Imminent danger? What does that mean as you use it Charles?
Did you miss my prior posts in this thread?
utbagpiper said:
An un-invited intruder who enters or attempts to enter my home through force or stealth will be assumed to pose an imminent risk to myself and my entire household unless and until there is strong evidence to the contrary. Turning tail and running is generally pretty decent evidence that there is no imminent threat to my life or limb.
...
Had he shot the burglar on sight inside his home he might have claimed (and quite possibly believed) he was in imminent danger. But once the burglar attempted to flee, it is hard to argue that innocent life or limb was in danger.
Under the circumstances, I'd hope for leniency. Heat of the moment, sanctity of a man's castle, and all of that. But as we have the chance to reflect outside of the moment, we should not be encouraging nor celebrating the use of deadly force when it was not necessary in the moment to protect innocent life and limb.
utbagpiper said:
To be clear, in a home invasion situation, I will give every possible benefit of the doubt to the homeowner who uses deadly force. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will assume the home invader(s) did pose a grave, immediate risk to the life and limb of everyone in the home and that the use of deadly force was justified.
And I would hope for every leniency for a homeowner who, in the heat of a moment makes a split second mistake about whether deadly force was justified. Even more so in this case where physical disability puts the homeowner at additional disadvantage.
But when a homeowner fully admits that he shot someone after they turned tail to run for the express purpose of preventing an "escape", when there has been zero evidence the bad guy was armed, I have to call a spade a spade. It looks like a bad shoot to me. I hope the DA is not a jerk.
Any questions about my standard when it comes to home invasions?
If the legal standard was: you can shoot anyone who is an intruder on your land for any reason then the crime of burglary would likely be less.
Really? You want legal leeway to shoot the 8 year old kid retrieving a ball he kicked over your fence? Or the 12 year old who is stealing your garden troll as a prank?
Not going to be acceptable to my moral compass nor most others.
(I think that if the law was that one could shoot anyone for any reason, anywhere, then people would be a lot nicer to each other too ... not that this is ever going to or should happen~just a thought experiment).
Something about being just plain nuts comes to mind here.
And coming into the dwelling itself ... a sign that the person is more than willing to harm the occupant.
Agreed. Hence my position on home invasions. But what sign do intelligent, sane, moral men take from a criminal who turns tail and runs at the sight of an armed homeowner? In most cases, I'm thinking this is a sign that the bad guy no longer poses an imminent threat to my life or limb. If there is no imminent threat to my life or limb, I cannot justify the use of deadly force.
The biggest problem is that its just too subjective and 20-20 hindsight involved. Make it something clearly understood ... and this tips the table for me. Everyone can understand that a person shot a guy who entered his property w/o permission. I like easy laws to comprehend. So I prefer the easy law. That's the way the law should be throughout this nation. I have always lobbied for this when such issues come up.
Utah law on this matter is quite simple as is my personal position. A man entering a home, uninvited, by stealth or force is presumed to pose a grave and imminent threat to all occupants' lives and limbs...
UNTIL there is evidence to the contrary. If there is any doubt, I will give every possible benefit of the doubt to the homeowner/resident. But when the resident full up admits the burglar was turning tail to run and he used deadly force out of anger, spite, or to try to effect some silly and needlessly dangerous citizen's arrest, I think he crosses a line, legally (in the jurisdictions of which I'm aware) and morally.
Most OCers are the nicest people you'll meet. But more than willing and able to thwart evil. Don't be evil, simple.
Using deadly force against a person who demonstrably doesn't pose an imminent risk to your life or limb, is evil. Simply evil. At least when it is done with forethought and premeditation. In the heat of the moment, it might be attributed to ignorance and stupidity, or lack of proper training.
Charles
