Discussion: Deadly Brawl Tests "Make My Day" Self-Defense Laws

Discussion for article #224067

After a night of drinking at a party in the western Colorado city of Grand Junction, Cook and another man went to fight Hoskins outside his house. The fight moved inside and to Hoskins’ bedroom, where the homeowner said Cook tried to snatch away his shotgun. Hoskins tackled Cook and shot him, according to Hoskins’ account of the night, which was relayed to investigators through an attorney.

“These grown men, otherwise basically upstanding, law-abiding citizens, are acting like drunken children, and as a result, a good man got killed, and I can’t hold anyone accountable for it in the criminal justice system,” Hautzinger told The Associated Press.

A 47 years old gets drunk stupid and brings a fight to someone else house, not even stopping at the front door? That’s a grown man? Maybe of age, not quite on brains. Moreover he follows the homeowner in his own bedroom in his own house and this prosecutor is frustrated he can’t bring charges in this obvious case of self defense?

Screw you, Mr. Hautzinger!!!

Poorly worded, badly motivated, ALEC-driven laws are creating pretext for murder in this country. Thanks, gun nuts.

10 Likes

My you are a vicious troll aren’t you. The Prosecutor is trying to keep the peace. There was a fight involving Hoskins and another man outside Hoskins house. It is pretty obvious that Hoskins wasn’t getting the best of the fight so he ran to his bedroom to retrieve his shotgun. Cook tried to stop Hoskins from killing the other man. He grabbed the gun. Hoskins killed Cook. The law, as written, is pretty clear, but the shooter had several options before electing to grab his shotgun. I don’t blame Hautzinger. HIs job is to prosecute drunken assholes like Hoskins.

By the way, do you think this story ends here? We have manslaughter laws to make sure the families of victims don’t watch killers walking the street. Cook’s family and friends need to know that justice will be done, otherwise they might take their own justice. Otherwise, the next guy claiming self defense will be Cook’s relative who shoots Hoskins.

Gunsmoke was a television show. Real life shouldn’t be a competition between the quick and the dead.

4 Likes

Man I feel so bad for the prosecutor…seriously? The law clearly can be interpreted as necessary on a case by case basis as the Minnesota and Nevada case show. This guy is just pissed it hurts his celebrity.

1 Like

“Facebook feud.” Sounds more like mean girl teenage crap than "upstanding, law-abiding citizens, . . . "

1 Like

Why did this remind me of George vs. Trayvon??

The only difference is that Trayvon hadn’t been drinking. We don’t know about George as he was never tested for alcohol.

“Pretty obvious” is not evidence. Your post is full of supposition and has no factual basis. Two drunks go to someone’s house, but you assume the man they visited was the drunken asshole?

1 Like

It looks to me like this law WORKS. A man defends his own from violent criminal invaders, no need for a overpaid public agency to enforce the law. If more men had the bravery to carry and use, our tax dollars could be returned to us.

2 Likes

You are right all either of us knows is what was written. Of course, my supposition makes more sense than yours, otherwise Hoskins wouldn’t have gone to his yard to fight them. He would have called the cops like any civilized sober person. Or if he was a sober believer in 2nd Amendment remedies, he would have arrived at his front door shotgun in hand.

1 Like

You don’t like living in a civilized society do you?

1 Like

Today’s pop quiz.

The shooter was

  1. Good guy with a gun
  2. Bad guy with a gun
  3. Responsible gun owner
  4. None of the above
  5. All of the above
2 Likes

I like how a public agency is “overpaid” by default for you, that’s an odd perspective.

Anyway, no, this doesn’t demonstrate that the law “WORKS”. Things aren’t so black and white to just state that this was a situation where there was a “violent criminal invader” who, apparently to you, deserved to die.

The reason that we have manslaughter laws are so that the evidence could be presented and a jury decide whether the actions in question were reasonable given the circumstances. A presumption that someone inside your house automatically can be killed if you feel “threatened” leads to all sorts of problems (not to mention unnecessary dead people).

I’ll say that it’s odd how these well armed people seem to feel threatened quite easily, but that’s another issue.

1 Like

Your opinion is further devalued by receiving a ‘LIKE’ from:

The Worst Troll In The World™

Truly sucks to be so liked.

jw1

4 Likes

I’m pretty certain that having the need to carry a gun does not fall under the bravery category. To me bravery is the young man at Settle U who took down a shooter using whatever means he had access to, in his case it was pepper spray.

Then there was the man in Las Vegas who, even though he was carrying a pistol, left his brain behind when confronting one shooter only to be killed by his wife, a shooter he’s ignored.

Frankly I fail to see folks who parade around with rifles like in Texas or folks who have open carry permits so much as brave as afraid.

Then there is your totally hilarious and ridiculous statement

What in the world is that supposed to mean anyway?

6 Likes

Gun nuts? I think you mean freedom loving patriots, thank you very much.

(yes, sarcasm)

There are entire families of 80-something Mafiosos who drool involuntarily when they imagine having stand-your-ground or similar laws when they were in their prime.

If they needed to dispose of members of rival families, or of a troublesome person (or suspected snitch) in their own, there would be none of the hassles of filing serial numbers or stealing guns and cars to make it harder for investigators to identify the shooters. There would be no need for late-night rides to wooded areas, hauling shovels and a heavy bundle.

Instead, all they would need is an expensive attorney delivering a carefully worded statement to a prosecutor who knows how hard it would be to convince a jury that the shooter was unreasonable to fear that the now-dead rival gang member was a threat.

Or, you can just look to Mexico and the epidemic of drug-gang killings to see what could be unleashed if prosecutors are handicapped by stand-your-ground defenses.

4 Likes

Yet, cases that challenge self-defense laws are an anomaly, said Dave Kopel, a law professor and research director at the Independence Institute, a libertarian think tank in Denver. More often, people truly defending themselves are protected by the law, he said.

“It’s the trade-off for having clear rules for everyone in general,” he said.

And if a paid shill for extremists says it, that makes it true.

3 Likes

Darwin loves idiots like this, loves 'em to death.

3 Likes

If we wait around long enough maybe all these gun-toting, shoot-out at the OK corral types will kill each other off. That appears to be our best hope because Congress is useless.