Thanks for the links to the statute.* I admit my terminology was not the best when I used the phrase "tangible threat".* I was over simplifying.* by the same token stating "suspicion of criminal intent" is also an over simplification, there is more to it than that.*
What I should have said is it takes more than suspicion to act on this statute and that a person needs to "reasonably believe", and other the elements required to trigger protection under the statute are present.* Some folks believe that just because someone is on their property the can just shoot them undder this statute.* I was trying to make the point that it takes more than just trespassing and suspicion.* Suspicion abounds, but suspicion and "reasonably believe" are not always the same.*
Also the statute is clear that you can defend yourself or another person,* As stated in 18-1-704.* But there are limitations that must be met before you are covered under the statute.*
Section 18-1-704.5 Refers to the unlawful entry into a dwelling.* Even though a dwelling is not defined here I feel it is safe to say a dwelling is someone's home. A place of business is not addressed in this statute* and therefore unless it would be someones dwelling in addition to being a business it would be covered.* Even then provisions are present that are intended to prevent folks from just shooting up anyone who enters their home. Once again trespassing does not give a "get out of Jail free card" to anyone shooting someone on there property, it is more complicated than that.*
Any one who takes action based on this statute is not automatically granted immunity from prosecution.* The case will be investigated and reviewed to see if all the criteria for immunity were met.* Then it will be up to prosecutors or judges or juries or other courts to decide if you acted appropriately and within the confines of the statute.
And I agree being caught on either side of that argument is the bad side.* And we all need to respect property rights.