Colorado Supreme Court considers the Hobson’s Choice of punishing self-defense (Opinion)

Once I defended a Montana man charged with violating the Endangered Species Act for killing a grizzly bear in self-defense Attacked while guarding his sheep he wounded and later killed the bear Federal lawyers prosecuted him for eight years seeking a fine but he never worried about the in legal fees my representation was pro bono After his exoneration I read of a Wyoming hunter who charged by a grizzly put down his rifle and sought to repel the attack with bear spray He was badly mauled and saved only because his hunting partner shot the grizzly dead Later I telephoned and solicited why he had not used his rifle I d hear about your Montana client he replied and I did not want the feds coming after me That hunter came to mind when I read about a Westminster woman whose situation is now before the Colorado Supreme Court In at the age of and after years clerking for Circle K Stores she was discharged for her response when a customer armed with two knives demanded free cigarettes and stepped behind the counter toward her Circle K Stores declared she violated its Confront and Chase Approach Mary Ann Moreno says she was fired for defending herself when she feared death or serious bodily injury and sued in state court for wrongful discharge After her suit was removed by her employer to federal court but before the factual issue of why she was terminated was submitted to a jury she sought an opinion from the Colorado Supreme Court Colorado like the majority states recognizes the common-law doctrine of at-will employment which provides employees may be terminated for any reason or no reason whatsoever One exception includes discharges contrary to the population interest such as exercising a legally protected right Of concern to Moreno is whether self-defense is a population interest exception in Colorado Her request that the federal district court certify that question to Colorado s highest court was denied but the U S Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed Subsequently the federal district court certified the question which on May the Colorado Supreme Court accepted briefings began this week A ruling from neighboring Utah foreshadows a accomplishable outcome In in response to a certification from a Utah federal district court in a wrongful termination occurrence akin to that of Moreno a purported violation of the employer s shoplifter agenda Utah s Supreme Court recognized the self-defense exception T he right of self-defense is enshrined in Utah s Constitution statutes and common law decision Self-defense protects human life and deters crime conferring substantial benefits on the citizens T he right of self-defense outweighs an employer s countervailing interests if an employee facing imminent threat of serious bodily injury reasonably believes force is necessary and cannot withdraw Like Utah Colorado s Constitution enshrines as the Inalienable rights of all persons that of defending their lives and liberties and of seeking and obtaining their safety Thus both embrace John Locke s view that the right of self-defense is inalienable because it is a natural right and is self-evident Moreover the common law of both states is based upon the English common law which with its castle doctrine in the th Century recognized the right of self-defense In current times Utah and Colorado have codified or recognized by court rulings the castle doctrine right to use deadly force in one s home stand your ground no duty to flee and the right to defend others when facing death or serious bodily injury Thus Ms Moreno should prevail What will Ms Moreno s employer the nation s largest company-owned convenience store chain with locations in states argue when it files its brief next month It should defend vigorously its current plan but eschew any desire to discharge employees for protecting their lives After all citizens facing the threat of death or serious bodily harm whether from four or two legged animals have better things to worry about than whether their actions can get them sued or fired William Perry Pendley a Wyoming attorney and Colorado-based public-interest lawyer for three decades with victories at the Supreme Court of the United States served in the Reagan administration and led the Bureau of Land Management for President Trump Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns editorials and more To send a letter to the editor about this article submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail