Well here is the way the jury saw it. Not Guilty.
“The fact that the group was not leaving and continued to engage Mr. Hill,” the foreman wrote in an e-mail to The Gazette, “led us to determine that it was reasonable for Mr. Hill to believe that the group of assailants might use physical force against him.”
“Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving,” the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside a car yelling at Hill.
In an interview after the verdict, the foreman said the law offers no clear “line” where an intruder must be before deadly force can be used.
The foreman, who asked not to be identified because he feared for his family’s safety, said the way the [Colorado’s Homeowners Protection Act] is written made a guilty verdict impossible.
“All four criteria for the use of deadly force against an intruder were met,” he wrote.
The law CRS 18-1-704.5 states
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, 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.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
According to the foreman all 4 criteria were met.
1.) Unlawful entry.
2.) Reasonable belief a crime has been commited.
3.) Reasonable belief of intent to commit a crime against his person.
4.) Reasonable belief physical force (however slight) might be used against him.
It is interesting that there are so many quotes by the family of the deceased about jurors "rot[ing] in hell" and letting Hill get "away with murder" In fact a pastor of the deceased (Knott) spoke of how he was such a wonderful boy. Left out of all their comments is how Knott was demonstrably committing a crime, and a violent one at that. If indeed Knott was such a wonderful person, why had he just assualted a sleeping person? Were I to lose a loved one after they had done something as inherently dangerous as that, I would grieve but I would also realize that he had brought such a fate upon himself. If ya hadnt figured out, I am for not guilty.
Thanks all for participating. It is interesting to see where y'all stand given a brief scenario. I might have to do this again.