Terror Attack Boulder

[Oscar77]

Was wondering the same thing, even if there is a victim that has no chance of surviving, it would seem to me that an authority would need to actually pronounce the person dead in order to present a murder charge. Don?t get me wrong, I wish this pile of trash could have been ?neutralized? before anyone got hurt, but I?m also not keen on slinging charges before they are warranted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These discussions of the "murder charge" are based on the same media sources that we spend decades complaining about how bad they are.
But also, to be fair, maybe we don't read the articles better.

That said, this article here:

https://kdvr.com/news/local/boulder-...ported-attack/

Says this about the charges against the Suspect:

".......
Eight counts of first-degree murder after deliberation - criminal attempt
Eight counts of first-degree murder with extreme indifference - criminal attempt............"

If that is accurate, the Dude wasn't charged with "Murder".............. but Attempted Murder.

So yes, NOW, if someone dies, they will amend the charges to reflect an actual murder.

[TEAMRICO]

Bob Dylan?
Ilhan Omar

Bob Dilhan Omar!

[BPTactical]

[buffalobo]

Ha! The Bee cracks me up.

Not too far from the truth. Politicians and media types barely paying lip service.

If you're unarmed, you are a victim

[DDT951]

Ah the religion of peace strikes again.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Jesus, they are skipping the train ride and murder and going straight to the cremation.

this was a ?gun free zone?? Outside a courthouse?

Jesus may have said "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them", but I think Jews should change it to "For where two or three gather someone bring an UZI with them". I can?t believe that no one lit that fudger up, literally.

[Doc45]

Oscar77 has it right. I recommend reading the affidavit if haven’t to get an insight into the prick’s state of mind. Tried to buy a gun, planned it for a year, wanted to kill as many as he could. Yes too bad no one was there to cancel his ticket.

[O2HeN2]

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

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

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

Wouldn’t just trying to cause great bodily harm or injury be enough?

[O2HeN2]

Wouldn’t just trying to cause great bodily harm or injury be enough?

Yes it would be. I just find the specific arson carve-out interesting, and this event made me look more deeply into it.

O2