[scrubcedar]

The first thing you're not understanding is the law was written as broadly as possible. Let's take the example I used (the drunken co-ed)and take it apart using your points. Did she break in? yes. Was she going to commit another crime? No evidence of that any where and I looked for LE quotes as well as reports from the DA very carefully. Theft of food maybe? how could you tell?"when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant."Aha! now we find the phrase that explains it! This was a 20 y.o. 120lb coed who's blood alcohol was .20 at that point she would not likely be coordinated enough to walk straight let alone attack somebody. But she might be!, who knows. Prove that there was no chance she was dangerous AND I knew it! anybody MIGHT use force once they have broken into your home. Notice as well the phrase" no matter how slight".By your reading of the law they should have been charged. They were not! This is the Boulder DA, every gun grabber in the nation is on his speed dial. The intent of the law was you don't have to wait for him to make the first move. He's assumed to be the aggressor because he's in your home. The actual words of the law are quite deliberately vague and place the onus on the DA to prove that you were acting completely unreasonably. The situation once they are in your home is so fluid and dangerous it would be nearly impossible to prove you KNEW you were in no danger and fired anyway.

The piece of the puzzle about outside the home is a little less clear but case law backs that up too. I can find an example if you'd like. Lets take the situation that started this thread. Let's say the guy is on your front lawn walking toward your house with a crowbar at 3am. I think we can all assume he's not here to play tiddlywinks. At that point this kicks in:
18-1-704 Use of physical force in defense of a person.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(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; or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

It is reasonable to assume at this point that he is going to break in to your house and if he finds you there injure or kill you,this is imminent use of unlawful physical force. Thus fulfilling the requirements for sections 1 and 2, a and b. He's hanging around in your carport afterwards. Once again, to play tiddlywinks? No, he's still trying to get in! At which point does the law apply again? tougher call but probably still what if he figures out a way in? This type of scenario was SPECIFICALLY debated on the floor and was provided for on purpose. The part that was misleading was I couldn't find the complete text as well as several examples. Dad was a mover and shaker in Southern Colorado politics when this happened we all followed the story and I got to talk to those involved at the time. DA's and legal experts were brought on to the TV all assuring us that this was going to lead to legalized murder. Looking back the text I found wasn't as clear as it could have been. Do a little google searching about how the law has actually been applied and you may find you agree with me.