Last edited by Aderleth; 09-26-11 at 08:41 PM.
Property rights are not a lawful defense for using deadly force in Colorado, and the state’s so-called Make My Day law, which sets lower standard for using force, applies to households, not businesses.
Read more: Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
Perhaps the law needs to be changed to include businesses.
I think the proper fine would have been one dollar.
1) In the first one, you claimed that I was "taking up with the side of criminals."
2) When I pointed out that that's stupid, and asked you, very specifically, to explain to me why what the three business owners did was not also a crime under the relevant law, you made a half-assed attempt to do so by a) fatuously alleging that the prosecutor must not have had a good case if he couldn't get the the grand jury to agree with him and b) inaccurately attempting to invoke the Castle Doctrine. This was pretty obviously an attempt to claim that what these guys did was not illegal. You were attempting to make a legal argument.
3) When I pointed out that you completely and totally misapplied the law, you backtracked, and suddenly started to claim that you're not interested in the law, but are, in fact, interested in a philosophical debate; and furthermore, that you are "not interested in Colorado law." This is funny, given that you chose to engage in a philosophical debate by responding to a post of mine that was not remotely about philosophy, and specifically and explicitly addressed the ramifications of Colorado law as it stands.
4) Now you're claiming that you've "been arguing the way Colorado law should be..."
This is, frankly, the most laughably and blatantly intellectually dishonest statement I've seen in recent memory.
A word of advice: Put the shovel down. You've dug yourself into a deep enough hole already.
But that's neither here nor there. In your last post, can I infer from your reference to arguing about what day of the week it is that you agree with me that it's fairly self-evident that these guys violated the law? If so, would you like to take a crack at explaining that to Oscar? Because he's been denying that fairly straightforward fact for about a hundred pages now.
Last edited by Aderleth; 09-29-11 at 10:10 PM.
they were not convicted, they are in the eyes of the law not guilty. that's the only "real arguement" that matters. you can piss yourself and cry about it all you want. it's not going to change that one basic relevant fact.
why bother? the grand jury already decided that my opinion in this case has more merit. get over itWhy don't we compare our analysis of the situation and see which opinion has more merit?
Last edited by OscarB63; 09-30-11 at 08:55 AM.