him in jail anyway

what's the maximum you can get for shooting a dog? pick and choose whatever violations you can.

just to let the guy know that he might have been able to get away with shooting the guy (WTF?) but at least he'll spend a coupla years in prison. he deserves it.

[dfong63]

13. i agree with this approach

i can believe the shooter was justified in defending himself and his home, but he was not justified in shooting the neighbor's dog first. the latter is a crime, and he should be prosecuted to the max for it.

i also have to add that barking dogs can make a neighbor's life hell. it's quite possible that the shooter was suffering from severe sleep deprivation when he shot the dog. i don't condone what he did in any way, but it's an objective fact that barking dogs can cause neighbors to lose sleep, and lack of causes people to do irrational things.

and no matter who was right (i think both were wrong), imho the guy who went over with the club deserves a darwin award. when someone has displayed a propensity for violence, and you know he's armed, ... it's stupid to attack him and not expect to get shot.

[ibegurpard]

18. good solution.

This "make my day" law might protect him but they should definitely throw every law they can find at him for starting the ball rolling.

[salin]

14. no charge? not even manslaughter?

I have to agree - the guy had other options. Calling the police - or even threatening with the gun (if had to). If had to shoot - why to kill?

[short bus president]

19. you're gonna call the cops

as someone is smashing in your windows with a club? Good luck to ya. The alternative headline here is "dog shooter's skull bashed in with club." Defense of one's home is not a crime. Armed home invasion is.

[salin]

20. When I lived in a neighborhood

where gun fire was frequent, and very close. Yes, I tended to call the cops rather than head out with a gun.

Isn't the idea of having a gun that it intimidates? So why not try to use the gun as an intimidator rather than killing? Why not try to shoot the arm with the club - as it would disarm the guy.

Why is taking life, when there are alternatives, considered so justifiable for so many?

[short bus president]

25. the guy did not "head out with a gun"

the dead man broke into his home with a weapon, and was rendered dead in the home (or in the process of breaking into the home) for that reason. Far too late for calling the cops, even if the precinct is across the street. Someone enters your home with a weapon intending to do you harm, your best bet is to defend yourself. It would be a different story if the dead man had thrown a brick through the window or something and not tried to enter, but he was armed and in the process of entering the home. Once that happens, it's open season on home invaders.

[salin]

27. if the person was wielding a gun - I would agree with you

in this case - I don't. Sure the guy was going to cause property damage (he already did) sue him. Can you not see - that even with the gun, this guy had several other options besides shooting to kill? That is why, as I said early, this should be at least man slaughter. A man with a club - is NOT necessarily lethal, in fact, esp if I have a gun, he is probably NOT lethal. The goal should be to get him to drop the dam club. DOn't have to kill him to do that.

[short bus president]

31. the "fair fight" argument is specious.

In defending one's home, one need not ascertain that the invader's weaponry is a fair match for his/her own before acting to stop the invasion. This home invader chose a crappy weapon. Another of the stupid mistakes he won't be repeating.

[salin]

34. we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

It happens.

Fortunately I would never get into this kind of episode - so it wouldn't likely touch my life directly.

[Stuckinthebush]

32. Not lethal?

Jeez...have you ever seen someone's head get bashed with a club? I have. Believe me, a club is lethal.

In a split second, if I saw a man bashing into my home with a club and with the intent of coming after me, I'd shoot in a second. I wouldn't waste time trying to determine exactly how lethal the club is.

[ZenLefty]

28. Actually, he was rendered dead on the doorstep

I think the application of the law is a little iffy because of that, as the intruder never got past the front door from what I understand. I think previous interpretations of this law required the intruder to be in the house.

[atre]

38. The amount of force must be reasonable

I don't see how homicide could be considered reasonable. If there was anything short of homicide that could have been done to protect his life, the dog-killer should have been charged, convicted, and locked away for a good looooong time.

[ZenLefty]

42. Read posts #26 and #39

Colorado law is a bit different than that. It says in this case any amount of force can be used, not just reasonable.

[atre]

57. I understand. See my other posts in this thread.

nm

[short bus president]

43. "homicide" is not an "amount of force"

it is a crime, which was not committed in this instance. The home invader's death was the end result of the home defender's application of an appropriate amount of force to stop a home invasion in progress. I presume you would have had the home defender meet the invader at the forced entry point with a baseball bat or a golf club, for a "fair fight?"

[atre]

56. This isn't even close to accurate- Please don't comment on the law if you

don't know what it is. Some people here might think you know what you're talking about.

Murder is a crime. Manslaughter is a crime.

Homicide is not a crime. Homicide is the act of killing another. Homicides may be excuseable or justifiable (therefore there would be an acquittal of the D.A. files charges, or no action taken if the D.A. does not file charges) or they might be criminal. The definition of homicide does not depend upon a finding of legal guilt.

Please consult any dictionary you can find, preferably a legal one. You don't want to argue legal semantics with a law student who almost booked Crim Law and has booked several other classes. Especially on orientation/ 1st day material.

[atre]

65. Furthermore

Clearly you think that the killer's response here was reasonable. Reasonableness is judged by comparison of alternative means available (see, for example, FRE 403 and Old Chief v. United States in the Evidence context).

Therefore, in order to judge the reasonableness of the killer's response, we must look to the other alternatives he had available, which included a) calling the cops and waiting until the threat of serious bodily injury was imminent (wait and see, basically) or 2) shooting the intruder in the leg rather than the heart or head.

"Fair fight" is an irrelevant invention of yours. It is conceiveable that the gun could have been used so as not to kill the intruder immediately, and therefore the use of a gun to defend oneself might be reasonable.

[ZenLefty]

26. Here's the law:

C.R.S. 18-1-704.5:

Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

I can't link directly to Colorado Revised Statutes (you have to be a subscriber and it costs money) but I did find an article about it:

Self Defense in Colorado

[salin]

30. guess we need to know the contents of subsection two.

Deadly force to protect property is okay? That is crazy. So a kid knocks over a political yard sign - and can be shot/killed for it? Since the property is technically that of a candidate - when in the last municipal election yard signs turned up missing and destroyed - would it be justifiable for a candidate to shoot to kill the perp? Certainly there should be qualifications on this.

[ZenLefty]

39. No, it has to occur in the dwelling

In this particular case, the intruder was killed at the doorstep. A judge ruled that the doorstep was part of the dwelling. This is a bit baffling to me - I saw film of the crime scene on TV and it seemed pretty clear that he had not entered the home. I don't know all of the facts in this case, but based on what I do know, I don't agree with the judge's ruling on this.

More on the law:

Section 18-1-704.5, C.R.S. provides that the occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force against a person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling, if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime in addition to the unlawful entry and also reasonably believes that the intruder might use any physical force against any occupant.

[atre]

50. Reading this law, it is truly shocking in its inequity

Most statutes of this sort- and the common law rules of self-defense-insert qualifiers of "reasonableness" of the occupants response coupled with "seriousness" and "imminence" of the threat. These are very, very good rules based on very sound public policy. Regardless of how you feel about the affirmative defense of self-defense, these qualifiers make perfect sense and their absence is simply unjustifiable.

This statute, however, allows "any degree of physical force" in reaction to B&E coupled with 1) reasonable belief that the intruder will commit *A* crime (which clearly could include misdemeanors like communication of a threat!!) and 2) reasonable belief that the intruder "might" (a .0001% chance of attack sufficies) use "any physical force" (which could include tapping the occupant on the shoulder) against any occupant.

I doubt this statute was drafted by a lawyer because anyone who has passed the bar should know better. Granted, I'm not too impressed with many of my classmates in law school, but this law is simply remarkable in the breadth of its injustice.

Consider this scenario: Adult A and Kid B start arguing. A taps B on the shoulder and runs back to his porch. B starts charging A's house to tap A on his shoulder. A tells B not to do so (therefore making B's intended conduct criminal in many states). According to the court's interpretation of this statute, A is legally justified in pulling out a shotgun and sending a kid, B, to his grave as soon as B steps onto his porch.

Do you like that result? If not, how can you justify the language of this ridiculous statute?

[paulk]

85. this law got put on the books

by the right wing gun fruitloops who've taken over Colorado in the last twenty years. It's not required that you have a weapon, just that you're breaking in.

here's a little history, if you're interested:

http://www.co-freedom.com/2003/04/makemyday.html

I remember at the time (1985) one of the opposition arguments was that it would lead to a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality.

Ault (A Unique Little Town!, says the sign) is a really small village on the Cheyenne highway. I spent a lot of time working up there for the railroad. Everybody knows everybody else. It's wierd that what seems such a minor thing was resolved in such a way. I wonder what the real history behind this is - how much bad blood there was between the two.

[FlaGranny]

17. A barking dog!

Well, how I feel about a barking dog is as follows: My dog would never be barking, annoying my neighbors. I never leave her outside alone. I never tie her in the yard. She lives with me, in my home. She barks when someone comes to the door or if she sees something "strange." She does not bark for hours and hours on end, because she is not bored and lonely. I feel that the dog owner, in a manner of speaking, was cruel to the dog. Unfortunately, it is not an offense to have a bored, lonely dog. The dog did not deserve to be shot. The owner of the dog did not deserve to die for the treatment of his dog, but may have deserved being shot for busting into his neighbor's home with a club (that just might make ME shoot a neighbor). In any case, the shooter should be charged with something - at a minimum he should be charged with cruelty to an animal for the original shooting, and possibly manslaughter, because his original action was the direct cause of the escalation. It's a shame the shooter couldn't have just used his brains and called the police about the barking dog.

[0007]

69. I agree,

but some folks live in the country, and the response from most sheriffs would be to call the dog pound, who happens to live in the next town 17 miles away.

[Stuckinthebush]

21. Let's see...

If I shoot somebody's dog, what should the owner do?

A. - call the police and press charges
B. - come to my house, bash in the door with a bat, and threaten me

Well, A. is the correct choice here. Once my neighbor comes into my home with a club threatening me and my family, he is considered a threat. Once a threat, I have all rights to defend myself even if I am a loathsome dog shooter.

No case here. The guy with the bat wasn't thinking, he put himself in a dangerous situation, and the guy whose home was invaded was justified in protecting himself and his property. Otherwise, his head might have been as crushed as the glass in his door.

[ZenLefty]

22. The law sure is a double edged sword

Living in Colorado myself, it's good to know that I have the right to use deadly force if I feel it is necessary to defend myself against an intruder in my home. Nothing like someone breaking in who might hurt you and having to worry about whether you'll go to jail for defending yourself.

But this isn't the first instance where the letter of the law has been used to legally justify what should have been murder. A couple of years ago, Westword put this law in the spotlight for much the same reasons - a neighborly dispute ended up with a man dead, and the killer was protected by this law.

[atre]

53. I don't know how you could be comfortable with this law

The common law allows you the right to use a "reasonable" amount of force to defend yourself when you have a reasonable belief in the "imminence" of "serious bodily injury".

This statute simply removes the "reasonableness" limit on the amount of force, turns "imminence" into mere possibility, and converts "serious bodily injury" to ANY physical injury.

Tell me, then, why the statute is preferable to the common law?

[ZenLefty]

84. I'm not saying I'm 100% comfortable with it

The law does give me complete discretion when someone breaks into my home, and I don't have to worry about a court's definition of 'reasonable', 'imminence' or 'serious bodily injury'. That part I do like.

But like I said, it's a double-edged sword. As it's stated, it's so vague that it can be used to legally murder someone. That's not right.

[sendero]

91. These...

... laws are really intended for a situation such as you are sleeping and are awakened by someone breaking into, or already into, your house.

The idea of "reasonable force" is deadly ludicrous if a burglar is wandering through your house with a loaded gun. Are you going to ask him "what kind of weapon do you have?". Only if you are a moron.

I agree that in this particular situation it seems disproportionate. But it is hard to craft legislation that does what it is supposed to without leaving some situations inadequately covered. I'm not sure what kind of exceptions could have made this illegal.

[NashVegas]

35. Voluntary Manslaughter

I would think that charge, at least, would apply in some respect. This was a totally provoked incident.

[msmcghee]

40. In most western states where I have lived . .

. . dogs can be shot if they chase livestock and also many hunters shoot dogs who chase deer - I guess believing that deer should be left alone for the hunters to shoot.

I'm not sure what the law actually says about it but that's what happens. If it's illegal to shoot dogs - then the cops don't enforce that law very well. They'd probably laugh at the person who made such a complaint.

I've never lived in Colorado - but if it's anything like Idaho or Washington or Oregon then the cops would have done nothing to the guy who shot the dog.

And that kind of puts the dog's owner in a different light (knowing that the cops would laugh at him if he complained. In fact, maybe they did.) - although breaking down someone's door with a club is certainly looking for trouble.

[jimbot]

45. Interesting parallel

If I have just committed a felony and shoot someone while defending myself, I am guilty of felonious murder...
So what we are saying is that if shooting a dog is a felony he is a murderer for defending himself but if its a misdemeanor (which it is) he was justified.

Very odd...I think the guy had the right to defend himself but because he was defending himself from an action he commited, one would think that he had to share some of the blame for shooting his neighbor. Maybe a manslaughter charge would be in order.

--JT

[Stuckinthebush]

52. Except...

Shooting a dog is probably not a felony (and we don't know if the dog died from the pellet wound). But, even if it was a felony, the shooter would have been shooting outside his house. The owner of the dog could have come at the man with a club to stop the shooting of the dog. In this case, it would be more questionable whether or not the shooter had a right to shoot to kill.

The situation as it stands is somewhat different. The dog had been shot (again, we don't know if it was killed). The shooter retreats to his house for an unspecified amount of time. The club-man then comes to the house, bashes in the door with a 3 foot club with the intent to hurt or kill the shooter. This then becomes a separate incident than the shooting incident. If the two coincided, then a case could be made that they were connected. However, the way it stands now, the club man could be considered to have pre-meditated murder on his mind.

A similar analogy would be if you are robbed or even shot by another person. If you then go to this person's house with the intent to kill or hurt him, you have committed a crime. Whether you were justified or not is not the question. It is against the law. It is proper to call the police and let them handle the complaint. Otherwise, it is wild-west justice here.

[CarinKaryn]

47. This is the state of America today

If the dog barks - shoot it!
If someone breaks your window or damages your property - shoot them!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

51. Sad but true. There seems to be a substrata of American society that

believes violence is the answer to any other violence, percieved or real. "Turn the other cheek" has evolved into "chamber another round."

The ideals of MLK, Ghandi, Bhudda and Christ don't hold water when compared to the happiness so many find in a warm gun.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

61. yeah, uh

If somebody's coming to kill me with a 3 foot club I'm probably going to err on the side of Smith and Wesson rather than Ghandi.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

63. You got it, Bubba! Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out! Yeeee-Haw!

[Stuckinthebush]

55. But this is about more than breaking a window

It is about a person entering your home with the intent to kill you. That makes it an entirely different matter.

You could turn the other cheek, but you'd be dead or in a coma.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

62. Paranoia. Brought to you by Bush and the NRA

Circle the wagons, Ma! I'll protect ya!

[xchrom]

60. shoot the dog then shoot the owner, hmmm?

and the law lets him off?
another state off my visit list.
however if somebody harmed MY dawg -- there'd be an ass whoopin. what i learn from this is to plan my ass whoopin.

[msmcghee]

92. Yeah, but unfortunately . .

. . the courts tend to see an "ass whippin" as another name for "assault and battery with intent to do grave bodily harm". Could get you at least 3 years if you have any kind of weapon on you - even if you don't use it.

Planning it means pre-meditation, an aggrevating circumstance.

[SemperEadem]

67. Onward to civil court, then

some people just don't think shit through....

[atre]

70. Civil ? How much money do you think the shooter has?

Judging by his picture, I would say not much. It wouldn't even be worth the $65 filing fee to bring that wrongful death action case to court.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

72. After watching the film, I doubt he has that much. Maybe they can get hiS

Harley.

In describing the law, the Colorado citizen has the right to kill anyone that MIGHT commit a crime in the house! I think they need to rethink this one.

"Well, they said they wuz gonna light up a blunt. If they did that they woulda got all crazy and mighta et my bay-be. I had to shoot 'em!

[denverbill]

74. No such luck. Law prohibits it.

Same law that lets the guy commit legal murder protects him from civil suits.

[TreasonousBastard]

86. The entire situation sucks...

and the law can't come up with justice in a case like this.

Asshole A shoots a dog because it's barking.

Asshole B takes his own revenge.

Asshole A shoots asshole B in self-defense.

Both assholes were wrong on many levels, and one ends up dead.

Asshole A should pay something for starting the whole mess, but there may have been other incidents leading up to this. It could be the end of a long-running feud. Even if apparently justified, I always thought that anyone who kills another should pay something, but the law often doesn't allow for it.

I suppose the fundamental problem is that we grow far too many assholes in this country and don't know what to do with the excess.

There was another case of a Scottish businessman drunk and lost in a suburban Houston neighborhood who was knocking on doors trying to get some help getting back to his hotel. One person answered and shot him dead. The defense was that he was afraid the drunken Scotsman would do him harm, and he got off.

Another was that kid in Louisiana who was trick or treating and got shot because he looked "different" and may have posed a threat. That one got off too.

Simply thinking there might be a threat is a defense in some jurisdictions, and an actual threat is not necessary. The "I was scared shitless for no good reason" defense.

There was some good news a while back, maybe 10-20 years ago. In the mountains out West somewhere some guy had a hunting shack and got pissed that his supplies were regularly stolen, so he rigged a shotgun pointing at the door when he wasn't there. He blew away a couple of teenage kids with this rig, and the jury agreed that boobytraps are unreasonable force.

[It was not a pretzel]

90. sick sick sick

The murderer deserved a beating for shooting the dog.

And what the fuck is "Make My Day" Law? Cartoon nation.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

94. Break In with a Club, get shot, sounds about right to me.

I see no problem with this, even with the dog shooting.

The man who was killed went vigilant and paid the price for poor judgement.

But I have no problems with a homeowner protecting themselves from injury, and defedning their life, by the use of deadly force.

The man crossed the line when he decided to take the law into his own hands and get revenge for his dog. He should have allowed the proper authorities and the courts deal with the man shooting his dog. The dogowner was understandably upset, but he was STUPID for going after the guy.

[dreissig]

96. Cops Could Have Prevented This

The cops know about neighbors who are having difficulty getting along, especially when they've been called over and over again. Every patrolman and sergeant in town had undoubtedly been at the Hammock house telling the owner to bring the dog inside at night. Hammock would cooperate for about a week, then the dog would be out disturbing the neighborhood.

The squabble should have gone to the district attorney after the first shooting. It's possible that the D.A. didn't want to prosecute a minor case. Griffin took this as a refusal to grant him relief from a barking dog and its belligerent owner. So he shot the dog again and this time he killed him.

Hammock came at Griffin in a rage, carrying a club. Griffin shot him dead. Too bad the cops didn't intervene when it might have prevented this tragedy.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

98. Okay, let's step back and take a more logical approach to this case...

First, Mr. Hammock SUSPECTED that Mr. Griffin had shot Mr. Hammock's dog with a pellet gun. Apparently, and as far as I can tell, there were no witnesses to the dog-shooting incident, but Mr. Hammock was convinced somehow that Mr. Griffin had done the deed. Was there a prior history of conflict between the two men? We don't know, but if there had been, I'm sure the media would have reported that as a means to further sensationalize the story.

Okay, what does the first paragraph tell you? Not much, does it?

So then, Mr. Hammock apparently picks up a three foot club somewhere along the way to Mr. Griffin's house. Up until the moment Mr. Hammock reached Mr. Grifin's home, little could be readily ascertained about what Mr. Hammock intended to do with the club. It could be assumed that he meant to do something harmful to people or property, but unless he stated his intent on the way to Mr. Griffin's there is really no way of knowing.

Now, here's where the rubber meets the legal road...

Mr. Hammock uses the club to break out the glass in Mr. Griffin's door, and makes an attempt to enter Mr. Griffin's home. It's rather obvious that Mr. Hammock had not been invited into Mr. Griffin's home. If Mr. Hammock had been a complete stranger to Mr. Griffin, isn't this the same as breaking and entering? Aren't most people in most states allowed to defend themselves with any force necessary in situations where they believe their lives, and/or the lives of their families, are in danger?

And from the article, here's the way the law reads:

"The law recognizes that citizens have the right to expect absolute safety within their homes. The occupant is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly force, against another person who makes an uninvited entry into the home and either has or might commit a crime there."

I personally don't know what the DA could have done differently under the circumstances. IMHO, he interpreted the law correctly as it exists in Ault County, Colorado.

[Stuckinthebush]

99. Very nice summary

Thank you.

[saigon68]

105. I agree with your assessment.

It is logical. The mens rea on the part of the guy with the 3 FOOT Club was to inflict damage.

Once the glass broke and the entry was attempred, shit for brains entered into the DARWIN AWARD Competition.

I feel no sorrow for a mental midget, who after going and attempting to castrate a bull with a dull knife, barehanded---- who subsequently is awarded a shrp horn or 2 to the stomach.

I also feel really sorry for the bleeding hearts here, who have not been seriously mugged by a crack crazed group of juveniles in search of their wallet.

[Swede]

107. So if you caught me vandalizing your car and you came charging at me

I get to shoot you. Cool.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

112. Your defense would last as long as it takes for the authorities to...

...discover you're not the owner of the car.

Then you'll be properly charged with breaking and entering, burglary, and attempted murder if the owner lives, murder if the owner dies.

Is it still "cool"?

[dArKeR]

100. Bring'em On. We've got one sick country when a law is called 'Make my day'

[tinnypriv]

104. Is this the fucking Onion?

"Make My Day" law?

What the living fuck?

[leanings]

113. Just a few comments.

I love dogs and cats. Grew up in a house full of them.

That having been said, I've also shot dogs. The dog's owners would let them run loose and they would get together to chase my father's cattle. We never shot at them the first time we saw them, instead trying to catch them and notify their owners. Then we'd try the dog catcher, but by the time he was there they would be gone. We always used the lightest birdshot we had, usually #9 or so, and always tried to shoot them in the ass. We never killed any that I'm aware of, but we sent quite a few away yipping. I certainly never enjoyed it, but there comes a point.

I'm not defending the shooter. I don't know the specific circumstances involved here, and he was likely a lowbrow asshole. But the possibility exists that he complained to the owner and possibly even went thru the police before this occurred without satisfaction. Several facts point to this; the dog's owner seemed to know who he suspected of shooting the dog, so this had obviously been a point of contention. The dog was outside, so the owner wasn't doing a whole lot to defuse the situation. The dog was shot with a pellet gun and not a firearm or arrow, and was shot at least once before in the hindquarters which the owner either didn't notice or didn't care about enough to keep him indoors. Again, in this domestic rather than agricultural context it would have been FAR better to resolve this situation without shooting the dog and it's a FAR stretch to argue that the dog should have been shot. I'm just saying that everyone who shoots a dog isn't automatically a psycho.

Anyone who breaks into my home with a deadly weapon forfeits their right to live. If they feel they are justified in doing so and feel that they can live with the consequences should I choose not to cower and leave myself at their mercy, they can feel free to try me. Anyone who thinks a club is not a deadly weapon can talk to a buddy of mine, or at least try to, who was badly brain damaged after a beating with a length of lumber. Anyone who says that the guy should have tried to wound him has never been seriously threatened with a deadly weapon. During my law enforcement training we were instructed to shoot center of mass at anyone we believed had the capability, opportunity and intent to inflict death or serious bodily harm on ourselves or others. Period. A guy threatening you with a four inch knife from fifteen feet away can be justifiably killed dead; he's the aggressor, and for all you know he's a damn good knife thrower.

Just my .02.

[madddog]

116. No one knows whether Griffin shot the dog...

the article only implies it...so Hammock didn't know for a fact that Griffin shot the dog. He *might* have wanted to get that straight before he set out to assault his neighbor with a club. Well, he won't ever make THAT mistake again.

Most states allow people to defend themselves in their own homes, with deadly force if necessary, although Colorado's law is a little more specific.

I can't believe anyone has a problem with that. If Griffin hesitates for a second, the other guy can go up side his head with that club...once Griffin's on the ground, he's as good as dead.
What's he supposed to do, tell him..."no, wait for a second...I have to call the cops...hello...911...yes, I'll hold...okay, Mr. Hammock, continue your aggrevated assault/attemted murder, the police will be here in 20 minutes or so...in the meantime, I'll just lay here and let you bash my head in..."

That may be preferable to some here, but not me, and not to the folks in Colorado, by the looks of things. I'm in the tag 'em and bag 'em crowd...if you break into my house, chances are pretty good ONE of us is gettin' wheeled out, and I don't plan on it bein' me. That's why I have a small sign on a window next to my front door that says "there is NOTHING in this house worth your life". So far it's worked :D