Terror Attack Boulder

[Oscar77]

So I remember something about arson and deadly force in the CRS, and went digging for it:

18-1-705. Use of physical force in defense of premises.
...However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson.

So what's interesting is that as I read it, trying to burn people alive is NOT arson by Colorado law, since arson is only defined as burning a structure:

18-4-102. First degree arson.
(1) A person who knowingly sets fire to, burns, causes to be burned, or by the use of any explosive damages or destroys, or causes to be damaged or destroyed, any building or occupied structure of another without his consent commits first degree arson.
(2) First degree arson is a class 3 felony if the arson is of an occupied structure, and it is a class 4 felony if the arson is of a building.
(3) A defendant convicted of committing first degree arson by the use of any explosive shall be sentenced by the court in accordance with the provisions of section 18-1.3-406.

Which means that if you shot someone holding Molotov that was threatening people with it, you'd have to rely on a standard self-defense argument to justify your actions, whereas if you shot someone threatening a building, you have a specific carve-out for your actions.

Something doesn't seem quite right about that...

O2

Sir:
I reread your comments and changed/edited my response.
The self defense "clause" in the Arson definition is consistent with a broader self defense clause.
Notice they say (basically) you can act in self defense in instances of "first degree arson."
One of the parts to that is they mention "occupied structure," so they don't have people being burned alive their homes.
Like those poor people in Green Valley Ranch.

[BushMasterBoy]

There is no statute on the books in Colorado as to terrorism. What part of Islam don't the legislators understand?

Islam is a terrorist organization. Any other thinking is delusional.


https://www.icnl.org/resources/terro...-united-states

[def90]

Wouldn?t just trying to cause great bodily harm or injury be enough?

Yes it is. From what I was taught in my concealed carry class was that all you need in Colorado is to believe that you are under threat of immediate harm. Harm could be anything that cases injury to body. The bar want very high from what I remember. That said, depending on what jurisdiction you are in when you defend yourself you may end up having to defend yourself a second time in court.

[.455_Hunter]

Yes it is. From what I was taught in my concealed carry class was that all you need in Colorado is to believe that you are under threat of immediate harm. Harm could be anything that cases injury to body. The bar want very high from what I remember. That said, depending on what jurisdiction you are in when you defend yourself you may end up having to defend yourself a second time in court.

I suspect a concealed carrier shooting the terrorist mid-attack would have gotten a thumbs-up from the authorities and most citizens- even in Boulder.

[DDT951]

I suspect a concealed carrier shooting the terrorist mid-attack would have gotten a thumbs-up from the authorities and most citizens- even in Boulder.

No sir.

Boulderites, as evidenced by who they have elected, do not like guns and do not want private citizens to defend themselves.

They believe only police should have guns and will protect themselves.

I have proof. That is what they voted for and forced on the rest of the state.

Look at how well that thinking worked Sunday.

Look at the statements even after by the country comissioner that she believes to solve this is with ?love?.

They don?t need guns for private citizens in Boulder; guns make Boulder less safe.

[def90]

I suspect a concealed carrier shooting the terrorist mid-attack would have gotten a thumbs-up from the authorities and most citizens- even in Boulder.

Yeah, based on other self defense shootings that have occurred in town this would have easily been written up as a justified shooting.

There is a fair amount of pro Palestine crap around town but the City Council after two years of harassment by the pro Palis was finally forced to pick a side this past spring and it wasn't in their favor. Boulder sucks in many ways but I don't think this guy is going to get any more sympathy from the DAs office than the King Soopers shooter did.

[.455_Hunter]

No sir.

Boulderites, as evidenced by who they have elected, do not like guns and do not want private citizens to defend themselves.

They believe only police should have guns and will protect themselves.

I have proof. That is what they voted for and forced on the rest of the state.

Look at how well that thinking worked Sunday.

Look at the statements even after by the country comissioner that she believes to solve this is with ?love?.

They don?t need guns for private citizens in Boulder; guns make Boulder less safe.

Yawn.

You have the same county leadership as me. Anyway, the tune changes in the BPD, BCSO and DA's office. This is from first hand experience, NOT conjecture.

[DDT951]

Yawn.

You have the same county leadership as me. Anyway, the tune changes in the BPD, BCSO and DA's office. This is from first hand experience, NOT conjecture.

No. I am not in Boulder county.

But isn’t ironic that BCSO has to train with their weapons in Weld County? Even training police ti use their guns to occur outside of Boulder county..

[.455_Hunter]

No. I am not in Boulder county.

Oh, so another "expert".

But isn?t ironic that BCSO has to train with their weapons in Weld County? Even training police ti use their guns to occur outside of Boulder county..

Both BPD and BCSO regularly train at BRC in North Boulder. I am sure there are some things they do at other regional facilities, just like every other LE agency.

[colorider]

People tried to stop him with harsh words. Didn’t work too well.