Man acquitted of murder under 'Make My Day' law

[ed316]

Man acquitted of murder under 'Make My Day' law





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."
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press (http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#AP). All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[10thvet]

Man there are a lot of holes in that story the way it's written...

a guy beaten up in his own home by 3 other guys, shoots and kills one of them in the get away car...

1) how bad was the guy beaten up, could have claimed mental incompatance.
2) how far away was the car when he shot, it could have been on the shooters property going towards the guy for all we know. The house the dead guy crashed into could have been the shooters.
3) was there an bullet hole in the car or was in witness testmony saying he shot as they were leaving, he could have shot while there were in the house.
4) did the dead guy threaten to come back and kill him or his family. (yes they did threaten to come back)
5) did the dead guy and his buddies have weapons.
6) did they know each other already..did they have a history of fights in the past. (yes they were there already once and threatened to come back)

These are just a few questions I would have known if I was on the jury... the reporter needs to do a little more writting and complete the story..

Yea I know as Par for the course I am standing by for the flaming that is about to begin...

[pathfinder82]

This is why humans and guns dont mix, its as simple as that. I mean would you give a gun to a monkey?

[szr]

I mean would you give a gun to a monkey?I don't see why not. Give a monkey a gun and watch the fun ensue! Surely the only crime commited would be hilarity in the first degree!

Have you ever seen drunken monkeys on National Geographic? Utterly hilarious! And, unlike humans, when was the last time you heard about someone being killed on the road by an intoxicated monkey?

[Kersh]

If you come into my house illegally and in a hostile manner, I will kill you. Or try to. I promise.

[Pille1234]

"Make My Day" law? Man that's the coolest thing I have ever heard!

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000CABAT.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

:D

[Sayeret]

This is why humans and guns dont mix, its as simple as that. I mean would you give a gun to a monkey?

Is this sarcastic?

[Durandal]

Sounds like this guy was defending himself.

Case closed.

[Jani.R]

Sounds like this guy was defending himself.

Case closed.

After the immident danger of death was allready over? Or was the guy beating him from his car?

[10thvet]

I can tell you how it can be thought that he was defending himself.

1) he was beaten up once already
2) they broke into his house and beat him up again
3) the said they would be back...
4) WAS HE ACTULY IN FEAR FOR HIS LIFE or the life of a family member? if the answer is yes... Then there you go..You have self defense as I understand it

they did mention that they would be back but did they mention that they would be back with weapons or more ppl ?

and like I stated earlier the dead dude may have been driving towards him when he shot, it doesnt not state that in the article

How do you know he was actully shot in the car..Witness testimony or holes in the car

How bad was the dude beaten up, there was 3 of them.?

The news paper article leaves alot to the imagination

[Durandal]

After the immident danger of death was allready over? Or was the guy beating him from his car?

Sorry, did you read this:


"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."

In most states that would be considered a fairly open/closed case. The guy was threatened, who knows how long it would take the cops to respond, so he defended himself.

This guy did not randomly walk around the neighborhood and then plan a killing.

So yeah its clear.

[Atlantic Friend]

Three guys break into a house and beat up a fourth guy. The beaten guy runs after them as they are going away and fires at them, killing one.

I must be real dense, but I don't think the hoodlums have too much room to complain because they can't beat up innocent people safely anymore...or is "safe assaulting" a new constitutional right that requires victims to remain stoic and concentrate on happy thoughts while hoodlums rob/beat/rape them ?

[Geezah]

This is why humans and guns dont mix, its as simple as that.

Is it, is it really that simple, would you apply this same logic to anything that isn't physically attached to our bodies??????



I mean would you give a gun to a monkey?

Monkeys, where does it say anything about monkeys??????

So seeing as you disagree with letting this man defend himself with a firearm, where were the boys in blue?????

[StukaJr]

I'll ignore the Pathfinder82's comment until he speaks in anything but flamebait

As for the case - the shooter is acquitted, yet the shooter was charged with a murder in the first degree - the prosecutors must to be real geniuses in Colorado! First Degree Murder is premeditated - what Jury would believe that a man premeditated break in, assault upon himself while sitting around with his weapon out of reach as part of the murder plan?
I imagine Colorado defense laws are something similar to what we have - that defense shootings are such only if it takes place during the assault, not as a retaliation after the assault is over. Of course, if there is a pattern of repeated assaults by the same party with threats to continue - I imagine one can argue that the assault was never really over from beating to beating, with the guilty parties "taking a break", so to speak.
The person is shot in the back - which I guess made the case to go to trial and not clean cut decision behind closed doors. This is by no means a "clean shooting" but I guess the shooter has acted as he saw best fit for his self preservation.
One question does pop to mind:
a) did he file the report of the previous assaults? - it was either a failure of the system or lack of judgment on the part of Hill.