Ok, in PM with Chukpike I have to give ALL the info out here. Fine. I can do that.
Sherman edit: No, he isent, and if he acts like one you report it, you dont bait.

Now let me explain this so you can understand it better. Written law is the laws that are on the books. Black ink on white paper, literally.

But the judicial law is different. Judicial law is where the judge can, though unlawfully, re-write those same laws on a case by case basis. This happens across the United States if not the world.

In regards to the Make My Day Law in Colorado, the written law states that you have absolute privacy within your home. It also states that if someone is already trespassing in your home and poses as a threat to you, you have the right to use whatever force is needed to remove the threat. Even up to the use of deadly force. IIRC Colorado had that as a law before Florida, quite possibly before any other state, except for Texas and Alaska.
On the other hand, the judicial law decides IF you have the luxury of seeking the Make My Day Law as a form of defense.

Chukpike, in my particular case I have dealt with a wide variety of violent crimes committed against myself by others. And when it WAS happening again, you're right- I got a really raw deal. Nearly got four years in prison because, quite frankly, I did not want to be a victim again. I offered you a change to view the reports, and those are not for display here (not yet, anyhow). Perhaps later.

You want absolute proof. Problem is there rarely is when judges abuse their authority. And even if there is, finding any authority figure that is willing to do something about it is like looking for a single needle in a field full of haystacks. The likelihood of finding one is very improbable. In a case such as Masters v. Colorado, Tim Masters spent over (IIRC) 16 years in prison for a crime he never committed, based on the same problem- judicial law, not the written law.

I hope that helps you understand what I am talking about when I tell how according to the law books you have the right to defend yourself inside your home.
But according to judicial law it is really a matter of IF the judge thinks you have the same rights or not, ignoring the written laws themselves. This can be out of interpersonal bias, corruption (though this is truly a proper description of any judicial conduct that interferes with the lawful utilization of one's Constitutional rights), you name it.

He shot Jesus?!? ZOMG
















The Make My Day law in Colorado goes back to the mid-80's. I lived there at the time. First state in the union to pass such a law, lots of criticism from outside the state but when armed robbery, house break ins and assault rates dropped it subsided in the subsequent years.

Judicial law? I think you mean 'common law' and this is the body of law that is comprised of precedents and is not completely at the judges discretion as you described HMMM. If there is a precedent the judge is obliged to follow the previous rulings or the case is easily appealed and his rulings will be overturned. If there is no precedent from a previous case then he can make a ruling but with our court system of appeals and higher courts he/she can't stray too far afield or someone up the chain in the appeals process will reel it back in.

Common law is not recognized by state courts very often, if ever.

Originally Posted by Hmmm

Common law is not recognized by state courts very often, if ever.

Mate, common law is how the legal system of the US works in all 50 states, save Louisiana which works off statutory law. Shall I go chapter and verse on ya? Do a google on it or talk to any law student or LEO... its why lawyers in our court system search for and quote precedents when presenting their cases.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Mate, common law is how the legal system of the US works in all 50 states, save Louisiana which works off statutory law. Shall I go chapter and verse on ya? Do a google on it or talk to any law student or LEO... its why lawyers in our court system search for and quote precedents when presenting their cases.

Technicly speaking most State's Laws are based on English Common Law, Louisiana's is based on the Napolionic Code, but way removed from both now.
Case of written vs reality. Back in the 80s here in Fla, Miami area, a guy's wharehouse kept getting broken into. He decided to start spending nights there with a high cap 9MM. A big guy broke in & charged @ him. The owner emptied the magazine, hitting the perp something like 10-15 times before the guy collapsed. He was tried & convicted of "Excessive force" for shooting the guy that many times. All he really was guilty of was using a 9MM with cheap ball ammo instead of a .45 or .357 with hollow points. I think he served the whole term. If I'd been the Governor I'd have given a full pardon/wiped the slate clean & had the DA investigated for prosecutorial misconduct. Miami is a Liberal Zone & that was the result.

Originally Posted by Hmmm

I pay $17 a month for Pre-Paid Legal (of Ada, OK), and I can't say I'm real impressed.

Ohhhhh them. Door to door sales. I'll amend that say quality pre-paid legal.

Originally Posted by Zastava-Arms

Shame in Australia the laws are pathetic. If somebody breaks into your house your not allowed to hit them or even TOUCH them, let alone shoot them with a f**king gun.

this is a common misconception about the laws in Australia. firstly you have to remember there are seven states and two territories so the exact definitions change from place to place so before you dash off and start packing heat just be sure to check your local law for the definition of what is and is not reasonable force and reasonable threat.

the laws in these jurisdictions generally state that the householder must use reasonable force in deterring violence against themselves or third parties where there is a reasonable threat. simply finding somebody in your home is not reasonable justification for a shoot (or knife or bash) first policy. (believe me i know of people who have gone home to the wrong house.)
furthermore- somebody pushing you out the way as they break for the door with or without your television is also not justification for unloading the shotgun at them. you must feel a genuine and reasonable peril for your own life or that of a third party. similarly them being armed is not immediate justification either- they must be intending or threatening to use a weapon.
in short; if you feel as if they are going to kill you or somebody else and can reasonably be expected to be believed then fire away. simply because Jack Crook is making away with your possessions does not justify what is, in effect, a death sentence.

And remember, dead perps don't testify at grand jury hearings.

Yeah, that's a lesson I should have learned, Bulldogg!

Message understood, Sherman!

Originally Posted by bulldogg

And remember, dead perps don't testify at grand jury hearings.

Yeah but their families do.