Chris Hadlock

Chris Hadlock 6 days, 20 hours ago on Road rage incident results in felony arrest

Which is why there should be mandatory regular training for all holders of a CCW permit. That responsibility it not something to be taken lightly and it should not be granted to persons of questionable mental stability. The CCW permit should require more than a rubber stamp for those that apply.

PS. Good advice Mark. I hope someone/anyone is listening.

0

Chris Hadlock 6 days, 21 hours ago on Road rage incident results in felony arrest

Castle Doctrine

Colorado has a castle law. The statute states that “any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.”

http://civilliberty.about.com/

Again, distinctly different than creating and then escalating a roadside encounter such as Mark described. Castle Law would be much more appropriate to Brian's story about his father. It does not apply to the "story" that Mark Hartless told. In his words, he was the first person to display a weapon. That is aggression not self-defense.

Castle Doctrine applies to Mr Ewing because he was visiting his sister and therefore actually on private property when the dispute occurred.

Why would you expect to indiscriminately be able to draw your weapon in public spaces without reproach? Colorado law calls that a crime regardless of your beliefs. Once another individual actually threatens you with a weapon, the rules change.

Again, per Mark's own words "He never actually saw a weapon" meaning his reaction to produce a weapon was yet another escalation in an already bad situation that he had already chosen to escalate. Yes, I know he regrets his actions but regret is not codified in the law now is it.

0

Chris Hadlock 6 days, 22 hours ago on Road rage incident results in felony arrest

Uh, did you actually read the story Ken. Mr. Ewing did not produce a firearm or display any response whatsoever until his life was threatened. This stands as an example of "Castle Doctrine". Distinctly different than what was described above. In your referenced story, it was Thomas McCary that first produced a weapon and then fired.

At that moment, Patrick Ewing defended himself and his family not before and not until. In this case he did not "think" or "believe" he was defending himself as shots had already been fired in his direction.

This is distinctly different than what Mark H describes above.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 week ago on Road rage incident results in felony arrest

It might surprise you to know that I am a gun owner and supporter of the 2nd amendment. IMO, there is a BIG difference between the Castle Doctrine and the story that Mark describes.

Castle Doctrine = At home or in private vehicle with intruders trying to break in.

Mark H. - Started the encounter, escalated the encounter and brandished his weapon in public to force the behavior he required. At no time did he ever state that he actually "saw" a shotgun, he just "assumed". Sure, he probably assumed correctly given his description but the pesky fact that Mark initiated the encounter in the first place is a glaring discrepancy IMO. "Regret" in the rear view mirror does not change his level of responsibility.

This self described behavior does not represent the level headed individual that should be packing heat in public spaces. The personal decision to engage in CCW should also come with mandatory training and increased responsibility to recognize an escalating situation combined with the ability to walk away. I know you all think that you are protecting yourselves but our society does not need the cowboy mentality represented by his story in our streets. I would go further to propose that those individuals with that "shoot em up" mentality are exactly the ones that should not be armed when in public.

Case in point for Chattanooga: The Military has asked all those would be defenders of the Constitution to stand down. How exactly might the public react if the local muslim cleric mobilized his congregation to "protect" our servicemen or march thru the streets defending their "open carry" rights.

Imagine one of these theater shootings with 8-10 CCW holders all deciding that they were going to be the one to take down this guy. Do not kid yourself about being a hero. In that darkened theater with muzzle flashes and confusion there would be bullets flying everywhere. When the shooting was done, I predict that regret and grief would be the the primary emotions for all.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 week, 1 day ago on Road rage incident results in felony arrest

Come on Mark, based on the Colorado code sections 8-9-106 Disorderly conduct and 18-3-206. Menacing, your conduct is defined as a felony per your own words. Got any response or should the county just send Sheriff Wiggins over to your house for a serious discussion about your rights and responsibilities?

Based on your on words, it would appear that you are not the law abiding gun owner that you claim or was that just another "Grocery Store" parable? You sure did shut up quick when those pesky "facts" got in the way.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 week, 2 days ago on Road rage incident results in felony arrest

8-9-106. Disorderly conduct (1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: (f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

(3) An offense under(1)(f) of this section is a class 2 misdemeanor.

18-3-206. Menacing

(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Menacing is a class 3 misdemeanor, but, it is a class 5 felony if committed:

(a) By the use of a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon; or

(b) By the person representing verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon.

"Brandishment as a crime requires bringing the weapon to a ready state with intent to threaten or intimidate."

Looks to me like Mark Hartless just admitted to a crime...

0

Chris Hadlock 3 weeks, 2 days ago on Letters to the Editor: Environmental religion

Russell, it is easy. Based on comments in the local paper, when the Democrats win, All Reptards get send to Dinosaur and force to trim MMJ If the Republicans win, all Libtards get sent to El Paso and forced to rewrite history books,

Be very, verry careful about the viewpoints you post!

0

Chris Hadlock 3 weeks, 3 days ago on Jim Erickson and Mike Schmidt: In reference to EPA plan

In the meantime, the warmest year on record keeps on being "this year" for a couple of decades now. Choo Choo, chugga lugga, choo choo.......... How close does the train need to get before you get out of the way?

0

Chris Hadlock 3 weeks, 5 days ago on Jim Erickson and Mike Schmidt: In reference to EPA plan

When you are standing on the railroad tracks with a train approaching, sooner or later you have to get off the tracks whether you think it is a train or not.

0

Chris Hadlock 4 weeks, 1 day ago on Commissioners Corrigan, Monger worry about transportation funding

"Literally HALF" - except that almost every single one of those people has a W2 job and each one of them pay roughly 10% in FICA and Medicare right off the top.

The 47% was a Mitt Romney invention that matches other derogatory terms used by some to describe the less fortunate among us. That was and is a false statement that has no basis except in the minds of those that think they are the one being over taxed.

0