Colorado make my day better law.

[XJ]

Starting from the next part of line 27, which is where the previous poster stopped his paste. The next part seems to define when you presume this reasonable fear.

AN OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE HELD A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR A THIRD PERSON WHEN USING PHYSICAL FORCE THAT IS INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM TO ANOTHER IF:

(a) THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE PHYSICAL FORCE WAS USED WAS IN THE PROCESS OF UNLAWFULLY AND FORCIBLY ENTERING, OR HAD UNLAWFULLY AND FORCIBLY ENTERED, THE DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE, OR IF THAT PERSON HAD UNLAWFULLY REMOVED, OR WAS ATTEMPTING TO UNLAWFULLY REMOVE, ANOTHER PERSON AGAINST THAT PERSON'S WILL FROM THE DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE; AND

(b) THE OCCUPANT KNEW OR HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ENTRY OR UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ACT WAS OCCURRING.

My reading of the above: part (a) says they are in the process of coming in, or already there. OR they try and take someone away. Two seperate things. No need to get into the bad guy's means, opportunity, jeopardy, disparity of size, whatever. AND (b) you know they aren't supposed to be there or doing that.

Next is 2.5 which sets out some exceptions, which don't seem too bad as long as "unlawful activity" isn't taken to extremes (copyright violation :roll: )


Thoughts? It seems like an improvement

[SigsRule]

Starting from the next part of line 27, which is where the previous poster stopped his paste. The next part seems to define when you presume this reasonable fear.

AN OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE HELD A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR A THIRD PERSON WHEN USING PHYSICAL FORCE THAT IS INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM TO ANOTHER IF:

(a) THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE PHYSICAL FORCE WAS USED WAS IN THE PROCESS OF UNLAWFULLY AND FORCIBLY ENTERING, OR HAD UNLAWFULLY AND FORCIBLY ENTERED, THE DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE, OR IF THAT PERSON HAD UNLAWFULLY REMOVED, OR WAS ATTEMPTING TO UNLAWFULLY REMOVE, ANOTHER PERSON AGAINST THAT PERSON'S WILL FROM THE DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE; AND

(b) THE OCCUPANT KNEW OR HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ENTRY OR UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ACT WAS OCCURRING.

My reading of the above: part (a) says they are in the process of coming in, or already there. OR they try and take someone away. Two seperate things. No need to get into the bad guy's means, opportunity, jeopardy, disparity of size, whatever. AND (b) you know they aren't supposed to be there or doing that.

Next is 2.5 which sets out some exceptions, which don't seem too bad as long as "unlawful activity" isn't taken to extremes (copyright violation :roll: )


Thoughts? It seems like an improvement

This is an improvement but there are still legal gotchas hidden in the language. For example "Unlawfully and forceably entering" - what if you left your door unlocked or it was even open? They didn't forceable enter.

I applaud the addition of vehicles to the explicit definition of where the law will apply, but what makes you think an anti-gun DA, or any DA looking to make a name before an election (think Duke Lacrosse Team) won't take "unlawful activity" to extremes (somebody else used the example of copying a DVD). Language can be very precise, yet most lawyers wield language like a weapon and can find ambiguities in even the best intentioned law. So why couldn't the lawyers have just said "commiting a felony" instead of "unlawful activity". That would have covered the obvious intent (e.g., a crack dealer shooting a rival gang member who just broke in) while not giving the criminals a free out just because you were participating in an illegal gambling operation (i.e. betting in a football pool). It's lawyers twisting the wording of the 2nd amendment that has us all worried now.

[HunterCO]

There is a big difference first of me and Gman were talking about the CCW entries in CBI that bill is a complete joke and a smoke screen.

I have a huge problem with the make my day law change.

The change to the make my day law destroys it. Read it and pay attention it takes away your right to defend your home unless of course you feel the scum bag is going to kill you.

Let me point it out.
The New proposed Law.

REASONABLE FEAR THAT THE OTHER PERSON
26 CREATES AN IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY

Versus the old Law.

has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a
21 crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing
22 or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to
23 the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such
24 other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against
25 any occupant

Under the current law if somebody breaks into your home you can shoot the SOB as it should be. Said person does not have to forcibly enter they just have to "UNLAWFULLY ENTER" and you just have to have a "REASON TO BELIEVE THEY ARE GOING TO COMMIT A CRIME". I think it is safe to assume that if somebody comes in your home uninvited they are going to commit a crime I have no doubt any "REASONABLE” person would believe this. (in other words the jury).

Under the new law you have to have “A REASONABLE FEAR THAT THE OTHER PERSON CREATES AN IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY”.

Under the new law as long as the intruder does not threaten you or your families life you can grab a drink and watch the A$$hole take everything he wants unless you wish to go to prison.

So who does not still see anything wrong with it? This is typical liberal BS they don't like the make my day law so they are blowing smoke up everybody’s A$$. They are trying to pull a fast one and say they are expanding it to cover vehicles and in fact they are gutting it.

[SigsRule]

That's exactly my point. Adding vehicles doesn't overcome the watering down of our rights in our DWELLING. The problem is people that get stuck on jury duty aren't very "reasonable" when the lawyers get through confusing them and there's loopholes galore in the new wording.

[Gman]

We're not talking about any requirement to add CCW holders. If the DB sunsets, it's not up to a Sheriff's discretion to add CCW holders to the statewide DB. There is no statewide DB. They couldn't add you if they wanted to. How am I not stating this clearly enough?

As to the Castle Doctrine, one must not prove a fear, but it is understood to be reasonable that one WOULD fear an intruder. Someone illegally entering your dwelling probably isn't there to award you the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes. Read the entire bill. I don't think it's that complicated to figure out what it means without it being twisted into something that isn't there.
The revised law states;

AN OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE HELD A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR A THIRD PERSON...

Just as we are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, we are presumed to fear someone breaking into our homes. We don't have to prove that we had a fear of the intruder nor do we have to prove the intent of the intruder. We also don't get into a civil lawsuit by the intruder's family.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=2566

HB1011, the “Castle Doctrine” self-defense bill, simply states that if a criminal breaks into your home or your place of business, you do not have a “duty to retreat.” The bill also provides protection from criminal prosecution for those who defend themselves from criminal attack.

The bill was approved by the committee with a change that removed vehicles in the fear that undercover police officers could be shot.

[SigsRule]

The revised law states;

AN OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE HELD A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR A THIRD PERSON...

Just as we are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, we are presumed to fear someone breaking into our homes. We don't have to prove that we had a fear of the intruder nor do we have to prove the intent of the intruder. We also don't get into a civil lawsuit by the intruder's family.

You're engaging in wishful thinking. You cut the quote off too soon. It states we are presumed to hold a reasonable fear "IF:" and that's followed by two clauses with multiple ORs and an AND. It's not a cut and dried presumption of reasonable fear - you'd have to show the conditions of the IF statement were met. And that's where there's weasel wording in the proposed wording. If there were no signs of a FORCEABLE entry, you could be screwed!

[HunterCO]

We're not talking about any requirement to add CCW holders. If the DB sunsets, it's not up to a Sheriff's discretion to add CCW holders to the statewide DB. There is no statewide DB. They couldn't add you if they wanted to. How am I not stating this clearly enough?

You don't understand the current law does not require them to enter anybody in to the CBI data base (This is what people are referring to as the CCW DB). The current law only requires them to report statistics as to how many permits were issued, denied, revoked ect. This bill would only remove that requirement before it sunsets. Sheriffs who enter pemitee's into CBI will continue to do so just as they did BEFORE the shall issue law. There is no such thing as a CCW specific data base it's called CBI and this bill does nothing to stop them from entering permit holders into it.

As to the Castle Doctrine, one must not prove a fear, but it is understood to be reasonable that one WOULD fear an intruder. Someone illegally entering your dwelling probably isn't there to award you the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes. Read the entire bill. I don't think it's that complicated to figure out what it means without it being twisted into something that isn't there.
The revised law states;

AN OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE HELD A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR A THIRD PERSON...

If you can not clearly see the difference in what is posted above in red vs what they changed it to I don't know what to say. If you don't think an over zealous prosecutor could use that new wording to hang somebody for protecting their home you must not know the legal system very well. I will take the old law hands down its worded much stronger and gives a prosecutor much less to use against somebody.

Just as we are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, we are presumed to fear someone breaking into our homes. We don't have to prove that we had a fear of the intruder nor do we have to prove the intent of the intruder. We also don't get into a civil lawsuit by the intruder's family.

I sure wish that was the case but it's not. You will have to prove everything you claim you wouldn't. I have been there I know what it's like and I didn't even shoot anybody. I simply had a shotgun and was defending my home and ended up in court on felony charges.

[SigsRule]

+1 to what HunterCO said. I've been in the "system" myself for a civil action. The bottom line is you can be sued for anything when the lawyers get involved and will have to defend yourself regardless of the curcumstances. Any wording in the statutes that gives the slightest leeway for interpretation will become a major issue when twisted in court -especially in criminal actions.

The previous wording didn't have that leeway in the wording. The new one has lots of potential for leeway. That's why I don't like it.

[KarlPMann]

I agree 100%. The old law has been tested multiple times, including 2 challenges to it that went to the state supreme court. It has stood firm. In all known cases the person was found innocent and they could not be sued. With the current law it is the burden of the prosecutor to prove that you were not in fear of serious injury or death. That's a mighty hard task. How can he/she prove what was in your mind? (assuming you keep your MOUTH SHUT).

With the wording of this propsed law, I can see more challenges to people who have defended themselves. Personally, I'd stick with what I know works. Karl.

[Gman]

The sunset of the DB is precisely this;

18-12-206. Sheriff - issuance or denial of permits - report.
3 (3) (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection
4 (3), on and after July 1, 2007, a sheriff shall not share information from
5 the list of permittees with a law enforcement agency for the purpose of
6 creating a statewide database of permittees, and any law enforcement
7 agency that receives information concerning permittees from a sheriff
8 shall not use the information to create or maintain a statewide database of
9 permittees. Any information concerning a permittee that is included in
10 a statewide database pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) shall
11 be removed from the database no later than July 1, 2007.

This won't be allowed to occur with the passage of HB 1174. You tell me where that allows any of what you have said, HunterCO. You can call it CBI, you can call it friggin' cauliflower for all I care, but any entries into any statewide database were supposed to be removed before July 1, 2007.

As to HB 1011, Here's how it looks after emerging from committee;

First Regular Session
Sixty-sixth General Assembly
STATE OF COLORADO
PREAMENDED
This Unofficial Version Includes Committee
Amendments Not Yet Adopted on Second Reading
LLS NO. 07-0181.01 Richard Sweetman HOUSE BILL 07-1011
House Committees Senate Committees
Judiciary
A BILL FOR AN ACT
101 CONCERNING THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST A PERSON WHO
102 MAKES AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY INTO A PLACE OF BUSINESS.
Bill Summary
(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced and does
not necessarily reflect any amendments that may be subsequently
adopted.)
Creates a presumption that an occupant who uses deadly physical
force against an intruder has a reasonable fear of imminent death or
serious bodily injury to himself or herself or another person. Sets forth
conditions under which the presumption does not apply.
Adds vehicles and places of business to the locations in which the
presumption applies.
HOUSE SPONSORSHIP
Gardner C.,
SENATE SPONSORSHIP
Harvey, and Schultheis
-2- 1011
1 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
2 SECTION 1. 18-1-704.5, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended
3 to read:
4 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
5 (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado
6 have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes DWELLINGS
7 AND PLACES OF BUSINESS.
8 (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any
9 occupant of a dwelling OR PLACE OF BUSINESS, is justified in using any
10 degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another
11 person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the
12 dwelling OR PLACE OF BUSINESS, and when the occupant has a reasonable
13 belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling OR
14 PLACE OF BUSINESS in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or
15 intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the
16 uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such
17 other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against
18 any occupant.
19 (3) Any occupant of a dwelling OR PLACE OF BUSINESS using
20 physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the
21 provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from
22 criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
23 (4) Any occupant of a dwelling OR PLACE OF BUSINESS using
24 physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the
25 provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any
26 civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
-3- 1011
1 SECTION 2. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
2 determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
3 preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

If it helps you make conclusions about intent, the antis are completely against the passage of HB 1011. It appears to have bipartisan support and will likely pass.