Looking Back At The Death of Elias Armstrong: A Controversial Case of Self-Defense in Colorado

By: NRA Certified Instructor Firearms Instructor Mark Schneider (Owner: Concealed Carry Classes Of Denver)

Notice: This article is not legal advice and I not an attorney.

Introduction

In February 2023, Denver, Colorado, became the backdrop for a tragic and controversial incident that raised significant questions about self-defense laws, gun ownership, and the ethical implications of using lethal force to protect property. The incident involved the shooting death of a 12-year-old boy named Alias Armstrong, who had stolen a car with friends near Northfield Mall in Denver. The car’s owner, whose identity remains unknown, tracked down his stolen vehicle using GPS technology, leading to a fateful confrontation near Denver Health. This article delves into the details of the case, examines Colorado’s self-defense laws, and discusses why District Attorney (DA) McCann chose not to press charges.

The Events of February 2023

On a chilly February evening, Alias Armstrong, a 12-year-old with friends, made the regrettable decision to steal a car near Northfield Mall in Denver. Unbeknownst to Alias, the car was equipped with a GPS tracking system, allowing the owner to locate it quickly. The owner, upon discovering the theft, promptly alerted the Denver Police Department (DPD). Officers arrived on scene and failed to act on the information provided by the owner including the location of the vehicle. The owner indicated his intention to track down the stolen vehicle himself if DPD failed to take action.

After failed action by the Denver Police, the vehicle’s owner eventually tracked the stolen car to a location near Denver Health. Like a lot of citizens these days, citizens are feeling they need to take matters into their own hands due to lack of action by law enforcement. When he arrived at the scene, he found Alias and individuals inside the stolen vehicle. What followed was a confrontation that quickly escalated into a deadly gunfight between the car’s owner and one of the passengers inside the stolen vehicle. Alias Armstrong tragically lost his life during the exchange of gunfire.

Understanding Colorado’s Self-Defense Laws

Colorado, like many states, has specific laws that govern the use of lethal force in self-defense situations. Two critical statutes come into play when analyzing the shooting death of Alias Armstrong: Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 18-1-704 and CRS 18-1-706.

CRS 18-1-704 – Use of Physical Force in Defense of a Person

Under CRS 18-1-704, individuals are permitted to use physical force, including deadly force, in self-defense if they believe it is necessary to protect themselves or another person from what they reasonably believe to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force. This statute is commonly cited in cases of self-defense, and it hinges on the idea of a reasonable belief in the threat.

CRS 18-1-706 – Use of Physical Force in Defense of Property

CRS 18-1-706 pertains to the use of physical force in the defense of property. However, you are only allowed to use reasonable force to protect property and not necessarily deadly force, unless if the circumstances justifies deadly force under CRS 18-1-704.

In other words, Colorado law allows for the use of reasonable force to protect property, but it generally does not authorize the use of deadly force solely for the protection of property unless the circumstances involve a threat of serious bodily injury or death.

DA McCann’s Decision Not to Press Charges

After a thorough investigation into the shooting death of Alias Armstrong, District Attorney McCann decided not to press charges against the car’s owner who had confronted the individuals inside his stolen vehicle. This decision was grounded in McCann’s belief that a jury would likely not convict the car owner due to the existing self-defense laws in Colorado.

McCann’s decision rested on several key factors:

1. Reasonable Belief: The car’s owner claimed that he believed his life was in danger of serious bodily injury or death when he confronted Alias and the other individual inside the stolen car. Given the ambiguity of the situation and the perceived threat, McCann deemed it difficult to disprove the car owner’s reasonable belief in the need for self-defense.
2. No duty to Retreat Requirement: Colorado is a “not duty to retreat”(Colorado V. Monroe) state, which means there is no legal duty to retreat before using force, even deadly force, in self-defense situations. This legal framework strengthens the argument for the car owner’s actions being justified.
3. Protection of Property: While CRS 18-1-706 allows for the use of reasonable force to protect property, it primarily focuses on situations where personal property is danger of being stolen. In this case, the car’s owner claimed he was protecting his property.

The Ethical, Emotional And Failure Of Police To Act Aftermath

While the shooting of Alias Armstrong may have been deemed legally justifiable under Colorado’s self-defense laws, the case raises significant ethical and emotional concerns. It raises concerns about modern policing and failing to act when they can.

1. The Police Failed To Act: The owner of the vehicle did what any other reasonable and prudent person would do. He called the Police. The DPD arrived, took a report, was given pertinent information and failed to act. This is very common with law enforcement these days. This is also setting a dangerous precedent for vigilantism.
2. The Tragedy of a Young Life Lost: Alias Armstrong’s life was cut short due to a series of unfortunate events, ultimately leading to his untimely death. Regardless of the legal justifications, the loss of a young life is a tragedy that cannot be overlooked.
3. The Value of Human Life: The incident reminds us of the ethical dilemma surrounding the use of deadly force. While self-defense laws are intended to protect individuals and property, they should also prioritize the preservation of human life whenever possible.
4. Alternative Approaches: Some Critics may argue that there might have been alternative ways to address the situation without resorting to lethal force. Experts in non-violent conflict resolution and de-escalation could possibly question whether a different approach could have been taken.
5. Emotional Impact: The car owner, too, will carry the emotional burden of taking a life, even if it was in self-defense. The psychological trauma and moral questioning that often accompany such incidents cannot be underestimated.

Conclusion

The shooting death of Alias Armstrong in February 2023 near Denver Health remains a contentious and tragic case that challenges our understanding of self-defense laws, property protection, and the ethical implications of using deadly force. While Colorado’s legal framework may have allowed for the shooting to be considered legal under self-defense, it does not erase the ethical and emotional complexities surrounding the incident.

Ultimately, this case serves as a stark reminder that legality is not the only factor to consider when examining a tragic event. It highlights the importance of continuously evaluating self-defense laws to strike a balance between individual rights and the preservation of human life, especially in situations involving the use of deadly force. The shooting death of Alias Armstrong forces us to confront these challenging issues and strive for a more just, lawful and fair society.