Moabite is correct. The car pulled onto Hwy 36 from Hygiene Rd, and was therefore responsible to yield to all traffic on Hwy 36. This includes bikes, cars, motorcycles, etc... I know the article makes it seem like it was a car travelling on Hwy 36 that just stopped in the lane. It was not. It was a car pulling across the lane from a side street without paying proper attention to the traffic. I'm sure the man didn't want to hurt anyone, but his carelessness could have killed - and did seriously injure - someone.

I was there that day. I saw the the extent of her injuries and the pain she was in. I am glad she is doing better, and I hope her recovery continues.

Even in a clear cut case of self-defense, the police have an obligation to thoroughly investigate and document the situation. Even if there is an exemption from criminal prosecution under CRS 18-1-704.5, taking another person's life is a crime. The exemption means there will be no charges. But it MUST be clearly documented.

There will be fallout from this, even if it does not involve criminal charges. The police are actually doing the homeowner a favor by completing a thorough investigation. The intruder that was shot certainly has a family somewhere. Eventually, a lawyer will contact them and offer to sue the person who fired the gun, the homeowner, and anyone else they can name, on behalf of the deceased's family. This almost always happens. These lawsuits thrive on the "things not done" and always find some sinister explanation for things like not conducting a gunshot residue test, or why wasn't the scene properly diagrammed? A thorough investigation, completed as soon after the event as possible, will help the innocent survive the civil-suit that is sure to follow.

The police, in this incident, were not there at the critical moment. Had they been there, they would have done everything they could to protect, and they might have prevented this death by stopping this young man before he broke into that house. And even if they could stop him in no less violent way, they would at least have spared the victim in this case the trauma of taking another life. But the police can't always protect. No one can be everywhere at once. In this case though, they are serving the victim as best they can.

It is difficult to really understand this sort of thing. I was a cop for a long time before I really figured it out. At the time it is an awful experience to go through. But go through it you must. If you don't, you are in for a long, painful time in the civil courts.

"Yet, they are always held to far lower standards. "

This is simply not true. Cops hold themselves to a much higher standard. I have seen many people arrested for DUI, Stalking, Assault, etc.. They typically get out on bond within a few hours (Domestic Violence cases take about a day). A cop would lose his job over that, in addition to getting exactly the same punishment from the courts as anyone else. Just to clarify, that's exactly the same punishment, PLUS losing his job.

And don't deceive yourself with motivated reasoning. I'm sure you can find some case somewhere as an example of how so-and-so got a MUCH more severe sentence for whatever. Sentences take into account a lot of factors, including prior offenses. Typically, when a cop loses his job for something like this, it will be his first offense. The guy who has already been convicted 12 times should get more of a sentence. If you make comparisons, you must first find two cases where all of the factors in consideration are the same. Otherwise, any conclusion you arrive at is based on faulty data.

And don't waste time yapping about how the cop in this article has been arrested 8 times. He was a cop in Boulder for about 3 months. Some portion of those three months had him on "administrative leave" while they investigated, because they have to actually back up their decisions when they fire someone. Now figure in the field training a cop receives when he starts, which typically takes about 4 months. So this guy had probably never even been out on his own before he was fired. He was "weeded out" in the training process.

Still, as I mentioned earlier, the process of motivated reasoning will allow you to seek out facts that support your argument, while ignoring any contrary information that might be available. After all, in this case much of the information you would need to make a valid argument would require more effort than a Google search to acquire.

So go ahead. Say it. All cops are horrible people who just want to come to your house and violate your rights, and break the law whenever they want. And throw in a comment about donuts too, 'cause that always makes you feel superior.

If you haven't already figured it out, I am a cop. I don't just talk about them or read about them in the news. I actually work with them and know them socially. Next week while you are celebrating the holidays, I will be working. The week after when you are out celebrating the new year, I will be working. I'm not complaining. It is what I signed up to do. My hope is that I will do something to make it a safer holiday for everyone, or at least help some people to feel a little safer.

And let me just state for the record that every cop I know hates it when another cop does something this stupid. It embarrasses all of us. It violates a trust. It makes it harder for me to help people when they don't trust me. Every single day I have to take a bunch of crap from people for the actions of cops I don't even know, and if you don't think that would try the patience of a saint, I suggest you try it for a few years.

I have a great respect for the laws and the constitution, and my knowledge of those things is present in every decision I make on the job. I actually like people, which is why I got into this. I know for certain that several people are alive now that wouldn't be if not for my actions during my career, and I have never done any lasting injury to any other person in more than 20 years on the job, despite sustaining several lasting injuries myself.

I'm not saying all that to brag because every cop I know can say similar things; it is part of the job. I am trying to put my next statement into perspective.

Every day I go to work knowing that I might not come home. And every day I go to work knowing that if I make a mistake, someone like you will be there to proclaim me a villain, unworthy of anything but scorn. Thankfully, I believe you are in the minority in your opinions. I believe you have an ax to grind with the police for reasons all your own. So go ahead and grind. But if you need me, I'll be there.

"So black lives matter. They're dying. They're dying expediently fast. "

Expedient: "Tending to promote some proposed or desired object; fit or suitable for the purpose; proper under the circumstances."

I do not think that word means what he thinks it means...

Hey Editor: Sugarloaf is one word (despite what spell check says).

Xcel was at my house about an hour and a half ago. They had previously turned off the gas at the meter on the outside of my house. My understanding is they did this to all of the affected houses. (This was to prevent a house who's owners are out of town from turning into a large fuel-air bomb when the gas came back on, if they happened to have an older furnace/water heater/stove.) I think they also turned off all the lines for each individual street/area, and are turning those back on as they move into the area to go house-to-house.

The larger part of this effort by far seems to be getting the gas turned back on safely. Once all the pilot lights went out, they couldn't risk just turning the gas back on. With 7200 homes out, chances are very high they would have had an explosion or two today.

So now they are going house-to-house. If you are home when they ring the doorbell, they will turn on your outside meter, and then re-light your appliances. The process took about 10 minutes at our house from the time he rang the doorbell to the time he left to move on to the next house.

The warming center will accept pets, but they have to go in a separate area from the people.

It is interesting that you found a 10-pound shield on the internet. I just went an picked one up and said, "that's about 30 pounds." I use it for a crossfit-style workout after work sometimes.

But I was talking about the shields the cops around her have, not what someone else has or what the newest things is.

Stab vests are great. We don't have them. I imagine (I don't know - I'll look it up later) that is because they can't be easily combined with the type of armor we wear. Our most pressing threat is firearms, not knives. Perhaps it is different in the UK. I'll talk with a former UK cop I know. Maybe they wear them because they have fewer guns. Not trying to be sarcastic here. I really don't know why we don't wear those. I know those vests exist, and are even fairly common in some jails. Never known of a street cop wearing one anywhere around here.

Still, a stab vest - much like a bullet "proof" vest - only works if the attack hits it. I wear a kevlar vest every day and if someone pointed a gun at me I'd certainly try to get behind cover or shoot him before he could shoot me.

As for most of the other things you have said, all I can suggest is you seek out some tactical training. Most cop training is also available to the public if you seek it out. Most of your questions about what the officers did and why will be quickly answered.

I'll just reply once to all your replies to my replies. I'll try to keep it short so I don't have to break it into a half dozen pieces like last time.

Just to be clear, I was offering opinion, not facts. No, I wasn't there. But yes, I do have more than 20 years experience in that field. I thought it was you who, in a later post on this thread, who wondered why no one was filling in any gaps in the article or responding to your post. So I did. Perhaps that was someone else. I'm too lazy to look back through the posts, but it's not important.

Most of what I said was based on my own experience and training. While I wasn't there, I think you will eventually find out that I was pretty close to what happened. I happen to know a couple of the people involved (no, I haven't asked them for specifics), and I know how they think.

As for "merely speculating," well, I'm guilty as charged. My speculation comes from an in-depth knowledge and history of dealing with that sort of situation. But yes, it can be dismissed as having no more value than the speculation of a person without any similar knowledge. Perhaps I was totally wrong. I never meant to imply that cops don't make mistakes - I know I've made plenty. We are more critical of ourselves than you know.

Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that people keep looking for different ways to do things. This is a good thing. That is where Tasers came from, and I think that is a great tool for cops. It has certainly saved a lot of lives. Keep asking questions. It is a good thing. I just hoped to provide some answers.

There is a lot more I could say, but I’ve wasted enough time already. Most of the people who read this will have pretty set opinions one way or the other, and no amount of reason, training, or experience will overcome that sort of bias.

But I will say this: These cops did not go in there hoping to shoot someone. They went in there because they thought someone was in danger. The fact that no one was actually in danger doesn't change anything. You can't act on information you might get in the future. And regardless of what some people on this site have posted the guy inside knew it was police at the door. No doubt at all. He knew, and he was ready. He put on the best kind of "armor" he had available to him, and he picked up two knives. When they forced the door he charged. He knew they were cops, and he knew they had guns. He chose violence, and died as a result.