CO college girl shot, charged after entering home

[meanc]

Originally Posted by CavCop

#1 I would say yes. Just because the law says you can shoot a trespasser, does not mean you should shoot every kid or person that trespasses, thats just plain silly to think. If you are in fear, than yes, shoot. If you do it just beacuse you can...

#2 I find it odd that "they" shot her once in the hip. Does it matter? Not much, but I guess they were not worried to shoot more than once. No shot, one shot, 5 shots to the chest, all could work.

#3 When it comes to making a statement and getting a message sent out, college kids will get more attention than the rich home owners. While I support the home owners and think its great that police will charge the women, I see more fuel for the anti gun liberals in CO.

#4 This could wake up college kids to their reckless ways, or could bring about shooting an unarmed person as a bad thing.

What was the womans intent? Its clear she needs help with drinking and better friends to keep an eye on her.

I have no real issues with people or police shooting an unarmed person, as long as they were in fear and not just doing it because they could. From what I found out the woman was a book writer and had a female stalker.

#1 She illegally entered someone's home in the middle of the night and while the owners were there. The owners tried to make verbal contact with the intruder and received no response

In this case, it does not matter if she was a threat - common sense dictates you always treat an intruder as a threat -

#2 I agree - if one shot stops the threat that is great

#3 The anti-gun crowd/college students won't be speaking out much about this as there is nothing to be gained by either #1 it'll draw too much attention to typical college student behavior which will lead to major crack downs on their partying, #2 the anti-gun crowd knows they will look like idiots if they do speak out and keep losing credibility.

#4 We can only hope it wakes them up to their reckless ways.

#5 Her intent is irrelevant - see #1

[Mettalikatt]

Tresspassers are always a threat

[Tobias1976]

Reminds me of the scene in "Animal House" where the cheerleader is flung from the parade through the air and lands on the 13 year old boy's bed. He looks up and says "thank you god"

[spinks]

To me, a stranger in my house, and or bedroom, in the middle of the night would immediately put me in fear for the lives of my family and myself. Why? Simply, because no one in their right mind unlawfully enters some one else's home. All deranged lunatics in the middle of the night scare me!

[Porterhouse83]

She was reckless. I have no sympathy for her. She is lucky to be alive.

[shovelstrokeed]

Once in the hip would have been enough in my house. I have a couple of loaded pistols scattered around my apartment but primary home defense is a Mossberg 500 with OO buck in the magazine. If she failed to respond to the "get out of my house" sound of me racking one into the chamber, once in the hip would very effectively ruin her day.

It is unlikely that a drunk would get into my 4th floor apartment but woe betide to any that do.

[tekarra]

You can't cure stupid. I hope she will realise how fortunate she is.

[majortoo]

a. Yes, the girl is lucky. She is still alive, after demonstrating extremely poor judgement.
b. The homeowners are lucky also. They did not kill the girl.
c. We do not know all the facts.
d. I know that if I am ever in Colorado and need help (hit and run? heart attack? I had better not even open anyone's screen door!)

[dsk]

I think the homeowners are also going to want to review their own security, especially given the fact she got through an unlocked window. Had she been a genuine bonafide scumbag, and not simply a drunk college kid things would've turned out badly for them.

[Black Jack]

Originally Posted by CavCop

Was she a threat, or just trespassing?

Shot only once in the hip?

I can see where that might raise some issues.

College kids > Rich people. When it comes to getting a message out.

I hope the college kids use it as a learning tool and now a law changing tool.

With a young child in the house, I consider ANY intruder to be a threat.

If they are entering into my house, at night, uninvited, They are an intruder that is threatening my family. I haven’t got the time to determine the intent of somebody who is illegally entering my home. My first responsibility, and concern, is the safety of my daughter and wife. With that thought in mind, I MUST assume that any intruder that is willing to enter the home, while we are there, is willing and capable of harming us.

As for this case specifically….

Once the intruder goes down, there is no need to continue to fire. Whether this takes one round, or 7, once the threat has gone down it is time to re-evaluate the situation.

I don’t see any issues that might be raised, unless it is in regards to the home owner learning to lock their exterior doors at night. However, I must admit that it is not an uncommon practice in some areas to leave doors and windows open at night with just the screen closed to help cool off the house after a long hot day. Not something I would recommend, but nothing to blame the home owner for either.

College kids have nothing to do with it. Yes, she was young, but she was a recent graduate. That means that she was no longer a “college kid”. She was graduated and out in the “real” world. In any case, regardless of whether she was graduated or not, she was a 22 year old adult. At that age many people in our society today have already risked their lives for their country, started a family, etc. People need to begin to be held responsible for their own actions at some point. Some people think that should be at 18 years old when they become adults.

I agree that college kids should use this as a learning experience. I think all young people should regardless of whether they are in college or not. Young people entering somebody else’s house at night is a fairly common event, and it is quite often a drunken “kid” not a hoodlum. This doesn’t change the consequences. As I mentioned earlier, after dark, I have no option but to expect the worst.

As for a law changing tool… I’m not sure what law you think needs to be changed. I think that a person should be able to protect themselves, and their family, in their own home. I do not think that it should be illegal to leave your door unlocked at night (stupid, yes, but not illegal). It is already illegal to enter somebodies home without their permission, or a court order. It is already illegal, in most municipalities, to be intoxicated in public, in this case it was over twice the limit for driving, yes I know she wasn’t driving, but that is awfully drunk!

Now, with all of that being said, if I was the home owner, I would urge the DA not to press charges. She made a mistake, and paid a price for it, there was no apparent intent. I would, however, expect her to pay any expenses incurred in cleaning up the mess. Blood can be very difficult to clean up, depending on the flooring.

[Porterhouse83]

Originally Posted by majortoo

a. Yes, the girl is lucky. She is still alive, after demonstrating extremely poor judgement.
b. The homeowners are lucky also. They did not kill the girl.
c. We do not know all the facts.
d. I know that if I am ever in Colorado and need help (hit and run? heart attack? I had better not even open anyone's screen door!)

Coming from the east coast I can tell you people here in Colorado are nicer as a whole. That easy coast attitude is not very common here. With that being said, if you do need help you had better not just walk up into someones yard or home here. Just let it be know your in need of help. I have had very very few bad encounters since moving to Colorado. In MD everyday there was a nasty exchange between folks out in public.

[Shad Roe]

Originally Posted by Black Jack

I would, however, expect her to pay any expenses incurred in cleaning up the mess. Blood can be very difficult to clean up, depending on the flooring.

SERVPRO. Like it never even happened.

[hal copple]

reminds me how difficult it must be for LEO's to instantly decide if someone is just reaching for their identification or a firearm. Or if the shiny thing in a suspects hand is a gun or just a beer glass. Or is it a real firearm, or a airsoft one. Or the drunk reaching under his seat at a traffic seat is looking to hide his bottle or grab his gun.

And yet the lay public and pro-victim people have all the time later to criticize the LEO's need to instantly make a potentially lifetaking or lifesaving decision.

I am sure there are those who feel the homeowners should have carefully tended to the drunk girl, protected her, gave her coffee and called someone to take her home. People who drink to excess can make some really poorly thought out choices. Sometimes with life-changing consequences. A friend of mine, and fellow CC and IDPA shooter told me when someone with a CC permit shoots someone, they need a lawyer and a psychologist.

A sad story, the Colorado shooting.

[Nathan King]

How were the homeowners supposed to know she had no criminal intent? If I'm sitting in my dark bedroom and somebody opens the door and walks in after I've yelled at them to leave I'm shooting the moment I can positively identify that this person is an uninvited stranger. Non aggressive looking? A sweet looking 80 year old woman that weighs 110 pounds can be a threat if armed with a gun or knife.

[Doug M again]

It turns out to have been someone who was not a threat in retrospect. That does not mean it was unreasonable to fear that she was in fact a threat on what was known to the homeowner at the time, which is all this matter can be judged on. (That is true of all uses of force.) A misdemeanor charge, with some appropriate inconvenience and the opportunity to expunge it later, along with waking up in a hospital with a hangover and a bullet wound, should be sufficient.

[larryf1952]

If I were the homeowners, I'd be sick to death for having had to shoot this girl. But, like many have already said, they were completely within their rights to shoot her. I would have done the same thing. And, yeah...the "2 bit trespass" comment was a real gem. I wonder how that guy would have felt about it had it been HIS home this girl was stumbling into?

When I'm awakened out of a deep sleep, I don't think very clearly for the first minute or so. I'm not going to be inclined to think deeply enough to ask why someone is in my house. I'm going to be scared to freakin' death, and my heart will be beating 1000 times per second while I'm getting ready to defend myself and my wife. If someone ignores a command to leave, they're going to get at least 2 in the chest as soon as they open the door and I have a clear shot. There won't be any hip shots, and I won't care if they look like Jessica Simpson or Margaret Thatcher at that point.

Stupid people, doing stupid things often reap very serious consequences. I don't understand the whole drinking and getting sloppy drunk thing, anyway. I never did like becoming a voluntary idiot.

[Rhuvian]

Originally Posted by chrysanthemum

Wow. What a bizzare chain of "one-bad-thing-leads-to-another" events.

The homeowners clearly did nothing wrong. In hindsight, I'm sure that they wished they'd locked that screen door, but even so, nothing in this episode was their fault. Had it been me in their shoes, I would probably have fired twice with a 45acp. And I'd be hurting inside (but still not blaming myself) for what would have happened.

As a footnote, I really resented the way the television reporter cited the State's homeowner self-defense laws as being the "make my day" law. This is an insult to firearms owners. I find that type of reporting to be reprehensible and irresponsible.

I agree with you. Just as an FYI however, it actually is referred to as the "make my day" law around here. It is silly, but even LE call it that.

[g26s239]

I found it interesting that at about 2:27 in that report it is mentioned that a 2010 shoplifting charge was dropped. She does not seem particulary innocent to me in view of that.

Originally Posted by zdragon52

She's out of luck in "make my day" Colorado....she could probably sue and win millions in Kalifornia.

Wrong. But keep making assumptions.

[AJMBLAZER]

Kinda wondering if she lived somewhere near by or just thought she was home?

Irregardless you enter my residence without permission, especially in the middle of the night, you're getting shot. Repeatedly. Until you stop moving. The threat doesn't stop until it's neutralized. Maybe that's the Marine in me but this girl is lucky.

As for the hip part...ever seen most non-gun forum, non-active shooter, not big "gun people" people shoot? Add hyped up on adrenalin and surprise and the homeowner's lucky to have landed a shot. The vast majority of the casual gun owning public isn't an excellent shot during the best of times at the range.
I've seen many people miss a standard 8.5x11 sized target completely at 5 yards.

After the hit landed the girl probably folded up and fell down. The hip's got a lot of importance in this little thing called standing.


Reminds me of an incident around Grand Rapids, MI in 2002. 20 something man is out of his mind on drugs early one morning and thinks he's wandered home but his key doesn't fit. Starts making noises and beating on the door. Eventually tears the screen door off the hinges and starts beating on the entry door to the point it's damaged.
Gets shot with a .357 by the homeowner and dies on the scene.
This was before Michigan had the castle doctrine but the local LE hardly even bothered the homeowner. News media hyped it up but it went away. The whole incident was captured on the homeowner's wife's 911 call, including the guy raving and wailing very loudly, the homeowner repeatedly yelling for him to go away and warning him he had a gun, and the 911 operator telling them not to shoot the man who was beating in their front door.


Drugged moron probably thought he was home and just wanted to eat a sandwich and go to bed after a night of partying. Unfortunately for him he had the wrong house...
...and was out of his mind on drugs. Bad decisions make bad results.