The animosity between Christopher Corry and Ron Neary, who were neighbors in Evergreen, began because their dogs got into fights when Neary's dog came down the hill into Corry's yard in early 2003. When Corry's Weimaraner overpowered Neary's dog, Neary threatened Corry in Corry's yard. Such incidents were repeated four or five times over several months although Corry had told Neary to stay off his property.
Apparently other neighbors were complaining about Neary's dog barking all the time and Neary blamed Corry for this as well. Barking dog complaints are one of the most common complaints police deal with.
During the third incident Neary apparently went berserk and was banging on Corry's front door with both fists and screaming insults at him, while Neary's wife (fiancée?) was trying to restrain him. Note that Colorado statutes, C.R.S. § 18-1-704.5 (1), guarantee that "...the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes." Neary was clearly intruding, or attempting to intrude into Corry's dwelling on this occasion. C.R.S. § 18-1-704.5 (2) gives Corry the right to use any degree of physical force, including deadly force, against intruders in the event of such unlawful entry with the intent to commit a crime against person or property.
Corry is a disabled (his knee has since been surgically reconstructed) veteran of the United States Marine Corps and not generally familiar with Colorado statutes. In the circumstances, Corry fell back on his discipline and training and avoided a physical confrontation with Neary, assisted by Neary's wife.
Corry did point out to Neary that he was combat trained. Corry has Marine Corps license plates and stickers on his truck, which was parked in his yard in plain view of Neary, that make it clear he is a veteran. Neary has no military service, and is physically larger than Corry, but Neary testified that he perceived Corry's Marine Corps background as a threat.
In the event, Neary continued his harassment and threatening behavior as he confirms in his testimony. In the interim Corry had been approached for a position requiring a high-level national security clearance and was advised that backyard brawls would have an adverse effect on his application. The agencies considering Corry advised him that he should obtain a restraining order against Neary, and after the fifth such incident Corry took out a temporary restraining order against Neary.
A hearing on Corry's request for a restraining order was held on July 8, 2003, and the transcript of the hearing is available here. There is the usual bickering and differences of opinion in both Corry's and Neary's testimony. But nowhere in the proceedings does Neary request the court take action against Corry.
Incredibly, after hearing the testimony, sua sponte Judge Hoppin states
"What I'm gonna do in this case is I'm going to extend the temporary restraining order [requested by Corry]...I can tell from the level of animosity and emotion that's been presented by both of you here, and based specifically on the testimony of the defendant that the plaintiff told him at one point that he, the plaintiff, was in the Marines [emphasis added] and he, the defendant, should watch himself as well as the plaintiff's roommate making derogatory comments that the Court finds there are also grounds for a temporary restraining order in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff."
Note that Corry's roommate did not appear at the hearing so references to comments by him are based solely on Neary's hearsay.
Entirely ignoring the effects a restraining order has on security clearances, employment, and other factors, Hoppin then scribbled out an order (available here) noting that the court finds grounds for a restraining Corry though Neary has not requested any such action.
• First, there is the basic principle in English, and American law that a man must be considered innocent until proven guilty.
• Second, a man cannot be tried and convicted in the present for what he might do in the future. In all the testimony it is clear Corry was attempting to avoid conflict and no evidence even suggested he might be violent in the future. On the contrary, Corry acted with restraint and discipline throughout.
• Third, a judge cannot convict a man for murder or any lesser crime unless, and until the man has been charged with that crime and the matter duly brought before the court with all due process. No one brought any action against Corry in this case.
Further, to punish or condemn a man simply and specifically because he has honorably served in the Armed Forces of our country is to attack the fundament of our nation.
Any man who undercuts the faith and ability of our Armed Forces in time of war; and who, in his official capacity, undermines the Constitution such men have sworn to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, at cost of their lives if necessary, acts as a traitor.
Use browser Back button to return to Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado