Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:56:19 PM
It appears that the Denver Post is in a contest with the Rocky Mountain News to see who can write the least well reasoned editorial.
The issue is House Bill 1011 to as the Post explains it, it is:
attempt to expand the current "Make My Day" law to cover people who feel threatened while in their cars and businesses.
In back to back paragraphs, the Post wrote:
Current law places the onus on home occupants to prove they were in fear of their lives. Gardner's bill places the burden on police and prosecutors to prove they weren't. That's preposterous.
Colorado's current intruder law says that "any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force" against an intruder if they reasonably believe "that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant."
These two paragraphs are so obviously contradictory as to make one wonder if the editorial board needs an editor. Sloppy writing!
It turns out that the first paragraph the Post wrote is completely and totally bogus. The current law is as the second paragraph states, and that wording does place the burden on police and prosecutors to prove that the occupant had no fear that even minor force would be used. It might even be difficult for a prosecutor to prosecute an occupant who used deadly force against an intruder who was still in the house, though retreating, as a retreating intruder can once again reverse course.
Further, the Post leaves out the fact that the current Make My Day law prevents the intruder or his survivors from filing a civil suit if deadly force is used against them. This protection is important when one realizes that there are a lot of unethical lawyers who would quickly recruit the intruder for a lawsuit.
I'm guessing that most businessmen who contemplate using force to protect themselves and their businesses might like the same protection against lawsuits.
The Post conveniently leaves out the fact that a Colorado businessman who recently used force to protect his business from an intruder has been criminally charged. I wonder if the editorial board thought that might destroy its whole argument. I do.
While there are good arguments against extending it to vehicles, the Post's suggestion that it be completely junked for that reason is bad logic and a disservice to the public.
It is telling that Colorado sheriffs support the bill, and the DA's are taking no position.
As always, this essay contains no legal advice.