|
Scrubcedar, there is a very big difference between excusing the use if deadly force when there is reason to believe that such force is immediately necessary to defend against a threat of imminent death or serious injury, and permitting the shooting of someone who is "on your property with or without your approval."
The part of Colorado law that addresses the lawful use of deadly force outdoors is very similar to the law in most other states; it is essentially what the common law has held for centuries; there's nothing even relatively new in it.
The so called "make my day" provision greatly reduces the threshold for justification in the even of an unlawful entry into the home (any force, no matter how slight) and reduces the evidentiary burden on the actor. A number of other states have adopted rather similar provisions, but laws do vary among jurisdictions.
As fiddletown and MLeake have pointed out, is not correct to characterize either a decision in a trial court or a decision by a charging authority as "case law". Neither has any precedential value. The next one can always go the other way.
On other thing: the statement "By your reading of the law they should have been charged. They were not!" needs to be addressed. When one has taken a life, there are two ways of characterizing the possible outcomes regarding charges: the actors were charged, or the actors have not been charged. Unless and until there has been a trial and acquittal or a full pardon, charges can always be filed against a living person when a homicide has occurred. Either new evidence or a new District Attorney can bring that about, as can political pressure.
And I would not go so far as to contend that a reasonable person would not believe that an intoxicated person posed an imminent threat of force against the occupants.
|