How Much Force Can Be Used To Defend Property Under Colorado Law?

How Much Force Can Be Used To Defend Property Under Colorado Law?

By H. Michael Steinberg, A Colorado Criminal Defense Lawyer – Practicing Colorado Criminal Law in the courts of Colorado for over 40 years.

Introduction: The Schur Case – A Case That Sparked a Statewide Conversation About Limits Of Defense of Property

The Facts:

In the early hours of July 5, 2023, Orest Schur, then a 27-year-old active-duty Space Force sergeant living in Aurora, was awakened when his family’s car alarm went off outside his home on East 59th Place.

Schur told police he saw two teenagers dressed in black trying to break into the family’s Hyundai Elantra — a vehicle that, according to his wife, thieves had already tried to steal twice before.

The two teens fled in a different stolen vehicle. Rather than waiting for the police, Schurt got into his own car and pursued them. A short distance away, the stolen vehicle crashed. According to Aurora police, Schur then fired “several shots” at the two suspected car thieves, hitting both of them (Sentinel Colorado).

Investigators later determined that 11 shots were fired, that neither teen was armed, and that both were shot while running away — one, 13 years old, in the back; the other, 14-year-old Xavier Kirk, fatally.

Schur was arrested the next day and charged with first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder (Sentinel Colorado). In June 2025, an Adams County jury convicted him of the lesser offenses of second-degree murder and second-degree attempted murder.

On August 15, 2025, he was sentenced to a combined 54 years in prison — 36 years for the murder count and 18 years for the attempted murder count, served consecutively.

Colorado’s Layered System of Justified Force

Colorado does not have a single “self-defense law.” Instead, the Colorado criminal code sets out several related but legally distinct justification statutes, each triggered by a different scenario.

Understanding which one applies — and which does not — is essential to understanding why the degree of force used, and when it is used, can turn a legally justified act into a serious felony.

1. The Most Common Self-Defense of Another Person —
C.R.S. § 18-1-704

The baseline self-defense statute allows a person to use physical force against another person when the actor reasonably believes it is necessary to defend himself, herself, or a third person from the other person’s actual or imminent use of unlawful physical force (C.R.S. § 18-1-704).

Deadly physical force, however, is reserved for narrower circumstances.

Under subsection (2), it may be used only if a lesser degree of force is inadequate, and:

• The actor reasonably believes he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury; or
• The other person is using or appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business while committing or attempting a burglary; or
• The other person is committing or appears about to commit kidnapping, robbery, sexual assault, or assault as defined in the statute (C.R.S. § 18-1-704).

Deadly force is not available simply because someone provoked the confrontation, was the initial aggressor, or is defending property alone.

2. Defense of Real Property (Such As Land, a Building, or Other Premises)— C.R.S. § 18-1-705

This statute applies when someone is trespassing on real property — land, a building, or other premises.

A person in possession or control of the premises (or someone lawfully on it) may use reasonable and appropriate physical force to prevent or stop what the person reasonably believes is an unlawful trespass.

Deadly force is permitted only under the same personal-safety conditions found in § 18-1-704, or when the person reasonably believes it necessary to stop an attempted first-degree arson (C.R.S. § 18-1-705).

“One cannot instantly kill in defense of property… he cannot instantly carry his defense to the extent of killing the aggressor. If no other way is open, he must yield and get himself righted by resort to the law.”

                               Bush v. People, 10 Colo. 566 (1887), as cited in the                                              annotations to C.R.S. § 18-1-705

---

Sidebar: The “Make My Day” Law: Understanding The Home-Specific Exception — C.R.S. § 18-1-704.5.

Colorado is well known for its 1985 “Make My Day” law, one of the earliest modern codifications of the castle doctrine. It provides that an occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of force, including deadly force, against a person who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, if the occupant reasonably believes the intruder has committed or intends to commit a crime against a person or property beyond the entry itself, and might use any physical force — “no matter how slight” — against an occupant (C.R.S. § 18-1-704.5).

Unlike ordinary self-defense, a valid Make My Day claim provides immunity from both criminal prosecution and civil liability.

But the law is narrow by design, and courts have repeatedly limited its scope:

• It applies only to an actual “unlawful entry” into a dwelling — a knowing, criminal entry into the structure itself. The Colorado Supreme Court has held that “dwelling” can extend to shared spaces, such as a basement used for habitation-related purposes, but the core requirement of entry into the residence remains (Colorado v. Rau, 2022 CO 51).
• A person confronted on a porch, driveway, or yard — outside the structure itself — generally is not an “intruder” for Make My Day purposes; the Colorado Supreme Court has held that a person on an outdoor doorstep is a “non-entrant” not covered by the statute.
• The statute does not apply to confrontations that occur away from the home altogether, such as during a chase down the street.

This distinction matters enormously in car-theft scenarios. If a thief is caught inside a garage attached to the home, Make My Day analysis may apply.

3. Defense of Personal Property — C.R.S. § 18-1-706

This is the statute most directly implicated by cases like Schur’s. It governs the use of force to stop someone from committing theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving personal property— such as a car, tools, a bicycle, or similar movable items.

The law – C.R.S. § 18-1-706 states:

“A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.” C.R.S. § 18-1-706

The statute’s structure is the single most important thing for Colorado residents to understand:

Put a little differently, once a suspect flees the property — as happened in the Schur case, where the fatal shots were fired after a chase and a crash blocks away from the residence — the home-specific immunity of § 18-1-704.5 is no longer in play, and the case reverts to the ordinary, more restrictive standards of §§ 18-1-704 and 18-1-706.

No Duty to Retreat — But Colorado Is Not a “Stand Your Ground” State

Colorado departs from the common-law rule that required a person to “retreat to the wall” before using force in self-defense. In People v. Toler, 9 P.3d 341 (Colo. 2000), the Colorado Supreme Court held that under § 18-1-704, a person has no general duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense — even someone who is trespassing — unless that person was the initial aggressor in the encounter (People v. Toler).

This is sometimes conflated with “stand your ground” laws found in some other states, but Colorado’s rule is narrower. The absence of a retreat requirement removes one obstacle to a self-defense claim; it does not, on its own, create a right to use deadly force.

The core requirements of § 18-1-704 — an imminent threat, a reasonable belief that lesser force would not suffice, and proportionality — must still be met independently. In other words, not having to retreat does not answer the separate question of whether deadly force was necessary and reasonable under the circumstances.

A Closer Look: No Duty to Retreat (C.R.S. § 18‑1‑704)

Colorado law says you do not have to retreat before using force if you are somewhere you have a legal right to be.

But this is not the same as Stand‑Your‑Ground.

Stand‑Your‑Ground states typically allow deadly force whenever a person reasonably believes they face a threat — even in public — without requiring proportionality or imminent danger of death.

Colorado requires strict proportionality:

• You may use non‑deadly force to defend yourself from unlawful force.
• You may use deadly force only if you reasonably believe you face imminent death, serious bodily injury, or certain violent felonies.

There is no legal protection for using deadly force to defend property, stop a fleeing suspect, or escalate a confrontation.

Two Different Rights, Routinely Confused

Colorado law treats “someone is attacking me” and “someone is stealing from me” as legally distinct issues, governed by separate statutes with very different limits on the amount of force allowed. Both live in Title 18, Article 1, Part 7 of the Colorado Revised Statutes — the “Justification and Exemptions from Criminal Responsibility” part of the criminal code.

Statute	Protects against	Deadly force allowed?
§18-1-704	Unlawful physical force against a person	Yes — only against an imminent threat of death, serious injury, or specific violent felonies
§18-1-705	Unlawful trespass onto the premises	Only if the conditions of §18-1-704 or §18-1-704.5 are independently met
§18-1-706	Theft, criminal mischief, or tampering with property	No — non-deadly force only
§18-1-704.5	An intruder inside an occupied dwelling	Yes — the narrow “Make My Day” exception, dwelling only

The statute that actually decides most “I was protecting my stuff” cases is §18-1-706 — and it draws a hard line that a lot of people don’t expect.

What Colorado Law Actually Allows to Protect Property

C.R.S. §18-1-706 — Use of Physical Force in Defense of Property. A person in possession or control of property, or a person assisting them, may use reasonable and appropriate non-deadly physical force when they reasonably believe it necessary to prevent what appears to be an attempted or ongoing theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering.

Notice what’s missing: any authorization for deadly force. As a general matter, Colorado does not let a person shoot someone merely to stop a theft, keep a car from being stolen, or punish someone for breaking a window. Property crimes, standing alone, don’t clear the threshold for deadly force under Colorado law — the statute simply doesn’t extend that far, no matter how valuable the property or how frustrating the crime.

Deadly force in Colorado is reserved for threats to people, not threats to things — and the two are judged under entirely different statutes.

---

Applying the Framework to the Schur Case

The Schur case  illustrates how these overlapping statutes interact, and why the specific sequence of events is decisive:

1. The initial confrontation at the vehicle may have implicated § 18-1-706 (defense of property against theft) and possibly § 18-1-705 (defense of premises, if the car was parked on Schur’s property). At that stage, the use of non-deadly force to stop the theft would likely have been legally justifiable.
2. The decision to pursue the fleeing suspects in a separate vehicle moved the encounter away from the home and away from an active, in-progress property crime. Courts and juries are asked, in this posture, whether the pursuer was still facing an imminent threat, or whether he had instead become the aggressor in a new, separate confrontation.
3. The shooting itself, occurring after the suspects’ car had already crashed and while, according to investigators, the unarmed teens were running away, falls outside the deadly-force allowances of §§ 18-1-704 and 18-1-706.
4. Neither statute permits deadly force merely to stop a fleeing, unarmed person suspected of a property crime.
5. The location of the shooting — blocks from the Schur residence, after a chase — placed the case outside the reach of the Make My Day law under § 18-1-704.5, which is confined to unlawful entries into a dwelling.

The jury’s verdict — second-degree murder and second-degree attempted murder, rather than acquittal or a lesser negligent-homicide finding — reflects that, on the evidence presented, jurors did not find that Schur’s use of deadly force met Colorado’s justification standards once the confrontation moved from “property crime in progress” to “pursuit of fleeing suspects.”

Why the Legal Defense Fell Apart

Lay it against the statutes above, and the outcome stops looking surprising:

• No dwelling intrusion. Make-My-Day never entered the picture — the teens were accused of tampering with a car outside, not entering Schur’s home.
• Property crime alone doesn’t authorize deadly force. Under §18-1-706, the maximum lawful response to an attempted car theft is reasonable non-deadly force.
• Schur was the pursuer, not the defender. Self-defense under §18-1-704 requires an imminent threat to him. Getting into his own car and following the fleeing teens for 0.3 miles is the opposite of the imminence and immediacy the statute demands.
• The claimed threat wasn’t substantiated. Schur said the teens shot at him first; investigators found no gun, no shell casings, and no gunshot residue tying anyone but Schur to a weapon. Without a credible imminent threat of deadly force, §18-1-704’s deadly-force trigger was never satisfied.
• The verdict reflects exactly that gap. The jury convicted of second-degree murder rather than first-degree — rejecting premeditation — but still found the killing unlawful rather than justified.

Practical Takeaways for Colorado Property Owners

For Colorado residents concerned about protecting homes, vehicles, and other property, several principles emerge clearly from the statutes and case law discussed above:

• Property alone never justifies deadly force. Under § 18-1-706, you may use reasonable, non-deadly force to stop a theft or act of vandalism in progress. Deadly force requires an independent, imminent threat to a person’s life or safety.
• Fleeing suspects are not an “imminent threat.” Once a suspect is retreating or running away, the legal basis for using force — especially deadly force — weakens substantially, and pursuing them can itself create additional criminal and civil exposure.
• Location matters. The strongest protections in Colorado law, including the Make My Day immunity, are tied to your dwelling. Force used on a public street or in pursuit, away from your home, is evaluated under the stricter general self-defense and defense-of-property statutes, not the home-protection statute.
• Calling 911 is a legally protected and often safer option. Chasing suspected thieves converts you from a person defending property into an active participant in a fast-moving, unpredictable confrontation — one that can expose you to criminal charges regardless of how the underlying property crime is ultimately resolved.
• “No duty to retreat” is not “shoot first.” Colorado’s rejection of the common-law retreat requirement removes one legal hurdle, but every use of deadly force is still independently tested against necessity and proportionality.

These cases are fact-intensive and high-stakes. Whether force was “reasonable,” whether a threat was “imminent,” and whether a person acted as the “initial aggressor” are all questions resolved by a judge or jury after the fact, based on the specific evidence — never a guarantee before the fact.

Summary And Conclusion

The Schur prosecution is a stark reminder that Colorado law draws a firm line between protecting property and taking a human life. Sections 18-1-704, 18-1-705, and 18-1-706 of the Colorado Revised Statutes work together to permit reasonable force to stop theft, vandalism, or trespass, while reserving deadly force for situations that separately threaten someone’s life or safety. The state’s Make My Day law offers additional protection, but only within the walls of one’s own dwelling — not during a pursuit down the street.

Anyone confronting a real or suspected property crime in Colorado should understand these limits before reacting. If you have questions about a self-defense or defense-of-property situation you have been involved in, or you are facing charges after protecting your home, vehicle, or belongings, speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer who can evaluate the specific facts of your case.

---

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

What does ‘self-defense’ legally mean in Colorado compared to everyday conversation?

In everyday conversation, ‘self-defense’ often means reacting because you felt threatened. Legally in Colorado, it means you used force because you reasonably believed it was necessary to stop the imminent use of unlawful force against yourself or someone else. The focus is on whether your perception and response met specific legal elements at that moment.

When is deadly force justified under Colorado self-defense laws?

Deadly force is allowed only when you reasonably believe that lesser force is inadequate and that you or someone else is in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured. ‘Imminent’ means the threat is happening right now or about to happen immediately, not sometime in the future.

Can I use deadly force to protect my property, like a car, in Colorado?

No, Colorado law generally does not allow the use of deadly force solely to protect property, including vehicles. While reasonable non-deadly force can be used to stop theft or trespass, using a firearm or any deadly force must be justified by an imminent threat to a person’s safety, not just property protection.

What is Colorado’s ‘Make My Day’ law and does it apply to shooting car thieves?

Colorado’s ‘Make My Day’ law provides strong legal protection when someone unlawfully enters your dwelling and you reasonably believe they intend to commit a crime and may use physical force against an occupant. It applies specifically inside residences—not driveways, streets, parking lots, or cars outside—so it generally does not justify shooting car thieves outside your home.

What factors do prosecutors consider in Aurora ‘car thief’ shooting cases?

Prosecutors look at whether the shooter faced an immediate threat, such as the suspect approaching with a weapon, a physical struggle occurring, the shooter being dragged by the vehicle, an attempted carjacking involving force rather than just theft of an unattended vehicle, or the suspect using or displaying a weapon during the confrontation. These details help determine if deadly force was justified.

Why are self-defense cases involving shootings so complex and fact-dependent in Colorado?

Because Colorado law requires that the use of force be based on reasonable belief of necessity to prevent imminent unlawful force or serious harm. This means even if someone is committing a crime, shooting them might not be justified if those legal standards aren’t met. Conversely, someone with no criminal history could be lawfully shot if circumstances meet these criteria. Each case depends heavily on specific facts and perceptions at that moment.