Morgan seems to be asking why?

I sat and read a law, not my favorite pastime, but sometimes you have to in order to feel like you really know it.  When I came across the “It’s really a felony stalking case” note in my timeline, I showed it to Steve.  He did the math, and said eighty- five days… unbelievable!

So, from the Colorado Revised Statutes I have this to present and the bolding is added by me, to just the parts I thought were important.  But by all means read the whole thing if you are in Colorado:

CRS 

A stalker may also develop jealousy and animosity for persons who are in relationships with the victim, including family members, employers and co-workers, and friends, perceiving them as obstacles or as threats to the stalker’s own “relationship” with the victim;

(e) Because stalking involves highly inappropriate intensity, persistence, and possessiveness, it entails great unpredictability and creates great stress and fear for the victim;

(f) Stalking involves severe intrusions on the victim’s personal privacy and autonomy, with an immediate and long-lasting impact on quality of life as well as risks to security and safety of the victim and persons close to the victim, even in the absence of express threats of physical harm.

(2) The general assembly hereby recognizes the seriousness posed by stalking and adopts the provisions of this part 6 with the goal of encouraging and authorizing effective intervention before stalking can escalate into behavior that has even more serious consequences.

A person commits stalking if directly, or indirectly through another person, the person knowingly:

(a) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with the threat, repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, or places under surveillance that person, a member of that person’s immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship; or

(b) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with the threat, repeatedly makes any form of communication with that person, a member of that person’s immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship, regardless of whether a conversation ensues; or

(c) Repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, places under surveillance, or makes any form of communication with another person, a member of that person’s immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and does cause that person, a member of that person’s immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship to suffer serious emotional distress. For purposes of this paragraph (c), a victim need not show that he or she received professional treatment or counseling to show that he or she suffered serious emotional distress.

(2) For the purposes of this part 6:

(a) Conduct “in connection with” a credible threat means acts that further, advance, promote, or have a continuity of purpose, and may occur before, during, or after the credible threat.

(b) “Credible threat” means a threat, physical action, or repeated conduct that would cause a reasonable person to be in fear for the person’s safety or the safety of his or her immediate family or of someone with whom the person has or has had a continuing relationship. The threat need not be directly expressed if the totality of the conduct would cause a reasonable person such fear.

(c) “Immediate family” includes the person’s spouse and the person’s parent, grandparent, sibling, or child.

(d) “Repeated” or “repeatedly” means on more than one occasion.

I read it three times now and I don’t see one word about waiting 1 day, let alone 85 days, if you do please let me know.  In fact on the contrary I see words like “seriousness” and “effective intervention” and then the real zinger, “escalate into behavior that has even more serious consequences”.  Morgan’s death was certainly an even more serious consequence.  How much more serious could it have been?  If the general assembly of the State of Colorado can see the connection between stalking and serious consequence, how come the Garfield Sheriff’s department can’t.  It was a “mystery” the day she was killed and it never changed.  A mystery? After 121 days of stalking?  Read it as I might I just don’t see those words in there.  I just don’t think what was allowed to happen to Morgan was what the General Assembly had in mind when they drafted this law.  So if they did not, then who did?