Don't count on it.PaPaBear said:
man charged with murder for protecting his life
WHEAT RIDGE, Colo. - Legal analyst Dan Recht said he believes the Jefferson County District Attorney is "seriously overcharging" a Wheat Ridge homeowner, accused of attempted first degree murder for shooting at two thieves.
82-year-old Robert Wallace said he fired two shots at two men when they tried to run him over while stealing his flatbed trailer.
Wallace now faces twelve felony counts, including four counts of attempted first degree murder, for what he described as an act of defending his property and his life. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.
One of the thieves, Damacio Torres later admitted to the theft. He and his partner in crime, Alvara Cardano both have prior arrest records and are believed to be in the country illegally.
But they are not facing any charges.
Recht said, in his experience, prosecutors overcharge cases to force a person to plea bargain. He argued that it's just not right to put a person through that kind of mental and financial stress.
Jefferson County DA, Scott Storey, indicated he'll take a closer look at his office's decision to throw the book at the homeowner and hinted the charges could be reduced. He said the investigation continues into the confessed thieves.
http://kdvr.vid.trb.com/player/PaperVideoTest.swf
82-year-old Robert Wallace said he fired two shots at two men when they tried to run him over while stealing his flatbed trailer.
Wallace now faces twelve felony counts, including four counts of attempted first degree murder, for what he described as an act of defending his property and his life. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.
One of the thieves, Damacio Torres later admitted to the theft. He and his partner in crime, Alvara Cardano both have prior arrest records and are believed to be in the country illegally.
But they are not facing any charges.
Recht said, in his experience, prosecutors overcharge cases to force a person to plea bargain. He argued that it's just not right to put a person through that kind of mental and financial stress.
Jefferson County DA, Scott Storey, indicated he'll take a closer look at his office's decision to throw the book at the homeowner and hinted the charges could be reduced. He said the investigation continues into the confessed thieves.
http://kdvr.vid.trb.com/player/PaperVideoTest.swf
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
The DOLT that decided to press charges against this man and not the 2 "illegal" law breaking bums, needs to be ceremoniously thrown out on his/her :censored and BARRED from EVER practicing law again!
Please cite the source of this article.
I was born in Wheat Ridge... I guess I'm not going back there though.
http://www.kwgn.com/news/kdvr-elderly-man-shoots-thieves-txt,0,2612691.storyCaptain Will said:Please cite the source of this article.
The only thing this old man is guitly of is not being a better shot! See how important pratice is? Since I'm sure these two amigos skipped town all charges can be dropped since there are no witnesses.
My first reaction was similar to Captain Will's. But this is real. Here's the police's version of events:
http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/archives/64/2010-1696%201st%20Degree%20Attempt%20Murder%20Case.pdf
The Police seem put-out that Mr. Wallace didn't tell them he'd shot at people. After seeing the videos posted here a few months ago that seemed a prudent move.
According to the following ICE has detained the "victims" http://www.examiner.com/x-7039-Denver-Libertarian-Examiner~y2010m7d11-82-yr-old-charged-with-attempted-murder-in-defense-of-property
http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/archives/64/2010-1696%201st%20Degree%20Attempt%20Murder%20Case.pdf
The Police seem put-out that Mr. Wallace didn't tell them he'd shot at people. After seeing the videos posted here a few months ago that seemed a prudent move.
According to the following ICE has detained the "victims" http://www.examiner.com/x-7039-Denver-Libertarian-Examiner~y2010m7d11-82-yr-old-charged-with-attempted-murder-in-defense-of-property
Yeah,note the linked article tells the story a little differently. According to it, these two thieves were boosting the guy's trailer when he shot one of them in the face. We all know you are not alowed to shhot somebody for trying to steal your trailer.PaPaBear said:
Also, according to the linked story they have not chareged Torres because he is under investigation for being part of a major auto theft ring. I think it's safe to say that charges are pending, probably in consideration of whether the DA can flip Torres.
In the end, I'm sure the thieves are charged with something or turn State's, and the old guy gets a good wrist slapping and probably probation. which I think is probably as fair an outcome as we can hope for, unless we say you can just shoot anyone who tries to steal your stuff. Which is tempting but would probably bring a lot of parents a lot of heartache over their kids' youthful indiscretions.
First degree? That means premeditated... I would take that to court and ask the DA to explain how he premeditated these guys to break into his house and try to run him over, forget a plea bargain.
If your life is not at stake no need to Shoot.
Instead Shout.
Instead Shout.
I'm not so sure that's true everywhere. Some Castle Doctrine states, such as FL, extend your right to use deadly force to one's vehicle, as it is considered an extension of your "castle". Now I can't tell you how Colorado's law is written, but in FL at least, I suspect that he wouldn't have been charged...and certainly not with attempted murder.Captain Will said:Yeah,note the linked article tells the story a little differently. According to it, these two thieves were boosting the guy's trailer when he shot one of them in the face. We all know you are not alowed to shhot somebody for trying to steal your trailer.
The police's version suggests that Colorado has some sort of Castle Doctrine. Or, as they refer to it "make my day law".
Extending to your vehicle means when you are IN your vehicle and getting carjacked. It does not mean you can ten ting some guy when you come out of the mall and discover him trying to hot wire your ride.dv0042 said:I'm not so sure that's true everywhere. Some Castle Doctrine states, such as FL, extend your right to use deadly force to one's vehicle, as it is considered an extension of your "castle". Now I can't tell you how Colorado's law is written, but in FL at least, I suspect that he wouldn't have been charged...and certainly not with attempted murder.
You sure can't shoot somebody for trying to steal your open flatvbed trailer from your yard. And that's where his problem lies. that, and he wasn't honest about it to the cops- probably because he knew there would be cxnsequences.
I am not condoning the thievery or passing judgment on the homeowner, but it sounds like things are more within the parameters of reason in light of the entire story than as first suggested by the sensationalist report first posted.
This is how these seemingly incredible things often turn out, only one side of the story. There is a difference between shooting at somone trying to run you over in self-defense, and shooting a thief in the face because he'sa trying to steal your trsailer. That difference is not insignificant. the original story told the homeowner's version but omitted some important distinctions in the police report.
If this is true then he was defending his life and the shooting was justified. For all we know that could be a big IF though.82-year-old Robert Wallace said he fired two shots at two men when they tried to run him over while stealing his flatbed trailer.
Fair enough...although I will say that I don't think that the DA is doing himself any favors trying to lock up an 82 y.o. old prune who didn't want to have his truck stolen by a couple of miscreants with criminal records. I don't think that will help him come election time. Right or wrong, the old guy will be a much more sympathetic figure to trot out in front of a jury than a couple of thieves who happened to pick the wrong truck to steal.Captain Will said:Extending to your vehicle means when you are IN your vehicle and getting carjacked. It does not mean you can ten ting some guy when you come out of the mall and discover him trying to hot wire your ride.
You sure can't shoot somebody for trying to steal your open flatvbed trailer from your yard. And that's where his problem lies. that, and he wasn't honest about it to the cops- probably because he knew there would be cxnsequences.
I am not condoning the thievery or passing judgment on the homeowner, but it sounds like things are more within the parameters of reason in light of the entire story than as first suggested by the sensationalist report first posted.
This is how these seemingly incredible things often turn out, only one side of the story. There is a difference between shooting at somone trying to run you over in self-defense, and shooting a thief in the face because he'sa trying to steal your trsailer. That difference is not insignificant. the original story told the homeowner's version but omitted some important distinctions in the police report.
Also, the following is worth noting:
from N.Y. Penal Law § 35.20:
"...one may use deadly force if one reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson or burglary".
I understand "burglary" applies to entering a dwelling, but if the old coot could shoot the guy for lifting his TV from the living room, why not the truck from the driveway? I think the world needs a new definition of "burglary".
This case will take several turns before it's over and the fat lady has sung. What is important here is not to forget the following: THERE IS NO CASTLE DOCTRINE, in existence in NYS. As far as our priorities are concerned, strategically we (you, me and every gun owning Noo Yawkah) has to push for the adoption of such legislation, FOR OUR PERSONAL PROTECTION. This IMHO should go before we once again start roaring about CCW in Nassau & Suffolk. 8) 
oc"
oc"NY will let us roam the streets with RPGs before they pass a Castle Doctrine law. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me that any hypothetical lawsuits won against the state of NY regarding right to carry restrictions, would be accompanied by new legislation that says : "OK, go ahead and carry it...but it's now a felony to discharge a weapon anywhere in NYS, except a range, regardless of the circumstances".ten ring said:This case will take several turns before it's over and the fat lady has sung. What is important here is not to forget the following: THERE IS NO CASTLE DOCTRINE, in existence in NYS. As far as our priorities are concerned, strategically we (you, me and every gun owning Noo Yawkah) has to push for the adoption of such legislation, FOR OUR PERSONAL PROTECTION. This IMHO should go before we once again start roaring about CCW in Nassau & Suffolk. 8)
What you quoted is actually paraphrased, but yes, the law allows deadly physical force inside the home-refer back to castle doctrine. why not extend castle doctrine to all of your property? Good question. Is is a good idea to let you shoot some kid trying to steal your car radio in the mall parking lot? I suppose that could be argued both ways, but I believe the logic is that a burglar in your home presumably poses a grave and immediate physical threat , while a guy stealing your christmas decorations in your yard does not.dv0042 said:Fair enough...although I will say that I don't think that the DA is doing himself any favors trying to lock up an 82 y.o. old prune who didn't want to have his truck stolen by a couple of miscreants with criminal records. I don't think that will help him come election time. Right or wrong, the old guy will be a much more sympathetic figure to trot out in front of a jury than a couple of thieves who happened to pick the wrong truck to steal.
Also, the following is worth noting:
from N.Y. Penal Law § 35.20:
"...one may use deadly force if one reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson or burglary".
I understand "burglary" applies to entering a dwelling, but if the old coot could shoot the guy for lifting his TV from the living room, why not the truck from the driveway? I think the world needs a new definition of "burglary".
Technically, the stealing of the trailer is not a burglary, but a larceny. Look up the stutute on that ands you'll see NY authorizes physical force OTHER tyhan deadly physical force.
Believe me, if I wrote the law it would allow less-lethal weapons and allow them to be deployed in a much more liberal manner. I really have no issue with this shooting given these particualr guys, but often burglars are the neighbor's kids pretty much being stupid kids. and i would have no problem with them getting hosed down with bear spray for their actions, but shooting is a tad harsh (IMO) for a first offense.
Captain Will for State Assembly....Captain Will said:Believe me, if I wrote the law it would allow less-lethal weapons and allow them to be deployed in a much more liberal manner.
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Long Island Shooters Forum
A forum community dedicated to Long Island firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
