Colorado's 'Make My Day' Law Protects Shooter


Wed November 12, 2003 05:05 PM ET

DENVER (Reuters) - No charges will be filed against a Colorado homeowner who shot to death a neighbor who was threatening him at his door because the killing was justified under the state's "Make my day" law, a prosecutor said on Wednesday.
"Citizens of our state have a right to absolute security in their homes," Weld County assistant district attorney Thomas Quammen said.

The Colorado legislature in the 1980s passed a law that gives immunity to homeowners who take deadly action against someone breaking into their homes.

The law is commonly referred to as "Make my day" in a reference to the Clint Eastwood movie "Sudden Impact" in which his "Dirty Harry" detective character dared a criminal to take a threatening action and force him to shoot back and "Make my day."

The shooting occurred on Nov. 2 after Richard Hammock went to the home of his neighbor Eric Griffin whom Hammock believed shot his dog with a pellet gun. Hammock was holding a wooden pole.

"The evidence we had was that the deceased came over, was angry, was shouting, was being provocative," Quammen said.

The homeowner went to the door and told Hammock to go away and locked a glass-paned door. But Hammock then broke through the glass pane and Hammock shot him.

"If someone is breaking into your house ... you are entitled to use force, including deadly force," Quammen said.

"Our hands are tied on this," he said, referring to the state law that provides immunity from criminal prosecution and even immunity in civil suits.

He said besides calls from the media, the district attorney's office in Greeley, Colorado was also getting phone calls from the public mostly supporting the district attorney's decision not to prosecute.

© Reuters 2003. All Rights Reserved.  

About f'ing time a law makes crystal clear sense.

Good for them!

ALL states should have this same law.

That's the only law in Colorado I wish I could have brought with me to Arizona.

There is a book out on the first 10 or so Colorado "make my day" law cases, suprisingly titled "The make my day law".

The guy doesn't seem to have a bias either way, presents cases that have been upheld, and the ones that did not, including a guy who shot at cops.

Jay

<<<state law that provides immunity from criminal prosecution and even immunity in civil suits.>>>


That is outstanding especially the civil suits so some psycho family lets get rich off of our criminal deceased doesnt pull the sue you shit

I saw the mother and daughter of the dead psycho on a news interview show just yesterday.

Apparently under Colorado law they can sue civilly and intend to do so.

Of course it was "just terrible" that the guy shot him and "amazing those types of laws are still on the books."

I can't wait to go home to Colorado.

This should be FEDERAL LAW, not just a State's law. Hey guys, write your Congressmen.

Quoted: This should be FEDERAL LAW, not just a State's law. Hey guys, write your Congressmen.

I'll get on it.

In the meantime here is a dancing bananna and his inbred brother a dancing carrot.

 

Something that story didn't say was the shooter had just shot the dead guys dog. I don't recall the reason. But the dude gets all irate and storms over to his neighbor's house and things get out of hand.

Oops, the article does say the dog was shot, it said with a pellet gun. I thought the dog was killed by a "real" gun.

From my reading of newspaper articles the law does not allow civil action in these cases. I'll have to pay closer attention, I guess.

If deadly phyisical force is used in accordance with Colordo Statue 18-1-704.5 the occupant of that dwelling is immune from both criminal prosecution and civil liability.

www.co.jefferson.co.us/ext/dpt/officials/sheriff/ccw/revised_statutes.htm

AZCOP your are correct about the first several cases. In fact one of the first cases happened in my county and was investigated by my office. It was a clear case of homicide but because our DA is such a dip-shit he let it go under the make-my-day law. Another one was in Thorton Colorado that was a homicide but was not prosecuted because of the misapplication of the law. Other than a few cases that should not have been protected under TMMDL it is a good law. The first two years it was in effect there was a 26% reduction in crimes against persons and property in dwelling. It was funny the folks that did not want this law in Colorado could not explain the drastic reduction in crime.  
 

The Thornton case: David Guenther
What a loser.

He's protected by the law when he kills his neighbor who was coming after him, and later shoots his wife and her new boyfriend.

I'll bet everyday he sits in his prison cell, he says something to himself to the effect that "I sure showed that bitch".

Edit to add:
I recall about 10 years ago that there was talk about a "make my neighbors' day" law in Colorado, where you would be covered if you shot someone breaking into your neighbors home.

It was a result of some guy with a handgun dumping a guy from what DPD said was 100 yards (nice shot), who was running away from him, who had just broke into his neighbor's home.

I don't recall what happened to the guy, but I do recall they were going to charge him with something.

Jay

Jay

Yep Guenther is the case I was referring to. The case we had here when I was a deputy was about the same thing. A guy was screwing around with a married women. When her hubby found out he was pissed and wanted to kick the guy’s ass. The husband was 5'6" and weighed about 140 and was a teacher. The perp was 6'3" and weighed about 235 and was a former Marine. The perp invited the victim into his house after an argument outside and then used his K-bar knife to stab the victim eleven times in self defense of course.   Are you from around the Thornton area? I have a couple of friends on the command staff in Thornton drop me an email or IM. Colorado never has changed the law in reference to your neighbors dwelling. Colorado has some good laws on the use of force but we do have some counties that are getting way to PC because of all of the Californians that are coming here.

I know Kevin Orcutt, and I know how to use his little invention.

I learned to use them when I worked in Colorado.

OPN's are not very popular down here, and with everyone going to Tasers, OPN's are likely to become even less popular

Jay

Our local PD became enamored with Mr. Orrcut and the OPN's several years ago when he first developed them. I think every officer and reserve officer on their dept. carried them. Now I don’t think anyone on their dept. is using them any longer. Are you still carrying yours?  

I have seen them used with mixed results some of which were not good. Seemed to me they were very hard to become proficient with and stay proficient and certified in their use. Around here the public preception of a peace officer carrying chuck's was not real popular. I think everyone is going to the Air Taser, ASP and OC now. I don’t see anyone using a PR-24 much any more either.  

Fruit, the original article said the guy THOUGHT his dog had been shot by his neighbor.  Big difference.

Quoted: Are you still carrying yours?

 

Not here.
The DT instructor here never liked them.
There are about 20 agencies in AZ that use them.

I still have 2 sets, and work with them as much as I can.

Jay

Quoted: This should be FEDERAL LAW, not just a State's law. Hey guys, write your Congressmen.

Yeah, I recently wrote my congressman about the assault sunset. He replied telling me he doesn't think that citizens have the right to bear arms at all.
Guess who's not getting my vote come election day. What a turd. Here is his letter. Sorry if this is a hijack, I'm just so pissed.
Dear Brian,

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me.

The Second Amendment states, in full, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The framers of the Constitution clearly intended that this Amendment be directed towards the new country's national defense and that gun ownership for the specific purpose of maintaining, in modern parlance, a strong national defense with well equipped Armed Forces.  The Second Amendment is silent on the regulation of gun ownership beyond the maintenance of a "well regulated Militia."

I believe the Founding Fathers got it right:  we do need to maintain a strong and well equipped national defense.  On the matter of gun ownership generally, I believe a reasonable degree of regulation is necessary and justified under the Second Amendment to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and away from children.

While we may not agree on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, I respect your opinions and hope you will never hesitate to share them with me.  Please do not hesitate to let me know whenever I may be of service to you.

Sincerely,

Chris Van Hollen
Member of Congress

That dog thing sounds kinda loopy. He thought the guy shot his dog with a pellet gun. I don't know exactly what they mean by pellet gun, but I usually take that to mean airsoft, and airsoft pellets are about as dangerous as a spitball. The deceased sounds like a nutjob. And that's from the news media, which tends to do every thing imaginable to make anyone shot by a cilivian look like a good guy.

I know Kevin Orcutt, and I know how to use his little invention. I learned to use them when I worked in Colorado. OPN's are not very popular down here, and with everyone going to Tasers, OPN's are likely to become even less popular

You mean one of these?


Looks like fun.