Lucas Kukulka

Matthew Hill

Writ 1133

8 April 2011

“Make My Day” law is it beneficial to have?

“Make my day,” is a famous quote said by Clint Eastwood in the movie Sudden

Impact. This quote has gone on to become the name of a controversial law. The Colorado

Home protection act or “Make my day” law states that if anyone intrudes on your house

then you have the right to use deadly and harmful force to protect yourself. Through out

this essay the pro and cons of this law will be discussed. This law begs the question,

when it is lawful to kill someone? The answer to this may never be clear, but according to

the law it is when someone intrudes on your house, but what about if the intruder is

outside of your house? Is it ok to use deadly force then? How about if they are running

away from your house? All these questions are examples of cases where there was a

certain ambiguity pertaining to the use of this law. Due to all the different factors that

may affect a “make my day” law case there may never be an exact answer. The “make

my day” law is a law that benefits everyone, both homeowners and criminals, because it

draws a clear-cut line as to what homeowners can do to intruders.

The “make my day” law was first passed in the spring of 1985 in

Colorado, the first state to do so. This law, which was first enacted in Colorado, still has

prevalence in the state today. There are many cases within the last few years, which have

caused much discussion. The main discussion being whether or not someone should be

allowed to take a human life when not in immediate danger. Also the fact that many
businesses are pushing for this law makes it a relative issue today.

The law before the “make my day” law required homeowners to prove that the

intruder was in fact a threat in some way. The “make my day” law does not require this

proof, which opened the door to the amount of people you can lawfully kill. If a

homeowner feels that their property or dwelling is in danger due to an uninvited entry

they make take forceful action without the worry of prosecution. A criticism of the law

was that it would result in more deaths and also promote violence with in a family. Josh

Sugarmann who is on the coalition to ban hand guns which is located in Washington D.C.

stated “ I would not be surprised if this bill killed more husbands, wives, children and

friends than criminals”(Nancy Blodgett). This is certainly a valid criticism of law

considering that simple grudges could turn into killings. There was also a lot of support

for this law especially in dangerous areas where burglary is more common.

The “make my day” law, even though it is controversial, has positives that should

not be questioned. The fact that a homeowner can use force when an intruder enters his

home is a good thing. A homeowner cannot assume that an intruder is solely coming in

for a friendly visit or to find warmth from cold weather. If that were the case than crime

rates would sky rocket. The homeowner must assume the worst, because if the

homeowner does not than they may be dead instead.

A case of the “make my day” law, that followed the specifications of it, involved

a couple and a drunken man trying to break inside their house. This case happened on

December 28, 2009. According to the police report, Sean Kennedy a 22-year-old man

walked up the James Parsons’ house and started banging on the door and yelling

obscenities. Kennedy who was drunk at the time proceeded to break Parsons’ window
and attempt to enter the house. Parsons first called the cops, but after 4 minutes thought it

was necessary to fire a gun at Kennedy and killed him. It was later discovered that

Kennedy might have thought the home was his, because he lived one block away and had

the same address number. This case fits all the necessary aspects of a “make my day” law

case. There was an intruder who was attempting to enter another person’s house and their

actions seemed very threatening. This gave Parsons, the homeowner, reasonable belief

that he was in harms way and decided to take action. Lawmakers believe that what

Parsons did was perfectly within the guidelines of the law. ‘"A reasonable person in those

circumstances would have believed that (Kennedy) was going to do a crime against them

or property,’ said newly elected District Attorney Dan May, who oversaw the review of

the shooting upon taking office Jan. 13(Benzel)”. Even though Kennedy might not have

caused the harm and was simply in a drunken rage; Parsons could not have known that

and therefore used the law properly to take forceful action against and intruder.

Another example of a “make my day” law case that was completely justified was

the case of James Edward Cannon who was shot and killed after entering Larry Kintz’s

house through an air conditioning vent. This case happened in the July of 2006. Kintz’s

actions were fully supported by the law the prosecutor claimed. “The prosecutor found

that Kintz acted reasonably for a person in his predicament. Kintz's home had been

broken into five times in the previous four months, and during those burglaries two

pistols were stolen from the home, according to police” (Harsanyi). Kintz had also

ordered Cannon to lie on the ground still, but Cannon did not and Kintz fired his weapon.

Once again this is an example of an intruder being a threat to the homeowner and the

homeowner taking action. These cases are the no questions asked examples of the “make
my day” law. The homeowners here had to assume the worst. They could not just let

these intruders do what they please and put themselves in danger. These cases all fall

under the specific parameters that the law offers, therefore making it easy to see how they

apply. The “make my day” law provides homeowners with reassurance of their actions,

which is something they are entitled to as individuals under duress.

Even though there are benefits for homeowners in this law, intruders are at a

disadvantage and may be taken advantage of because of this law. If an intruder is leaving

the house in which he intruded, are they still a threat? How about if they are on the

outside porch and are not intruding? Some very ambiguous cases have happened under

this law. The first case, which happened in the 1990s, is that of Francis Boucher who shot

and killed a fleeing teenager burglar who was in his home. The teenager was running

through the front door when he was shot in the head from behind. Boucher’s action were

completely legal and under the “make my day” law. The problem with this situation was

that Boucher was in no danger when killing the teenager. The teenager was fleeing the

house when he was shot not threatening Boucher’s life. Is his use of deadly force

justifiable even though it fell under the parameters of the law? This case may have fallen

under the law but was it right for a teenager to die while leaving a house? He most likely

did not steal something worth a human life. We also do not know the circumstances

surrounding the burglary. It could have been a crime of necessity, but the teenager gets

no chance to defend himself since he shot on the spot. People do not deserve to die for

stealing a TV or computer.

Some also think that the law is dangerous because of the fact that it could protect

criminals. ‘''The law can protect drug dealers, people in love triangles, those who assault
police officers,'' said Dr. Wilbanks, who has written a book, ''The Make My Day Law:

Colorado's Experiment in Home Protection”’ (Johnson). Since the law protects against

property intrusion and not solely house intrusion criminals can use this law as an excuse

for killing. It is also a possibility that this law could promote domestic violence. A

prosecutor in the Boucher case made a point of this. ‘”Mr. Wise, the prosecutor in

Boulder, said that while the law worked in that case, he still had his reservations about it.

'What about the man who gets kicked out of his house, goes back to get his clothes, and

gets drilled in the back by his wife?' he asked. 'Should she be protected under this

law?'”(Johnson). The prosecutor brings up a good point. When does this law become

based on grudges rather than what it was actually intended to do which was to protect

homeowners and their property from intruders.

A big push has been made for this law to apply to places of business as well. The

law has not passed yet but is close. It lost last year by a vote of 6-5.This law would have

allowed business owners to take forceful action if customers stole goods or entered when

they were not allowed in. It was not passed because of its broadness. “Opponents said the

bill was written so broadly that it could allow trigger-happy business owners to kill a

shoplifter who had re-entered the store and who pushed an employee on the way

out”(Sealover). If this law is ever passed it must have a specific guidelines or else people

maybe killed over things not worth dying over. Shoplifting will become a whole different

story if harmful force can be used in places of business.

The “make my day” law is a beneficial law to have. It is smarter to have a law

like this one enacted rather than not enacted. This law benefits everybody under it. It

deters criminals from committing crimes because they are aware of the price they may
pay for intruding. It benefits homeowners as well, because it allows them to take action

without hesitation. There is no scenario in which a homeowner would benefit from asking

what an intruder wanted or what his intentions are, it just is not real. The homeowner

knows that he can use force if he feels the need to and therefore does not have to worry

about what is self-defense and what is not. Overall, the “make my day” law is a beneficial

law to have. There are some moral aspects to it that are questionable but it is smarter to

have law that has clear-cut boundaries rather than determining when self-defense is

applicable.
 Works Cited

Harsanyi, David. "‘Make My Day’ Law has its Merits: [Final Edition]. " Denver

Post 20 Jul 2006, ProQuest Newsstand. Web.  6 Apr. 2011.

Benzel, Lance. “FATAL SHOOTING COVERED BY STATE'S 'MAKE MY DAY'

LAW: Shooter had 'Reasonable Belief' he was in Danger. " The Gazette 28 Jan. 2009,

ProQuest Newsstand. Web.  6 Apr. 2011.

Saccone, Mike. "'Make My Day' Law Means Business. " Daily Sentinel 13 Feb. 2007,

ProQuest Newsstand. Web.  6 Apr. 2011.

Blodgett, Nancy. "'Make My Day'." ABA Journal 71.6 (1985): 20. Academic Search

Complete. EBSCO. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.

Johnson, Dirk. "Colorado Journal; 'Make My Day': More Than a Threat." New York

Times 1 June 1990. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 3 Apr. 2011.

Sealover, Ed. "Colorado Lawmakers Shoot down 'Make My Day' Law for Business."

Denver Business Journal 16 Mar. 2010. Web. 4 Apr. 2011.

Kelley Murray
Matthew Hill
WRIT 1133
April 6, 2011
Peer Edit Review: Lucas Kukulka

The initial use of the Clint Eastwood, “make my day,” quote was an effective
way to gain the reader’s attention. It connected the paper’s topic to pop culture, and
doesn’t make the topic seem too “daunting.” However, the introduction seems to
lack somewhat of a thesis. The paper’s argument isn’t clearly identified until later in
the reading. I would advise that introduction very briefly includes detail
surrounding the law, too. It already includes great comments surrounding the law,
but doesn’t provide for any legal detail or support of what the law is.
The writer provides two sides of the argument throughout the paper.
However, the side that the writer actually is supporting is somewhat vague until the
later paragraphs of the essay. I would recommend a stronger thesis.
The sources used to support the paper, as noted in the work’s cited, were
credible and provided effective and useful evidence. Ample scholarly/academic
evidence is given throughout the paper, however the sources should be detailed
more. Numerous cases are used as examples, however I think that more background
information could be given to make for support stronger. For example, the dates of
the cases would be beneficial to see if these “controversial” issues are recent or not.
The examples slightly lack reasoning behind them. I would recommend giving more
“personal” argument before/after, rather than “plopping” them in. When saying
before cases a “classic case of the make my day law,” doesn’t allow for the reader to
gain an understanding of why the case is being used.
I really enjoyed the paper as a whole. Previously, I had never even heard of
the make my day law. Now I am happy that I am learned of a very current Colorado
issue. The paper gave strong evidence, however I would like to have heard a bit
more of the writer’s argument and voice throughout it. However, the topic and
evidence in combination make for a strong well-written research paper.

Reverse Outline:

1. Conclusion
a. Law is beneficial to have
i. Despite morality and other controversy
b. Take life immediate danger
i. Shoplifting
ii. businesses
c. Law was enacted in Colorado
i. Still prevalent
ii. Has created controversy

2. Make my day law is beneficial to have

 a. Smarter to have than not to
i. Benefits everybody under it
ii. Deters criminals from committing crimes
iii. Homeowners can use force without stress of self-defense

3. Mmdl could be applicable outside of home

a. Idea in process for business setting
i. Law not passed
ii. Needs better guidelines
iii. Allow for abuse of power
1. Trigger-happy store owners

4. Problems with mmdl

a. What is a threat
i. Case of Francis Boucher
ii. Received no chance to defend himself
iii. Dr. Wilbanks
1. Could protect drug dealers
2. Could promote domestic violence

5. Positive cases of mmdl

a. Sean Kennedy
i. Legally justified as an acceptable reasoning behind murder
b. James Edward

6. Main argument
a. Mmdl is beneficial and useful

7. Introduction
a. Eastwood quote
b. Detail behind what mmdl is