Lol, 90 stab wounds.
Posted on 07/06/2016 6:26:54 PM PDT by Auntie Mame
DENVER (CN) — Citing the state's "Make My Day" law, which immunizes the use of force to protect one's dwelling, a Colorado appeals court found that the same logic shields inmates who stab fellow prisoners to death.
As its name suggests, Colorado's "Make My Day" statute draws inspiration from the famous line Clint Eastwood delivers as Dirty Harry in the film "Sudden Impact."
Antero Alaniz, who is already serving life without parole for a 2005 conviction, invoked the law when he was charged for the 2011 murder of a fellow inmate at Sterling Correctional Facility.
State records show that Alaniz, 36, has since been assigned to Limon.
On June 30, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the new charges.
Though prosecutors had argued that it would contravene public policy to adopt Alaniz's interpretation of "make-my-day" immunity, the three-judge appellate panel focused their analysis on the basic, legal definition of a dwelling.
"The criminal code's definitional section states that a dwelling is 'a building which is used, intended to be used, or usually used by a person for habitation,'" Judge David Richmond wrote for the court.
"Alaniz presented evidence at the hearing that prisoners in his unit slept in their cells, stored personal belongings there, and could lock or unlock their own cell doors.
"On this record, Alaniz's prison cell constituted a dwelling."
Judge Dennis Graham and Judge Laurie Booras concurred.
The 21-page ruling cites court testimony to lay out the 2011 killing at Sterling.
Alaniz and his cellmate "were described as generally kept to themselves and did not cause trouble for prison staff or other inmates."
Cleveland Flood, the man found dead in their cell with 90 stab wounds, was a different story.
"Both the CDOC investigator and the other inmates described Flood as a bully who had a reputation for extorting other inmates, particularly those who were either mentally or physically weaker than he was," the opinion says.
Surveillance video showed Flood entering Alaniz's cell but did not capture what happened inside.
Alaniz testified that Flood entered without permission, "closed the door behind him, brandished a shank, and demanded commissary items."
???
From a criminal justice perspective (mine) it was a bad decision. Prisoners will attempt to misuse and abuse this decision to the detriment of the department of corrections and the state. At the very least it will cost the state money, time and resources best spent elsewhere to deal with this precedent in the courts.
CC
Lol, 90 stab wounds.
That’s not that unusual in minimum and some medium security settings.
CC
Sounds like some kind of nominal privacy guard that would stop other inmates, not that would keep the prison officials out.
Self defense killings is something whose occasion certainly shouldn’t be encouraged, but “in extremis” behavior morally, even if not legally, shouldn’t be punished. It was not always historically thus everywhere, and some prison systems were known for goons that would spirit a prisoner out of view and then shoot him, with the excuse that he tried to get away.
There is always a moral tension. Is a prisoner always expected to sacrifice all, for everything?
I mean why not a better surveillance system that doesn’t just yield up fuzzy, foggy artifacts when some court demands to see them, ending up concluding nothing?
My state has just upgraded. Prisoner fights in full HD and sound. Good enough to be used in prosecutions. I don’t know what Colorados systems are like. But just anecdotally- 90 stab wounds? that’s not self defense. It’s blind rage. That’s stabbing someone until you are too tired to stab them anymore. I’ve talked to guys who went into rages like that. They see red and they literally don’t remember anything until after. You don’t want to encourage something like that in a correctional setting.
CC
I think the biggest problem would be “inmate legal scholars” who think it means their cell is defensible like their home in all regards.
“Man, get out my cell or I’ll kill you for trespassing!”
The “legal beagles” are a pain in the ass. But like a blind squirrel, they occasionally find a nut. Most of the time they cause added expense and confusion.
CC
Well, let all the details be brought and a moral conclusion drawn. Overuse of force, same as police ought to be scrutinized. But you objected on mere principle, not on detail.
It’s better that truth always have an open door to prevail than lies be swept under a carpet. Let courts decide what is reasonable, and accept it like a man when they go against you.
Legally, a prisoner should be considered a non-citizen. When he gets out, he should have to earn his way into society, including taking citizenship tests.
I understand your point. But isn’t a prisoner entitled to defend himself against imminent death or great bodily injury?
You obviously haven’t spent as much time around felons as I have. Prisoners will manipulate to get whatever they think they can get, right or wrong. Now when they present their facts and courts rule in their favor I usually don’t have a problem. But often enough you get a bleeding heart liberal progressive do-gooder judge who sees cops as baboons and prisoners as misunderstood and downtrodden. Said judge then proceeds to give prisoners the moon, stars and the sun to “make it right” and then imposes onerous (and dangerous) rules on cops and prison officers alike. It is specifically this subset that I have an issue with. Prisoners should have rights. But if those rights impair the states legal obligation to maintain security, order and rehabilitation, then those rights must be limited or curtailed. And in this case the “make my day” law should be inapplicable because it impairs the states requirements for security and order.
CC
It sounds like you have a problem with a gate keeper.
Don’t blame the rules of gates for the gate keepers.
Do we have this under the current constitution?
You can opine about shoulds all day just like any of us can. However if the constitution does not state it, it does not.
And your argument is “look at the practical headache, to hell with a principle.”
That is suspicious on its face.
Self defense? perhaps. But this wasn’t self defense. 90 stab wounds is “you ain’t dead enough, b*tch!”, not self defense. The reason that the prisoner tried this novel approach was likely due to stabbing the guy 90 times that self defense was off the table.
CC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.