im gonna start this with states rights. for instance, currently in MN you need to show you did not have an "out". If you dont attempt to flee if given the opportunity you cant use deadly force. Colorado seems to have the same law as MN's. my state congressman is pushing for the castle doctrine here and i support it. Basically, if you're on your property (this can mean somewhere in your vehicle or in a tent at a campground, etc) you can defend yourself from a deadly threat without having to flee. in this case though is the question of a threat. the "victim" was hiding in a shed. the "suspect" shot him through the door. I say "how do you know that the guy wasnt preparing for an attack behind that door and was about to jump out to attack the lot owner?" the guy was high on meth. meth heads do crazy shit. did the lot owner know he was high, no. did he know he was sober and hiding to diffuse the situation, no.
i support a law that allows deadly force to end threats of bodily harm. Without the need to show an attempt to flee first. and Without the need to be on your own private property. In a public place the same bodily harm threat should be dealt with in the same way as on private property. I also feel firing a gun at someone who merely has a baseball bat is justifiable. The force used for self defense should not be limited to the force of the threat. In most issues i dont tend to be on the compassionate side. In this issue, i tend to be on the "when in doubt, take em out" side.
I work with foreclosures and get to throw people out in the streets. Major bank.
you dont get a lot of "pleasure doing business with ya" compliments do you?
