Monitary award in civil case in Colorado
- Thread starter CharlieK
- Start date
jabatam
New member
Yeah because it'd be a shame to be prepared for someone to commit a crime against you. I wonder how a lawyer would paint a civil case against me in a similar situation with the setting being my house. I have many weapons, lethal and non-lethal, strategically placed throughout my house...couldn't that be considered an ambush? Luckily, I don't have to worry about that in Indiana...yet
Deserteagle
New member
Only in America do we pay the families of criminals who die in the act of breaking the law.
J
JSDinTexas
Guest
In TX, if the use of deadly force is justified, you are protected from civil prosecution.
CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC § 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.
Let me first say I'm not for any BG, but reading the details of this event, which include references to CO law, appear to indicate deadly force was not immediately justified. Even ignoring the fact that the shooters waited in ambush.
I point to where the article says:
"Police said in a 145-page investigative report that the intruder had knives in his pockets and one strapped to his ankle, but never posed a threat to Milanovic or the other men, ..." [What they are implying is the BG did not produce, brandish, or threaten to use a deadly weapon] and, "The three men were accused of keeping an armed vigil over the auto lot and firing on the first burglars they saw." [this is the ambush] and, "[BG] was standing inside a small shed when a .45-caliber rifle bullet passed through the shed’s door and pierced his heart." [Again, no legitimate threat]
"Under Colorado’s self-defense laws, the use of deadly force is justified only under the “reasonable belief” that it’s necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. The jury found that none of the men had a legitimate claim of self-defense." [If the shooter waited until a knife was visible it might have been a defense to deadly force. But he may have also had the option to hold the BG at gunpoint until the LE arrived]
"Property rights are not a lawful defense for using deadly force in Colorado, and the state’s so-called Make My Day law, which sets lower standard for using force, applies to households, not businesses." [Unfortunate, in TX protection of property by using deadly force is justified both at home and business]
So, the lesson here is understand the laws of your state - carrying a gun is serious business, and I absolutely believe if a person does legally carry, they are obligated to know the applicable laws.
Please understand my comments are summarized, many variables affect a claim of justification. Had I legally detailed this more fully, it probably would have been 5 pages long. And I repeat, I am not in favor of any BG at any time, but the verdict was appropriate based on CO law.
CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC § 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.
Let me first say I'm not for any BG, but reading the details of this event, which include references to CO law, appear to indicate deadly force was not immediately justified. Even ignoring the fact that the shooters waited in ambush.
I point to where the article says:
"Police said in a 145-page investigative report that the intruder had knives in his pockets and one strapped to his ankle, but never posed a threat to Milanovic or the other men, ..." [What they are implying is the BG did not produce, brandish, or threaten to use a deadly weapon] and, "The three men were accused of keeping an armed vigil over the auto lot and firing on the first burglars they saw." [this is the ambush] and, "[BG] was standing inside a small shed when a .45-caliber rifle bullet passed through the shed’s door and pierced his heart." [Again, no legitimate threat]
"Under Colorado’s self-defense laws, the use of deadly force is justified only under the “reasonable belief” that it’s necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. The jury found that none of the men had a legitimate claim of self-defense." [If the shooter waited until a knife was visible it might have been a defense to deadly force. But he may have also had the option to hold the BG at gunpoint until the LE arrived]
"Property rights are not a lawful defense for using deadly force in Colorado, and the state’s so-called Make My Day law, which sets lower standard for using force, applies to households, not businesses." [Unfortunate, in TX protection of property by using deadly force is justified both at home and business]
So, the lesson here is understand the laws of your state - carrying a gun is serious business, and I absolutely believe if a person does legally carry, they are obligated to know the applicable laws.
Please understand my comments are summarized, many variables affect a claim of justification. Had I legally detailed this more fully, it probably would have been 5 pages long. And I repeat, I am not in favor of any BG at any time, but the verdict was appropriate based on CO law.
BC1
,
That's for use of force in defense of a person. What about in defense of premises from burglary? Also, the limitation on civil suits is not specifically for a CCW holder, it is generic for all use of deadly physical force, provided such was justified.
J
JSDinTexas
Guest
Yes, the civil immunity is for any with or without a CHL in TX.
My biggest problem with interpretation of law is the overlap [I'll use that word for lack of one better] of various codes. For instance TX penal code section 9.41 states:
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
Here, force is not defined as deadly force, which are two different things. But, PC section 9.42 adds to this, saying:
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
So, if it is "during the nighttime" and "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means" [insurance for example] you can go for it. But daytime or if you have insurance that will replace the property in question, it's not legal to use deadly force.
Last edited:
Tucker's Mom
New member
Thanks for the post. Now we know how stupid some laws are...brings a lot of questions about our legislators.
J
JSDinTexas
Guest
:smile: I'm not sure we would want Colorado - too many liberals probably due to high altitudes and lack of oxygen.
