Printable View
Hey guys, first time on this forum. I moved from Florida a few months ago and definitely don't miss it one bit. Anyway in Florida they have a "Stand Your Ground" law on top of "Castle Doctrine", meaning there is no duty for a law abiding citizen to retreat if threatened. I know Colorado has Castle Doctrine, but I've been trying to find if there is anything about duty to retreat? I look forward to hearing from you all!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epyon
No Castle Doctrine here, you can defend yourself but not property unless you are in fear of harm.
http://www.rmgo.org/gun-law-faqs/use-of-deadly-force
Quote:
Originally Posted by esaabye
I guess it depends on your definition of "Castle Doctrine"... you are not required to consider leaving your home as an alternative to defending yourself- it is considered a place of last defense- but no, Colorado does not consider property to be worth more than a life...
Sorry, I guess I should clarify. By stand your ground I meant, if you're out in public like say walking around in the city and you are approached by a criminal, in Florida a citizen would not have to retreat legally. (Of course if you CAN escape safely should you? I would imagine so especially if you have loved ones with you.) I'm trying to understand if Colorado has any law like that.
If you fear for your life and it is a "them or me" situation, then I think you'd be okay. Catching someone trying to steal the wheels off your car and you are not in immediate danger, then you wouldn't be okay.
The best thing to do is get an attorney and ask these questions.
Second best is read the Colorado Revised Statutes on use of force and related references (pack a lunch, you'll be all day)
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext...main-h.htm&cp=
So, contrary to esaabye, we do have a castle doctrine - Make My Day law (18.1.704.5).Quote:
Colorado Revised Statutes:Use of Physical Force and Use of Deadly Physical Force
18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.
- Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use of imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
- Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
- The actor has reasonable ground to believe and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
- The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
- The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.
- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
- With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or
- He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from-the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or
- The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
- The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
- 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.
- 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 any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
There is a start. Find the related CRS and read those too. You can do a search on the Legal Resources site that works pretty well providing you phrase it proper. Pretty much everything is in section 18 of the criminal code, but there are related references in other sections.
When I first started carrying I could have answered both those questions off the top of my head, since then I have clogged my head with other states rules and regs on carry so now I am a little foggy. Time for me to read them all again.
In Colorado, the law states on use of force in defense of property (source Legal Resources);
Now the above highlighted item is vague, and the situation may change depending on the BGs actions. Yet another I will need to verify.Quote:
18-1-706. Use of physical force in defense of property.
A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.
ANNOTATION
One cannot instantly kill in defense of property. While a man may use all reasonable and necessary force to defend his real and personal estate, of which he is in the actual possession, against another who comes to dispossess him without right, he cannot instantly carry his defense to the extent of killing the aggressor. If no other way is open, he must yield and get himself righted by resort to the law. Bush v. People, 10 Colo. 566, 16 P. 290 (1887) (decided under G. S. ยง 721).
However, under Use of force in defense of a person;
I have deleted easily 700 lines of content from the above copied/pasted laws after reading them. They did not apply to the discussion by my interpretation. INAL!!!Quote:
18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit ... robbery as defined in section 18-4-301...
ANNOTATION
The defendant, if he did not provoke the assault, is not obliged to retreat or flee to save his life, but may stand his ground, and even, in some circumstances, pursue his assailant until the latter has been disarmed or disabled from carrying into effect his unlawful purpose, and this right of the defendant goes even to the extent, if necessary, of taking human life. Boykin v. People, 22 Colo. 496, 45 P. 419 (1896); Enyart v. People, 67 Colo. 434, 180 P. 722 (1919).
Right to kill in self-defense is not limited to cases where assailant intends to commit a felony. Ritchey v. People, 23 Colo. 314, 47 P. 272 (1896).
Instruction on use of deadly physical force is to be used only if the victim died. Because no victim died, instruction that defendant was justified in use of physical force if he used that degree of force which he reasonably believed to be necessary was proper. People v. Silva, 987 P.2d 909 (Colo. App. 1999).
18-4-202. First degree burglary.
(1) A person commits first degree burglary if the person knowingly enters unlawfully, or remains unlawfully after a lawful or unlawful entry, in a building or occupied structure with intent to commit therein a crime, other than trespass as defined in this article, against another person or property, and if in effecting entry or while in the building or occupied structure or in immediate flight therefrom, the person or another participant in the crime assaults or menaces any person, or the person or another participant is armed with explosives or a deadly weapon.
(2) First degree burglary is a class 3 felony.
ANNOTATION
Distinguished from felony menacing. It is possible to commit a first degree burglary without also perpetrating felony menacing. The merger doctrine does not apply because there is no requirement in this section that a victim be placed in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by a deadly weapon as there is in the felony menacing statute. People v. Sisneros, 44 Colo. App. 65, 606 P.2d 1317 (1980).
There is no requirement that victim be placed in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by a deadly weapon under the first degree burglary statute. People v. Montanez, 944 P.2d 529 (Colo. App. 1996).
Where the only evidence concerning the presence of deadly weapons at the time of the robbery was that defendant was carrying stolen items, including weapons, in a canvas sack during commission of the burglary, such evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant was armed with a deadly weapon, a requisite element of burglary. People v. Moore, 841 P.2d 320 (Colo. App. 1992).
Second degree burglary becomes first degree burglary when the perpetrator increases the risk of deadly or bodily harm to an occupant or other person present by possessing a deadly weapon such that he knowingly places or attempts to place such person in fear of serious bodily injury or intends to and does cause serious bodily injury to any person. People v. Moore, 841 P.2d 320 (Colo. App. 1992).
If the defendant steals a deadly weapon and thereby becomes armed with a deadly weapon, the burglary is elevated to first degree, and there is no requirement that the prosecution show that the defendant assaulted or menaced anyone with the deadly weapon. People v. Loomis, 857 P.2d 478 (Colo. App. 1992).
The defendant is considered "armed" with a deadly weapon if the weapon is easily accessible and readily available for use by the defendant. The court need not consider the defendant's willingness or present ability to use the deadly weapon. People v. Loomis, 857 P.2d 478 (Colo. App. 1992).
18-4-204. Third degree burglary.
(1) A person commits third degree burglary if with intent to commit a crime he enters or breaks into any vault, safe, cash register, coin vending machine, product dispenser, money depository, safety deposit box, coin telephone, coin box, or other apparatus or equipment whether or not coin operated.
(2) Third degree burglary is a class 5 felony, but it is a class 4 felony if it is a burglary, the objective of which is the theft of a controlled substance, as defined in section 12-22-303 (7), C.R.S., lawfully kept in or upon the property burglarized.
18-4-301. Robbery.
(1) A person who knowingly takes anything of value from the person or presence of another by the use of force, threats, or intimidation commits robbery.
(2) Robbery is a class 4 felony.
No, there is no duty to retreat in Colorado law, nor in court precedent.
Our "Castle Doctrine" (the politically correct term the NRA adopted, but was originally called the "Make My Day" law) was passed in 1984, and is quite good. It provides civil and criminal immunity if three criteria are met.
Welcome to Colorado!
Thanks for the legal resource link!! Will definitely do some reading into it. As for Castle Doctrine being PC vs. the phrase Make My Day. When Florida issued a Stand Your Ground law everyone colloquially called it Right to Shoot. A few of the whiny anti-gunners complained it'd be like the gunfight at the OK Corral or something, but for the most part all it did was empower the law abiding citizen more. And yes, Colorado is definitely better than Florida!!