Armed Self-Defense Laws
18-1-704 Use of physical force in defense of a person
A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
A person is not justified in using physical force if:
- You have reasonable grounds to believe, and do believe, that you or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury;
- The other person is using or appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business while committing or attempting to commit burglary; or
- The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping.
A person is not justified in using physical force if:
- They provoke the use of unlawful physical force by that other person with intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person;
- They are initial aggressor, unless they withdraw from the encounter and effectively communicate their intent to do so, but the other person continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or
- The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
Case Law
No duty to retreat (Stand Your Ground)
Doctrine of retreat is from common law. There is no statutory provision regarding the duty of a person to retreat before countering the use of force with force. The doctrine derives from the common law. People v. Watson
The common-law doctrine of retreat to the wall has been modified and is applicable in this jurisdiction only to cases where the defendant voluntarily enters into a fight, or the parties engage in mutual combat, or the defendant, being the assailant, does not endeavor in good faith to decline any further struggle before firing the fatal shot, and possibly to other similar cases. Harris v. People and Enyard v. People
The defendant, if he did not provoke the assault, is not obliged to retreat or flee to save his life, but may stand his ground, and even, in some circumstances, pursue his assailant until the latter has been disarmed or disabled from carrying into effect his unlawful purpose, and this right of the defendant goes even to the extent, if necessary, of taking human life. Boykin v. People
Defense of others
Person coming to the aid of a third party is entitled to assert defense of others even if the third party is not entitled to assert self-defense. Person must only have a reasonable belief that intervention is necessary to protect the third party whom he or she believed was under attack. People v. Silva
Right to kill in defense of another. Where a known felony is attempted upon a person, the party assaulted may repel force by force, and any other person present may interpose for preventing mischief, and if death ensues the party so interposing will be justified. The right thus to assist applies with peculiar force where a relationship exists, such as father, son, brother, or husband. Bush v. People
Provoking a fight
The innocent victim of an assault is not required to retreat before defending himself or herself. People v. Willner
Right of self-defense is not lost if danger develops from mild argument. The mere fact that one has interjected himself into a crowd or into a mild situation, does not deprive him of the right of self-defense if the situation beginning with only an argument, develops to a point where he is being subjected to or threatened with such physical violence that he might have to resort to justifiable homicide to protect his person. Vigil v. People
When an initial aggressor withdraws from an encounter and effectively communicates his withdrawal to the initial victim, the aggressor becomes a victim entitled to act in self-defense should the initial victim retaliate for the attack. Thus, if the initial victim continues the attack, the victim then becomes the aggressor and is no longer entitled to act in self-defense. People v. Goedecke
Doctrine of retreat is from common law. There is no statutory provision regarding the duty of a person to retreat before countering the use of force with force. The doctrine derives from the common law. People v. Watson
The common-law doctrine of retreat to the wall has been modified and is applicable in this jurisdiction only to cases where the defendant voluntarily enters into a fight, or the parties engage in mutual combat, or the defendant, being the assailant, does not endeavor in good faith to decline any further struggle before firing the fatal shot, and possibly to other similar cases. Harris v. People and Enyard v. People
The defendant, if he did not provoke the assault, is not obliged to retreat or flee to save his life, but may stand his ground, and even, in some circumstances, pursue his assailant until the latter has been disarmed or disabled from carrying into effect his unlawful purpose, and this right of the defendant goes even to the extent, if necessary, of taking human life. Boykin v. People
Defense of others
Person coming to the aid of a third party is entitled to assert defense of others even if the third party is not entitled to assert self-defense. Person must only have a reasonable belief that intervention is necessary to protect the third party whom he or she believed was under attack. People v. Silva
Right to kill in defense of another. Where a known felony is attempted upon a person, the party assaulted may repel force by force, and any other person present may interpose for preventing mischief, and if death ensues the party so interposing will be justified. The right thus to assist applies with peculiar force where a relationship exists, such as father, son, brother, or husband. Bush v. People
Provoking a fight
The innocent victim of an assault is not required to retreat before defending himself or herself. People v. Willner
Right of self-defense is not lost if danger develops from mild argument. The mere fact that one has interjected himself into a crowd or into a mild situation, does not deprive him of the right of self-defense if the situation beginning with only an argument, develops to a point where he is being subjected to or threatened with such physical violence that he might have to resort to justifiable homicide to protect his person. Vigil v. People
When an initial aggressor withdraws from an encounter and effectively communicates his withdrawal to the initial victim, the aggressor becomes a victim entitled to act in self-defense should the initial victim retaliate for the attack. Thus, if the initial victim continues the attack, the victim then becomes the aggressor and is no longer entitled to act in self-defense. People v. Goedecke
18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder (Castle Doctrine)
The general assembly recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
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:
Criminal and civil immunity
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
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;
- I 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.
Criminal and civil immunity
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
Case Law
To be immune from prosecution under this section a defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had a reasonable belief that the intruder was committing or intended to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry. This inquiry focuses on the reasonable belief of the occupant, not on the actual conduct of the intruder. People v. McNeese
For purposes of this section, the common areas of an apartment building do not constitute a dwelling. People v. Cushinberry
For purposes of this section, the common areas of an apartment building do not constitute a dwelling. People v. Cushinberry
18-1-705 Use of physical force in defense of premises
A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, (outside on private property) or a person who is allowed to be there, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass. Deadly force may only be used in defense of yourself or another when one reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson.
Case Law
One cannot instantly kill in defense of property. While a man may use all reasonable and necessary force to defend his real and personal estate, of which he is in the actual possession, against another who comes to dispossess him without right, he cannot instantly carry his defense to the extent of killing the aggressor. If no other way is open, he must yield and get himself righted by resort to the law. Bush v. People
This section is not, by its terms, inapplicable to unlawful entries where the trespassers happen to be police officers. People v. Lutz
This section is not, by its terms, inapplicable to unlawful entries where the trespassers happen to be police officers. People v. Lutz