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

[Declaration Day]

the guy is obviously a pussy

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

I don't see how the assailant's sex matters. You have no right to hit somebody just because you're angry at them. Whether you are a man or woman, if you hit, don't come crying to me when you get hit back.

Secondly, you don't enter someone's house uninvited, and you especially don't step on someone's property intending to cause trouble.

Legally it might have been considered a bad shoot, but the guy has my support.

 

[dlouque]

Don't care if they were leaving when shot

Won't be coming back a second time, and I'm sure the Girls won't be returning either. My motto is " if you break into my house, and start running, I'll shoot you in the back a block away if I have to to insure you never return." We have the shoot the burglar law, and shoot the carjacker law in Louisiana.

 

[Azrael256]

So what's Knott and the gang's felony count up to? They broke in, with an obvious intent to harm Hill, so that's one apiece, somebody smacked Hill with a deadly weapon (that's banned here in Texas), so there's another, and somebody may have told somebody that Knott and Co. would return, with an obvious intent to do further harm. So that may or may not be a third, depending on the laws there and just how it's viewed.

Lockin' and loadin'? Sounds peachy to me. Giving chase? Eh, wouldn't have done it, but it sounds like what we Texans call "fresh pursuit," so I'll let him have it. Brandishing the firearm to indimidate Knott and pals to keep them away? The crime is still happening when Hill draws down, so I can't argue. Pulling the trigger? The article didn't make any mention of the threat to life and limb being imminent when Hill shot, and if he knew who the assailants were, the police could have done a much better job of apprehending. Stupid, stupid, stupid on Hill's part.

But first degree murder? Colorado may be different, and I may be flat wrong in my understanding, but I'm not seeing any real planning going into the shoot. I do see some stupid going on in the heat of the moment, so I would consider a second degree charge, and I would almost certainly convict Hill on some sort of reckless endangerment, but this just doesn't fit my understanding of first degree murder.

 

[Devonai]

Azrael is right.

Either Hill refused to accept a plea deal, preferring to take his chance with the jury, or the DA refused to press a lesser charge despite the fact that the chances of conviction would be higher.

If I was on the jury and my choices were 1st degree murder and acquittal, I would have voted to let him off too. If reckless endangerment or manslaughter was on the table, I might not have been so cavalier.

 

[Janitor]

Some people need killing, and it's the job of the jury to make that determination.

Truer words were never spoken.

And that's where the shooter almost got into really deep trouble. He made the initial decision, not the jury. Fortunately for him, they agreed with him. I agree with Czar and see this (as it's reported) as dancing on the edge of legal - I lean more towards this feeling illegal.

But, like Cosmo said - "Some people need killing". There were three people in that story who did. Now, there's one less in the world.

So - do we care how things look to the sheeple? The sheeple seem to honestly believe that nobody ever needs killing, and to kill somebody who is running away? FWIW - They're going to see an only brother and uncle - shot down in the prime of his life while trying to escape the man with the full auto black high powered semi-automatic assult machine rifle.

Happily for the shooter, the sheeple didn't run his jury.

One last point - let's not lose site that we're discussing what happened in a news article, not what happend. The difference usually isn't subtle.

Edited: Because of my flip use of the title "sheeple" above, I wanted to make sure and point out that I am NOT talking about the people here who see this as probably illegal. I'm talking about the same people we all are when we see that name.
-

 

[Janitor]

...or the DA refused to press a lesser charge despite the fact that the chances of conviction would be higher.

Hmmmmm .......
-

 

[ExtremeDooty]

After thinking about this, I thought 1st degree murder required premeditation. Without premeditation, it's a lesser degree of murder or manslaughter. Since there clearly was no premeditation, I wonder if the DA actually agreed with the shooter and purposely went with the murder 1 charge, knowing that he wouldn't get a conviction.

 

[Working Man]

Azrael is right.

Either Hill refused to accept a plea deal, preferring to take his chance with the jury, or the DA refused to press a lesser charge despite the fact that the chances of conviction would be higher.

If I was on the jury and my choices were 1st degree murder and acquittal, I would have voted to let him off too. If reckless endangerment or manslaughter was on the table, I might not have been so cavalier.

I wonder if that was intentional, bring the heaver charge knowing he would
be acquitted. Perhaps the DA did not want to charge him but felt they had
to make a good showing. Otherwise a 1st degree murder charge makes no
sense at all.

On a related note... Anyone remember the guy in Texas who had been robed
3 times in just a few months. He came home while a guy was running in his
field carrying his TV. He took his rifle out of his truck and shot him dead.
IIRC the fact that he had been robbed so many times help him not get
charged in any form.

 

[Bluey]

the guy is obviously a pussy

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

From what I've seen working a little as a bouncer men get into fistycuffs, throw punches, maybe a few kicks, women on the other hand don't just fight dirty, they fight filthy. Women do anything from eye gougeing to trying to put their high heels through your arm.

 

[Bubbles]

From what I've seen working a little as a bouncer men get into fistycuffs, throw punches, maybe a few kicks, women on the other hand don't just fight dirty, they fight filthy. Women do anything from eye gougeing to trying to put their high heels through your arm.

+1.

Also, I had a firearm instructor tell me that women don't bluff. If a guy threatens deadly force, he may or may not be bluffing. If a woman does it, she's 100% serious.

 

[LaEscopeta]

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.

Me too. But from the original article:

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.

Does any one know if he hit the driver, or did the driver just crash the car, and the 1st degree murder charge was based on the shot caused the crash by scaring the driver into driving recklessly? If the second case is true, it would be easily to understand why the jury acquitted.

If he did hit the driver of a moving car at night, after being punched awake, with one shot, he is either lucky or a hell of a good shot.

 

[mbt2001]

There is another old saying in Texas:

"No horse ever needed stealin', but there are some men who need killin'."

 

[middy]

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...

That's not true. You can't give just any ol' reason, but "he needed killin'" is a valid defense.

 

[TexasRifleman]

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

You say that like it's a bad thing.
You mean it's not that way everywhere else? Goodness, how do you people sleep at night.....

Now, as to this case, it is strange that he would be charged with 1st degree murder.
Maybe this DA was trying to get him acquitted, or is an idiot.. That seems like an odd charge. Grabbing a gun seconds
after getting attacked hardly seems premeditated to me.... If I'm on a jury in this case I'm coming back not guilty also.

 

[eastwood44mag]

About damn time. If some stupid SOB plans on breaking into my place, and beating me up, he's leaving in a plastic bag.

Good to know that some are getting sick of being victims.

 

[Coltdriver]

As a Coloradoan I am delighted to see the meaning of our right to defend ourselves properly expanded. I always thought the Texans had it right in the first place. But our law is a very close second.

You come and break into my place and kick my butt and I have every right to defend myself.

This case will make a great future precedent for others to cite who may find themselves in similar circumstances.

I can find no agreement with anyone who would defend the right of a criminal to break into my house, harm me and then be allowed to run away without consequence.

We don't have many home invasion problems here!

 

[benEzra]

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

Where did it say what kind of rifle was used?

(BTW, I can almost guarantee it wasn't an "assault rifle." You can bet that if the guy used an NFA Title 2 restricted automatic weapon in the shooting, it'd be in the article. SKS, civilian AK lookalike, or AR-15, maybe; assault rifle, no way in this case.)

 

[Preacherman]

CNN has a report on this with a couple of interesting comments (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/15/make.myday.ap/index.html):

Man acquitted of murder under 'Make My Day' law

Thursday, December 15, 2005; Posted: 8:28 a.m. EST (13:28 GMT)

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (AP) -- A man accused of fatally shooting someone in a car has been acquitted of first-degree murder under a state law that provides legal protection to homeowners who defend themselves.

But a legislator says the 1985 law -- known as the "Make My Day" law -- may have been misinterpreted by the jury.

Gary Lee Hill, 24, faced charges in the 2004 killing of 19-year-old John David Knott, who along with three others had assaulted Hill in his home.

Hill was accused of firing a shot into a car that Knott was driving. Knott crashed into a house and died from a single gunshot wound to the back, authorities said.

"It's a miscarriage of justice," said Sen. Jim Brandon, who helped craft the law. The law meant a home's door to be a threshold for an illegal entry, not down the street, he said.

Prosecutor Lisa Kirkman said the law says deadly force can be used "if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller."

According to testimony, Knott and the others showed up at Hill's house after an argument over a missing purse.

"Gary went through this horrible and traumatic event," said defense attorney Ted McClintock. "They promised they were going to come back in. They had already come back once."

 

[NineseveN]

CNN has a report on this with a couple of interesting comments (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/15/make.myday.ap/index.html):


"Gary went through this horrible and traumatic event," said defense attorney Ted McClintock. "They promised they were going to come back in. They had already come back once."

If that isn't enough, I am of the firm opinion that it ought to be. Of course, did they really say they'd be back? Hard to prove I think.

 

[6inch]

I way I see it is the four punks went looking for trouble and found it!

I can also see where the two girls could wind up with a couple felony charges. 1) Instigating and taking part in the home invasion. 2) Battery involving a deadly weapon.

 

[Father Knows Best]

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!"

+1. Also known as the "he needed killin" defense.

 

[boofus]

Good shoot and the jury agrees.

 

[HankB]

The perp wasn't shot after fleeing a simple B&E which resulted in theft of a VCR or something, the perp was shot after participating in a violent assault during a home invasion.

I would say that made all the difference in the world to the jury.

It does to me, too.

 

[VirgilCaine]

If that isn't enough, I am of the firm opinion that it ought to be. Of course, did they really say they'd be back? Hard to prove I think.

That line you quoted makes the difference here. Pattern of violent conduct and harassment is established...sounds clean to me.

 

[MechAg94]

Regardless, the jury deliberated for 6 hours. I have served on a jury in a murder trial before, 6 hours is nothing. I would say over half the jury was convinced before deliberations.