Man Aquitted of first degree murder under "make my day" law

Status
Not open for further replies.

jsalcedo

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
3,683
Man acquitted of murder under Make My Day law

A jury Wednesday ruled a shooting death last year was self-defense under the state's Make My Day law, acquitting Gary Lee Hill, who was accused of first-degree murder for killing a man who had assaulted him in his home but was in his car when he was shot.

The Make My Day law permits people to use deadly force to protect themselves from intruders into their homes.

Hill, 24, declined comment as he was leaving the courthouse.

“He’s not guilty. Justice has been done,” said his mother, Kathy Jastrab. “He didn’t deserve to even be here. Those kids beat him and robbed our home. There was no reason for him to even be on trial.”

The jury deliberated for about six hours, after being handed the case late Tuesday. Fourth Judicial District Judge Robert Lowrey presided over the two-week trial.

Hill was acquitted on charges of first-degree murder with extreme indifference, and two counts of menacing, in the shooting death of John David Knott, 19. The shooting happened Sept. 5, 2004.

“He got away with murder,” said Knott’s sister, who would only identify herself as Tina. “He was my only brother. My kids only uncle. This is a sad day.”

According to testimony, Hill had been having a party that night at the house at 513 Potter Circle. He got into an argument with Allesandra Ash and Amanda Padilla over Padilla’s missing purse. Padilla admitted punching Hill. He brandished a rifle and ordered them to leave.

The women left, called Padilla’s boyfriend, Knott, and Ash’s boyfriend, Anthony Padilla. They went back to Hill’s house and entered Hill’s basement room, where he was sleeping.

Padilla testified she hit Hill three more times, and once more with brass knuckles, causing his head to bleed. They fled the house. Hill got a high-powered rifle, loaded it and fired once from the porch into the car Knott was driving. Knott crashed the car into a house and died.

http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1312918
 
Based on the info in this article, I'm not sure this is the best case for our cause. Dude shot at a fleeing assailant's car. Chased the assailant outside to shoot at his car. Assailant crashes his car into someone else's house.

Maybe this isn't the whole story, but based on what's presented here, I say this is questionable judgement at best. The assailant had ceased to be a threat, and the shooter risked hurting innocent nieghbors by pursuing and shooting. I call this a "don't shoot" scenario.
 
That's the way it ought to be. Attack a man with brass knuckles and think you can get away scot free... I don't think so. A little rehabilitation through reincarnation will give the culprit's soul plently of time to reflect upon the wrongfulness of its way and to come to terms with its errors. In short, seeing Geezus helps! :p
 
I can understand shooting. For legal/cause reasons it would be a bad idea, from a simply moral standpoint I say hell yeah. Someone breaks into my house and starts hitting on me and then run away if not for the legal crap storm to follow I'd be tempted to shoot them too, hey for all I know they are just running for now and will be back later the next time I fall asleep.

Are we gonna start bets on how long before that law is erased?
 
The prosecutor was correct in charging him. Too bad the jury was won over by a good defense attorney.

I've not read the text of the Colorado law, but I don't think it allows you to defend yourself from intruders while they are retreating. I'm sure the Texas delegation will jump in and point out that he wouldn't have been charged in Texas because you can shoot anyone for any reason at any time there....;)

Jeff
 
Sounds like a classic case of "jury nullification" to me.

"Yes, he broke the law, but the guy he shot was a scumbag, and we're all better off with him gone, so... NOT GUILTY!"
 
Two wrongs don't make a right but the guy with the brass knuckles was warned. If I were on the jury it would be a tough call but then I don't have all the details.
 
what can i say, i love my state :) Though from what little information is availible, i dont think thats a good situation to shoot, but who knows for sure.
 
Jeff White said:
The prosecutor was correct in charging him. Too bad the jury was won over by a good defense attorney.

I've not read the text of the Colorado law, but I don't think it allows you to defend yourself from intruders while they are retreating. I'm sure the Texas delegation will jump in and point out that he wouldn't have been charged in Texas because you can shoot anyone for any reason at any time there....;)

Jeff

There is an old saying in Texas. "F**K with the bull, get the horns." I am tired of criminals running around acting like they don't have anything to fear. They do. Had they done that to a police man, do you think he would have been prosecuted for smoking one of them?
 
Probably not the best situation to discharge his weapon from a legal standpoint. However, I can't find the energy to feel bad for the dead guy :scrutiny:

Tom
 
I'm not sure that after getting sucker punched out of a sound sleep, the first thing on my mind would be the legal consequences of my actions over the next few seconds. I don't function that well for several minutes after the alarm clock goes off and all I have to think about is getting a cup of coffee.

I guess it's a good thing I live in Colorado.
 
the guy is obviously a pussy

a woman hit him once and he pulled an assault rifle? :scrutiny:
 
ka50 said:
the guy is obviously a pussy

a woman hit him once and he pulled an assault rifle? :scrutiny:

What are you talking about? Some chick didn't like the fact that he wasn't providing free beer to her and her Diva friend and called up there boy friends and they beat the dude up.

Action = Consequence

Why is it OK to go beat the crap out of someone and then drive on, hit the club, smoke some dope, go to sleep. They had 3 built in Alibis. "No officer were at our place playing cards...."

Jerky's got what they deserved. It is amazing how few bar fights you get in when you don't visit bars...
 
mbt2001 asked;

Had they done that to a police man, do you think he would have been prosecuted for smoking one of them?

Yes, I do. In fact I think a police officer would be more likely to be charged in this situation then a non-sworn home owner.

Jeff
 
OK, I'll ammend mine:
Shootee deserved what he got. No mourning from me.
I still think the Shooter's judgement was questionable.
 
While legally questionable, the jury felt it to be a righteous shooting. A conclusion I concur with. One less thug in our colorful state. :D
Are we gonna start bets on how long before that law is erased?
While not beyond the pale, I'd not hold my breath for it to be overturned. Outside of the liberal enclaves of Boulder and Denver, Colorado is rather conservative. Occasionally this is annoying. Most of the time its a boon.
 
:D

From my understanding, as they left, they said they'd be back...which is what made the jury swing the shooter's way as it is loosely covered under the law. They're on his property, assaulted him twice, once with a deadly weapon, and then as they flee they threaten that they'll be back...

Not making a judgement either way except I don't feel bad for the dead one that's for sure.
 
Last edited:
About a year ago there was a drive-by shooting that was directed at the house directly across the street from me. Luckily, none of the bullets came my way. After It was all said and done I was just pissed off that I didn't have time to run out and unload my SKS into the suspected car. I live amongst many houses which are close together so now, looking back, I'm glad I didn't do that. Not only could I have hurt one of my neighbors but we all know what the California legal system would have done with me. I would not be nearly as lucky as this guy. Even if nobody died I'd have seperate attmepted murder charges for each person in my neighborhood (not to mention my grandma who lives across the street next to the house that got shot up, the likely direction I'd be shooting).

But boy did I ever want to give them fellas a piece of my mind.

-Dev

Note: Moving to Arizona, let this be reason number 312,667,985.
 
Preacherman said:
Sounds like a classic case of "jury nullification" to me.

"Yes, he broke the law, but the guy he shot was a scumbag, and we're all better off with him gone, so... NOT GUILTY!"

Very similar to acquittal the famous .44 Magnum Preacher up in Big Lake last year. I think it was right to bring charges, and also right to acquit. Some people need killing, and it's the job of the jury to make that determination.
 
Sounds like a classic case of "jury nullification" to me.

"Yes, he broke the law, but the guy he shot was a scumbag, and we're all better off with him gone, so... NOT GUILTY!"

At first I agreed then I read the CRS:

18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
Statute text
(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.

Sounds to me like it's on the hairy edge, but they attacked him with a weapon and he had every reason to believe they "could" commit another crime either against him or someone else. Just because they were retreating didn't mean they had seen the light and would live cleanly the rest of their days, and the way the law is written, an okay to good defense lawyer should have been able to get an aquittal. The prosecutor was in an impossible situation. First of all, he was probably told he had to go after the guy. Second, Colorado Springs probably has more guns per capita than any other medium-large city in Colorado, and to convict this guy you would need 12 people who most likely did not own/hated guns AND believed he was out of bounds regarding the legal grey area. The only places in Colorado where he *may* have been convicted would be City&County of Denver, or Boulder -- and I doubt Boulder.

I bet there were 2 types of jurors on this case
1) Those like me who think he acted recklessly, but BARELY inside the letter of the law. (Not guilty because the juror felt no law was broken)
2) Those who thought the "victims" were asking for it (Not guilty by jury nullification)

Either way, not guilty, and it only takes 1.
 
This one falls under the "duty to allow no retreat" clause.

:evil:

The man should feel himself lucky there's no double jeopardy and apparent civil immunity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top