The Colorado penal code. Here's the relevant section:
"18-1-706 - Use of physical force in defense of property.
A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property,
but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704." [emphasis added]
It also says so in the article you posted.
That is your opinion that they had no reason to believe they under thread of deadly assault. You do not know what kind of threat a trespasser poses.
Obviously not. But based on the facts available, there was no threat. "Threat" in this context, means an actual attempt to harm someone using deadly force. Here's the relevant section of the law:
"(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury"
Do we have any indication, any at all, that the shooting victim was attacking, or was about to attack his shooters when he was shot?
I am pretty sure most victims of a lot burglaries make that decision to arm themselves because you do not know what kind of harm the intruder intends to do you. That intruder may not want to leave witnesses so he may shoot,stab or use some other method to kill you.That intruder may be horney and decide to rape you. That intruder may decided that he is going to just beat the hell out of you for fun.
And if and when your hypothetical intruder actually attempts any of those things, you are within your rights to defend yourself with deadly force. But if he hasn't made such an attempt, and you still use deadly force, you are, under the eyes of the law (and sanity) the aggressor, and become a criminal yourself. See above for statutory verification.
They are not murderers.What they did was not murder.If what they did was murder, they would have been charged with murder, went to trial and sentence upon a guilty conviction. Are you trying to say that the DA,or who ever is going to ignore a confession,physical evidence and a motive if what these men did was murder or even illegal?
I have no idea what the DA did or didn't do. I am saying that the two juries reached inconsistent verdicts using the same standard of proof. And the one that found in favor of the plaintiff (the shooting victim) was exposed to
more evidence in favor of the defendants.