Subject:
|
Re: National vote on handguns?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 20:34:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
698 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> >
> > OK, you are right with regard to the fireman situation. I should have
> > qualified the unidentified person better. In general, if a stranger is in my
> > home uninvited I'll be going after them with everything that I have until
> > they are either subdued, incapacitated or dead (or I am one of the latter
> > two). I'm automatically assuming that I am in danger because the sactity and
> > safety of my home has already been violated, so who's to say the intruder
> > cares about my personal safety? And that stands regardless of age.
>
> That argument won't stand up in court. Well, maybe it will in Texas...
Here’s where I got this: http://64.78.178.125/stat00/index.htm
Need I say more?
18-1-704 - Use of physical force in defense of a person.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person
is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend
himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use
a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a
lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or
another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great
bodily injury; or
(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical
force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while
committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202
to 18-4-204; or
(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit
kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in
section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section
18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or
assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a
person is not justified in using physical force if:
(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he
provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or
(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon
another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from
the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to
do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of
unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not
specifically authorized by law.
18-1-704.5 - Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado
have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a
dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including
deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has
made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a
reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the
dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to
commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited
entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person
might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly
physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this
section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly
physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this
section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death
resulting from the use of such force.
18-1-705 - Use of physical force in defense of premises.
A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other
premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is
justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another
person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or
terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted
commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the
building, realty, or 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.
18-1-706 - Use of physical force in defense of property.
A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force
upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it
necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the
other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering
involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these
circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section
18-1-704.
> >
> > > You answer is a good example of why I think people who want firearms should
> > > be required to take a course and pass a test (not just about the safe
> > > handling of weapons, but also the legal ramifications of using them).
> >
> >
> > To put your mind at ease, I do not own a firearm in the technical sense. The
> > closest thing I have is a paintball gun. (By the time I located all of the
> > necessary parts to fire it, plus some good paintballs I'm sure the whole
> > event would be over.) But you can be sure that I won't be an easy target.
> > I've already made that mistake once and it cost me some very nice power >tools...
>
> Ahhh, the Death Penalty for power tools! Forgive me if I was not paying
> attention: is that more defensible than the Death Penalty for a crust of >bread?
If there is an intruder in my house, I couldn’t care less whether he's
making a sandwich or stealing the whole refrigerator, I'll take him out
first and ask questions later.
>
> >
> > > All bets are off in Texas, of course, where you used to get to shoot your
> > > wife if you caught her in comprimising circumstances.
> > >
> > > > Granted, there have been a couple of unfortunate "mistakes" where a family
> > > > member has been taken out by another person living in the residence. Or the
> > > > cops having the wrong address on their search warrant. In general, I'm glad
> > > > to have that law in place. I would like to have the opportunity waste the
> > > > scumbag who has the balls to sneak into my residence and take property (or
> > > > worse) which I spent my hard-earned money on. The only thing you have to be
> > > > sure of is finishing the job, otherwise you could find yourself in a big
> > > > lawsuit and paying money to the bonehead who was robbing you in the first >>place.
> > >
> > > Ahhhh, the Death Penalty for stealing a crust of bread. Judge Dredd in
> > > action, "I yam the law!"
> > > :-)
> >
> >
> > What's mine is mine. The only people entitled to what I have are the people
> > who I am legally obligated to share with, or who I deem worthy.
>
> Hey, no problem with that, but if you think that entitles you to kill
> somebody running off with your crust of bread, either don't buy a gun or get
> a really expensive lawyer.
Don't get me wrong. I can't shoot a guy in the back that's running down the
street with my TV. Once he's out of my house, the tables turn. I have to
rely on my powers of observation to give the police a good description when
they finally decide to show up.
>
> Bruce
-Duane
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) (clipping lengthy legal text - see previous message if you need to) No, you needn't say more: it's reassuring that I got it right. You can't shoot someone for stealing a crust of bread. There has to be the reasonable belief that the person is (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) That argument won't stand up in court. Well, maybe it will in Texas... (...) Ahhh, the Death Penalty for power tools! Forgive me if I was not paying attention: is that more defensible than the Death Penalty for a crust of bread? (...) Hey, no (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
