# Homeowner in Aurora shoots, injures teen robbery suspect



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2010)

Difficult situation.  Homeowner may face legal consequences.

http://www.kwgn.com/news/kdvr-aurora-homeowner-shoots-robber-txt,0,1657355.story



> AURORA, Colo. - A homeowner took the law into his own hands early Friday  morning when he shot a thief who had broken into his truck.
> 
> At about 3:15 a.m., Aurora Police responded to a call of shots fired in the 3200 block of South Bahama Street.
> 
> ...


...


> But trouble could be building for the homeowner if the shooting is ruled unjustified.
> 
> "Anytime there is a confrontation going on, whether it's in a home or a  parking lot at a shopping center, if someone feels their life is  threatened, they have the right to defend themselves.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 2, 2010)

Colorado is the home of the "Make My Day" law, which in the past has been interpreted to include not just the home, but the entire property.

There's pretty much always an investigation with the possibility of charges being brought, but it's rare that such cases are prosecuted.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 2, 2010)

you see, i just dont think i would shoot someone for breaking into my car.

I like my stereo, but it really isn't worth shooting you over.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 2, 2010)

Showing proper respect for other people's property is a good way to keep from being shot.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 2, 2010)

bribrius said:


> you see, i just dont think i would shoot someone for breaking into my car.
> 
> I like my stereo, but it really isn't worth shooting you over.


Well I would definitely agree with you there. But what if the said stereo thief is about to hurt you? I think that is the gist of it, NOT the proposed theft of a car stereo. 



> "*Anytime* there is a confrontation going on, whether it's in a home or a   parking lot at a shopping center, *if someone feels their life is   threatened, they have the right to defend themselves.*


Teen or not, definitely old enough to know the consequences of their actions AND some teens I have seen *are* big enough to put someone into the hospital or worse. 

It's sad that it had to happen that a young man turned to crime so early in his life and formative years, but how much better would his life be if he sat in prison for assault charges or even worse... murder? 





> "It's just a lack of respect and a lack of regard from our youth today.  They take what they want. They don't feel like they have to earn  anything. Everyone feels like something is owed to them. That's  absolutely not what built this country," says Wilson.


A majority of gang members are teens and they are pretty damned mean. 

I'm sorry but my feelings on this run to the side of the home-owner whom the teen chose as a target and was stupid enough not to think their crime through all or at least most of the what-if's. Smash and grab was probably the only thing in his mind. Smash-grab and don't get caught. Well he got caught. Was he prepared to pay for the consequences? 

Probably not.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 2, 2010)

I used to Live and take Kenpo in Aurora.
Sean


----------



## searcher (Oct 3, 2010)

The key to the whole thing is, 





> says the suspect made threatening moves toward him.


      I don't care what the situations is, if an individual makes threatening advances towards me or I am at risk, I am going to do what I need to, in order to defend myself.       If that means shooting someone, then I will cross that bridge when it comes.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

searcher said:


> The key to the whole thing is, I don't care what the situations is, if an individual makes threatening advances towards me or I am at risk, I am going to do what I need to, in order to defend myself. If that means shooting someone, then I will cross that bridge when it comes.


 


well yah,

i just dont know if i believe that. Of course someone would say they made threatening moves, they are trying to justify why they shot them. If i shot someone unarmed i would try to say some ******** like that too.

A lot of people with guns just have them because they live in fear . People like that are trigger happy. Or you have the other people that have guns and are looking for a reason to shoot someone. The freaks.

walk out, someones in the car, shoot.

wtf is that, seriously now. Do they have a right to? Probably. But unless the kid REALLY WAS MAKING THREATENING MOVES, which i tend to doubt then a. they are one of the people that live in fear and would shoot at noises (the kind that shoot their own family in the dark by accident) or b. one of the freaks that have this weird fascination for thinking they are in the wild west or something.

hard telling, not knowing. whatever . the kid lived anyway. Probably wont be ripping off any car stereos for a while..


----------



## Big Don (Oct 3, 2010)

bribrius said:


> well yah,
> 
> i just dont know if i believe that. Of course someone would say they made threatening moves, they are trying to justify why they shot them. If i shot someone unarmed i would try to say some ******** like that too.
> 
> A lot of people with guns just have them because they live in fear . People like that are trigger happy. Or you have the other people that have guns and are looking for a reason to shoot someone. The freaks.


Way to give the benefit of the doubt to the criminal rather than the victim.
-1


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 3, 2010)

Dirty Dog said:


> Colorado is the home of the "Make My Day" law, which in the past has been interpreted to include not just the home, but the entire property.
> 
> There's pretty much always an investigation with the possibility of charges being brought, but it's rare that such cases are prosecuted.



Imo there should always be an investigation, if only to prove that the shooting was indeed justified, to quell all future legal issues.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 3, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Way to give the benefit of the doubt to the criminal rather than the victim.
> -1



+1 to Don.
When in doubt, go with the story of the one who was NOT engaged in criminal activities. Even if both parties are right (i.e. there was a misunderstanding of body language), the guy would not have been shot if he had not been there, stealing that radio.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 3, 2010)

I assume the man was in his house and the car was outside?

The kid didn't make threatening moves until the homeowner shoed up next to the car with a gun. 

While I tend to agree with the break into my house you die stance, I have a hard time accepting this one. If I'm in my locked house and somebody is outside stealing my car, I'm in no immediate danger. Call the cops.


----------



## Drac (Oct 3, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> Teen or not, definitely old enough to know the consequences of their actions AND some teens I have seen *are* big enough to put someone into the hospital or worse.
> 
> A majority of gang members are teens and they are pretty damned mean.
> 
> ...


 
Well said Caver. I have had numerouse run-ins with teen gang members in my LEO days, and most of them were armed and would not hesitate to shoot.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 3, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> I assume the man was in his house and the car was outside?
> 
> The kid didn't make threatening moves until the homeowner shoed up next to the car with a gun.
> 
> While I tend to agree with the break into my house you die stance, I have a hard time accepting this one. If I'm in my locked house and somebody is outside stealing my car, I'm in no immediate danger. Call the cops.


I'm sorry, why is it OK for people to steal your car?


> When you need help NOW, the police are only minutes away...


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 3, 2010)

Big Don said:


> I'm sorry, why is it OK for people to steal your car?


 
It's not 'OK' for peole to steal your car. But is your car really worth killing somebody over?


----------



## Big Don (Oct 3, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> It's not 'OK' for peole to steal your car. But is your car really worth killing somebody over?


Had the CRIMINAL in this story, acted rationally and either obeyed the man with the gun, or run like Hell from him, nobody would have been killed. Had the CRIMINAL in this story chose to work for his gains rather than steal someone else's he wouldn't be dead...



CanuckMA said:


> While I tend to agree with the break into my house you die stance, I  have a hard time accepting this one. If I'm in my locked house and  somebody is outside stealing my car, I'm in no immediate danger. Call  the cops.


 Why is stealing from your car anymore acceptable than stealing from your house? Is it OK to burglarize your house, as long as you aren't home?


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 3, 2010)

So, you're not home. Someone breaks in and steals your stuff. You find out who it is. Is it OK to find him and shoot him?

I have no issue with self-defence. I have no issue with deadly force. But if it's not a case of self-defence, I have an issue with peolpe being judge, jury and executioner.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 3, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> It's not 'OK' for peole to steal your car. But is your car really worth killing somebody over?



I guess that is for each of us to decide. Still, that is not really the point of contention. The thief allegedly made threatening moves to the person holding the gun. That is why he got shot. Perhaps the thief had no other way out of the car, but then that was his problem. 

Btw, Is getting raped worth killing over? After all, if you cooperate, there is almost no physical and no monetary damage. Certainly less than the value of a car, from a monetary point of view again. So if a car is not worth killing over, then getting raped isn't worth it either?

Even if the thief is 'only' stealing a car, the owner may depend on it for his livelihood. Given the almost non existent employee protections in the US, the theft of a car and failure to show up at work may get you fired. Is that enough of a threat to warrant shooting?

I don't know. Yes, my example is ridiculous, but I use it to show that ultimately, the thief (or rapist) has none other to blame than himself. We should not point fingers at the one pulling the trigger as long as he genuinely felt threatened.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 3, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> I assume the man was in his house and the car was outside?
> 
> The kid didn't make threatening moves until the homeowner shoed up next to the car with a gun.
> 
> While I tend to agree with the break into my house you die stance, I have a hard time accepting this one. If I'm in my locked house and somebody is outside stealing my car, I'm in no immediate danger. Call the cops.



As someone who is currently suffering thru the consequences of having his car "taken" from him and having gotten ZERO assistance from the police:

I'm more of the mind to go out and say "get away from my car."

The Douchebag has choices.  He can Get out, say "hey man sorry sorry, I'll just go now" and go.  Or He can turn and run.  Or he can make a move like he's attacking me. In which case hes gonna get ****ed up.

If having your car taken from you is no big hardship... I could sure use yours, why don't you send it down to me.  Thanks!


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Way to give the benefit of the doubt to the criminal rather than the victim.
> -1


 
yeah, bad on me for thinking you shouldn't unload on someone without a weapon visible. common sense anyone?  Did the guy even give a warning?

Hopefully he had a good enough reason to shoot. If not it is just another moron that shouldn't have a firearm who is making the rest of us look bad and putting everyone that carrys or has guns under more scrutiny.

"oh my god, but what if he had a gun"

well we all die someday. you could get hit by a bus too. stop living in so much fear you're not being rational. You aren't postive your in danger, dont friggn shoot. Might end up killing someone pulling out a pack of chewing gum or taking out their keys. Just makes the rest of us look bad.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> It's not 'OK' for peole to steal your car. But is your car really worth killing somebody over?


 

exactly. some of the dumb asses that have guns now scare me more than the criminal element.

Maybe i should carry more in case one of the dumb son of a bitches takes a shot at me while they piss down their leg thinking im a bad guy.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> +1 to Don.
> When in doubt, go with the story of the one who was NOT engaged in criminal activities. Even if both parties are right (i.e. there was a misunderstanding of body language), the guy would not have been shot if he had not been there, stealing that radio.


 
well in that case it must be okay to shoot shoplifters.  seriously now, what the hell are you guys on?


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 3, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I guess that is for each of us to decide. Still, that is not really the point of contention. The thief allegedly made threatening moves to the person holding the gun. That is why he got shot. Perhaps the thief had no other way out of the car, but then that was his problem.
> 
> Btw, Is getting raped worth killing over? After all, if you cooperate, there is almost no physical and no monetary damage. Certainly less than the value of a car, from a monetary point of view again. So if a car is not worth killing over, then getting raped isn't worth it either?
> 
> ...


 
How do you get from property to rape????

Don't know about you guys, but my car insurance covers theft. Yeah, it's a PITA. But one call to my insurance and I've got a rental until either A) my car is returned to me or B) it's deemed a loss, then my replacement insurance gets me a new one.


----------



## Carol (Oct 3, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> So, you're not home. Someone breaks in and steals your stuff. You find out who it is. Is it OK to find him and shoot him?



NO. This is the difference between "robbery" and "burglary".  Robbery involves a person, burglary does not.  

Would I shoot someone over a car?  I drive a 2010 model.  The payout from my insurance would be enough for me to nab a 2011 model.  I'm no fool.

But as far as my life?  Google the name Jamie Cates.  For as long as the FBI Uniform Crime report has been on the web, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine have been the states with the lowest per capita violent crime.  I happen to live in the city, but get outside the cities and crime in NH is practically unheard of.

Mt. Vernon, New Hampshire is a pastoral hamlet about 2 towns away from where I am.   A young Kenpoist by the name of Jamie Cates lives there.  On a day when her father was out of town on business, 4 wannabe gang bangers invaded her home with machetes, killed Jamie's mother and tried to kill Jamie.  She was 11 years old at the time and managed to call 911 _with her throat cut_. 

Google Mount Vernon Home Invasion if you want to know more.  This was NOT a drug issue or because the parents were in to nasty stuff, or any of the other crap that often goes on with armed home invasions.  The Cates family was a family of innocent, law abiding people....and their slime that slashed them to death likely did so as part of a gang initiation, with the slimeball that slashed Jaime saying "I didn't know she was left alive, otherwise I would have killed her."

How much more close to home do you need to get than 2 towns away in, what has proven year after year after year, to be the safest part of the country???

No, I don't care if someone takes my stereo. Or my car.  They are insured.  Or my blackberry or my laptop....my employer will replace them.  My homeowner's insurance covers everything else, and I insured the good stuff for replacement value so I can buy brand new bling if its lost.  Again, I'm no fool. 
* 
What I will NOT put up with is  someone making a threat or an attempt to harm my health or safety.  PERIOD.
*


----------



## yorkshirelad (Oct 3, 2010)

bribrius said:


> well in that case it must be okay to shoot shoplifters. seriously now, what the hell are you guys on?


Well if I ever see you getting the crap kicked out of you on a darkstreet by a bunch of nutters, I'll keep my glock in its holster. After all, is intervening really worth it. Obviously there's a reason for the beating and maybe the guys are just misunderstood. 
But to answer your question no, it's not ok to shoot shoplifters!


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 3, 2010)

bribrius said:


> well yah,
> 
> i just dont know if i believe that. Of course someone would say they made threatening moves, they are trying to justify why they shot them. If i shot someone unarmed i would try to say some ******** like that too.


 
So because you would lie in order to protect a wrongful death, then everyone else who utilized lethal force in order to protect themselves must as well?   



> A lot of people with guns just have them because they live in fear .
> People like that are trigger happy. Or you have the other people that have guns and are looking for a reason to shoot someone. The freaks.


 
Sometimes fear can be reasonable.  I can tell you that a lot of people who live in South Central Los Angeles have a reasonable fear of being victims of assault.  I'm a police officer, I carry a gun off-duty because I know how easy it is for people to be victims of crimes.  I have gotten into off-duty situations where I have had to use my gun in order to protect myself.  Am I being paranoid?

I guess I should also point out the estimated over 1 million times that firearms are used in self-defense each year, the vast majority of whom do not discharge them in doing so.

Are those the "freaks" that you are referring to?




> walk out, someones in the car, shoot.


 
You make a judgement without knowing all of the facts.  I guess that's why you wouldn't be good for a jury.



> wtf is that, seriously now. Do they have a right to? Probably. But unless the kid REALLY WAS MAKING THREATENING MOVES, which i tend to doubt then a. they are one of the people that live in fear and would shoot at noises (the kind that shoot their own family in the dark by accident) or b. one of the freaks that have this weird fascination for thinking they are in the wild west or something.


 
Why do you doubt it?


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Well if I ever see you getting the crap kicked out of you on a darkstreet by a bunch of nutters, I'll keep my glock in its holster. After all, is intervening really worth it. Obviously there's a reason for the beating and maybe the guys are just misunderstood.
> But to answer your question no, it's not ok to shoot shoplifters!


 

i dont see the comparison. could be my failure. One is potential harm , other is assault taking place.

I am not "siding with the criminal" as far as i don't welcome or encourage thievery. Having the abilility to defend ones self is ones right. I do encourage rational thinking around firearms and training classes for some. I feel safer when level headed, rational people have weapons and morons with weapons make me nervous. Moron with a weapon is more dangerous than a criminal without one.
Lot of accidental shootings occur, and questionable self defense reponses.

Mostly though, why would you want to kill someone if you dont have to? That kind of makes you, well a murderer.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 4, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> How do you get from property to rape????
> 
> Don't know about you guys, but my car insurance covers theft. Yeah, it's a PITA. But one call to my insurance and I've got a rental until either A) my car is returned to me or B) it's deemed a loss, then my replacement insurance gets me a new one.



No it doesn't.

At least, mine doesn't, because you don't do that for a 7 year old car. But even if you do, the insurance company only pays you what they think the value was of the car at that time, based on write-off value. Not what it would cost you to buy a similar car.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 4, 2010)

bribrius said:


> well in that case it must be okay to shoot shoplifters.  seriously now, what the hell are you guys on?



Seriously, what are YOU on, since you seem determined to make an argument based on what I am NOT saying.

I did NOT say it is allright to shoot shoplifters or thieves. That argument clearly stated that IF there is doubt about whether there was a threat or not, and no way to prove it one way or the other, then you should go with the story of the one who was not already engaged in criminal activity.

Seriously, are you intentionally twisting my words in order to have something to react to?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 4, 2010)

bribrius said:


> Mostly though, why would you want to kill someone if you dont have to? That kind of makes you, well a murderer.



No it doesn't. It makes you someone who defends his property.
Property is yours, and you don't have to let someone take it, do you?


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 4, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> No it doesn't.
> 
> At least, mine doesn't, because you don't do that for a 7 year old car. But even if you do, the insurance company only pays you what they think the value was of the car at that time, based on write-off value. Not what it would cost you to buy a similar car.


 

That's a choice you make. Both my cars, 5 and 4 years are insured against theft, and for full replacement value.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 4, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> That's a choice you make. Both my cars, 5 and 4 years are insured against theft, and for full replacement value.



Aye. that is indeed a choice you make. It is not the default, and it certainly isn't cheap. 

The argument that nothing material is worth killing over is a bit extreme. Your property is yours. The question the other guy should ask is:_ 'Is stealing this car worth dying for'_. And if he is not prepared to answer with a yes, then imo he should not have tried to steal it. As soon as we start blaming the victims for resisting, we are not on a good track.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 4, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> That's a choice you make. Both my cars, 5 and 4 years are insured against theft, and for full replacement value.



My cars are so old that my insurance company will no longer insure them for 'comprehensive' or 'collision'.  I have liability insurance only on them.  If they're stolen, I'm just hosed.

However, I agree with you about defending property versus defending life.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 4, 2010)

I am reminded of a woman I used to work with.  She was a police dispatcher.  Her husband was murdered by punks who were trying to steal their truck; it was his pride and joy and when they were woken up by the alarm, he ran outside to confront them.  He was armed.  No shots were fired, but his body was found under the truck, his skull was crushed and the gun was gone.  No one was ever caught.

Consider the principles of self-defense.  One certainly has the right to protect their own property, but does that conflict with the concept of self-defense as the highest priority?  In other words, is my vehicle worth MY life?

Any time I physically confront someone, I am assuming risk to my own life.  I cannot predict the outcome.  I may win, I may lose.  Of all the possible outcomes, one of them is my own death.  So the question, from a purely self-defense point of view, is whether or not my property is worth the potential loss of my own life.

Other considerations would be the time and potential expense of defending myself in court if the police or the DA do not think that my use of deadly force met the legal standards for doing so.  I'm not saying that this should stop a person from defending themselves; but that personally, I cannot afford an attorney.  I can't afford to lose my job because I'm sitting in jail and can't make bail.  If it happens because I was defending myself from someone who broke into my house, well, I guess that's life.  If it happens because I decided to go confront a thief and things got out of hand, I'm not sure that's something I need in my life.

Not telling anyone how to react, just saying these are considerations.

Like a 'method actor', I ask myself what my motivation is.  If it's defending my life, that's one thing.  If it's defending my property, that's another.  My reactions may vary based on that.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 4, 2010)

Fwiw I personally agree with Bill and CanuckMA.
However, that does not mean I think it is wrong if someone wants to defend his property.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 4, 2010)

Interesting situation.  Car owner prevailed, but was stabbed twice.  Worth it?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/...ctid=450&articleid=20101001_11_0_Avcifa232663

Police respond after burglary victim beats suspect




> By JARREL WADE World Staff Writer
> Published: 10/1/2010  6:43 AM
> Last Modified: 10/1/2010  12:57 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 4, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Fwiw I personally agree with Bill and CanuckMA.
> However, that does not mean I think it is wrong if someone wants to defend his property.



I don't think it is wrong either.  I just think that when one is defending property and not one's own life, one might wish to consider the risks of doing so.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Interesting situation. Car owner prevailed, but was stabbed twice. Worth it?


 
Nah... that conflict should have ended when the bad guy fled.  There was no reason to give chase, IMO.


----------

