Defensive shooting in SL area--home invasion

Not directly related to OC as this was inside a home, but certainly of interest to enough here to justify posting it.

I'm awaiting more details before forming too strong of opinions, but I certainly hope it was a legitimate, justified use of deadly force in defense of self and home.

Charles

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13192165

and

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700079593/Teen-burglar-shot-dead-by-homeowner.html

Comments on DesNews are generally favorable with only a couple of idiots suggesting "warning shots" would have been appropriate.

Charles



Excerpts:

The homeowner reporter hearing his doorbell ring, near 5600 South and 5100 West, about 1 a.m. He didn't find anyone at the door and went back to bed.

About 3 a.m., he was awoken by another noise and found a man trying to break into his house through his back sliding glass door, said Unified Police Lt. Don Hutson.

....

"He (the homeowner) had armed himself and apparently took one shot through the sliding glass door," Hutson said. "Then the burglar ran away. That was all he knew at the time of the call."

Police responded and found the body of the teen about 50 yards away. He was shot and the chest and declared dead at the scene, Hutson said.

...

This homeowner had two small children in the home. Clearly somebody was attempting to break into his home and that's something that's going to have to be looked at by the district attorney's office," Hutson said.

It sure looks like a a legitimate, justified use of deadly force in defense of self and home.

Good work by the homeowner.

Thankfully he was able to stop the intruder before harm could have come to his family.

The media is now reporting that an accomplice to the burglary (unseen and unknown to the homeowner) has been arrested.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...-by-Kearns-homeowner-in-alleged-burglary.html

This report, http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13192165&autostart=y, has friends of the deceased expressing shock that he would be involved in a home invasion or burglary. Of course, a few comments on the Deseret News page talk about the what ifs of a family member or peaceful boyfriend being shot by mistake. The reports from friends of the criminal remind me that while we must always be sure of our targets and the absolute need for deadly force before we fire, it would be imprudent to immediately let down our guard just because we think we recognize someone or someone looks like a good kid.

At this point, it looks like a clean and justified shooting to me. Pity the homeowner will have to live with the fact that he took another man's life. But I suspect that is a lot easier to live with than the possible consequences for not defending himself, home, and family from such a brazen break-in attempt.

Charles

I've made a lot of postings on this topic over at UCC so I'll spare folks of my ramblings...most of you are on there anyway.

The homeowner shouldn't lose a second of sleep....it boils down to a few things:

1. He was (apparently) well within his rights and was a good shoot.
2. Nobody can be certain what would have happened had he woken up to two intruders in his home. They very well could have been frightened and bolted or, on the other extreme, it could have turned into a Hawke-Petit rape and murder fest.
3. His wife and two children were in the house. Any other person with a wife and children knows how much they mean to you and to devalue saving their lives by making your life a living hell for taking another isn't justified IMO.

Good shoot, I'm glad that the homeowner and his family are safe and this criminal is removed from committing more and potentially worse crimes in the future. You would have to be delusional to believe the perp was a stranger to crime and this was his first forray into the criminal world....it's baby steps.

The only pity I have for the homeowner and his family are the death threats they are receiving from gang member associates of the deceased.

Oh....and on a similar but not gun related note:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50641802-76/police-shovel-burglar-bluffdale.html.csp

Apparently criminals don't watch the news often. This is one criminal who should take a good look at the path he's going down and should count his blessings that this wasn't an armed homeowner he tried to victimize.

utbagpiper said:

At this point, it looks like a clean and justified shooting to me. Pity the homeowner will have to live with the fact that he took another man's life. But I suspect that is a lot easier to live with than the possible consequences for not defending himself, home, and family from such a brazen break-in attempt.

Click to expand...

I agree. There has to be a psychic price to killing another human being. Even if it is justifed by law.

GenkiSudo said:

The homeowner shouldn't lose a second of sleep....

Click to expand...

Not too likely, GS.

It'd probably be a healthy sign for the homeowner to lose some sleep over what he done . . .what he had to do . . .

Different ways of dealing for every person. I never lost sleep for anything I did while deployed, while I'll agree that in the military you have a certain expectation of doing things in combat. As gun owners each and everyone of us better steel ourselves to the fact that we may be called upon to take anothers life. Pray that it doesn't happen but don't feel an ounce of regret for stopping a threat to your person or family.

Maybe I'm just an insensitive ass, maybe I'm a realist. The gross majority of us will never draw our weapons on another but you shouldn't step out your door in the morning with that gun at your hip without considering the possibility that you may have to use that and what that really entails. If you aren't up to the responsibility of what your wearing brings you, you might want to reconsider wearing it. (I don't mean you personally...just 'you' as in 'us').

GenkiSudo said:

Different ways of dealing for every person. I never lost sleep for anything I did while deployed, while I'll agree that in the military you have a certain expectation of doing things in combat. As gun owners each and everyone of us better steel ourselves to the fact that we may be called upon to take anothers life. Pray that it doesn't happen but don't feel an ounce of regret for stopping a threat to your person or family.

Maybe I'm just an insensitive ass, maybe I'm a realist. The gross majority of us will never draw our weapons on another but you shouldn't step out your door in the morning with that gun at your hip without considering the possibility that you may have to use that and what that really entails. If you aren't up to the responsibility of what your wearing brings you, you might want to reconsider wearing it. (I don't mean you personally...just 'you' as in 'us').

Click to expand...

I agree with you entirely about the need to be prepared for the possibility of having to use deadly force.

But I don't think for a minute that having some personal regrets about actually having to take a human life is in any way a sign that the person was not prepared. Yes, every person is different. But from what I've read and from those I know who have been to war--or had loved ones go to war--or been police officers, etc, the typical response for most people is that taking a human life does come with a certain personal toll, no matter how justified and necessary it may have been to take that life. Everyone I know who sent a spouse, son, or brother into WWII or Vietnam has said at one time or another, "He was never quite the same after he came back." It was always said with a tone and understanding of some regret and not at all in the generally positive way that one might same similar words about a young man returning from a stint in the Peace Corp, an LDS mission, or other very positive experience.

Some can take human life without a moment's regret. It seems that most cannot. And that is probably a very good thing in most regards.

Charles

given the need to discharge my firearm im sure there will be a second guess about could it have been resolved by a non lethal shot or any other way but from what i have seen and read there is no such thing as a what if in life it is either i did or i didnt
i hope i never have to fire at another person but i will not suffer for another s stupidity greed malice or lust there is no if and i will make sure it is an I DID
there is always no matter who you are are where you have served a learning period after you take a life where you think "was that necessary?" or even "wow that was too close i need to make sure its a better shot next time" we learn and grow and change
i think this man was well within his rights and that if more people wound up dead half way through a window or a living room floor people as a whole might start to take responsibility for their actions and either dont a commit crime or understand that it isnt just a slap on the wrist and do it again
nitts make lice stop them now and get a point out that this is still America land of opportunity not lazy thief's work hard and enjoy what you have earned

wow,,,,,

HankT said:

It sure looks like a a legitimate, justified use of deadly force in defense of self and home.

Good work by the homeowner.

Click to expand...

what the hell happened to HTPCSD?

the teen didnt get in the house,
their was not imminent threat!
he shot through the sliding glass door!
the only way this could have been worse,
would be to chase the kid down, and shoot him again!

the shoot was not justified! unless maybe in texas.

where is the follow up to this story?

1245A Defender said:

what the hell happened to HTPCSD?

the teen didnt get in the house,
their was not imminent threat!
he shot through the sliding glass door!
the only way this could have been worse,
would be to chase the kid down, and shoot him again!

the shoot was not justified! unless maybe in texas.

where is the follow up to this story?

Click to expand...

The follow up story is that by now the DA has almost certainly decided not to press charges having decided that under Utah law the shoot is perfectly justified.

Under Utah law we do not have to wait for a person to actually get into our home before defending ourselves with deadly force. While we cannot use deadly force to defend property, we can use deadly force to stop an illegal attempt to enter our home via "stealth or force".

Simply put, while we can't use deadly force to prevent theft of an unoccupied automobile, or to stop simply burglary of an unoccupied storage shed or other out building, we are allowed to use deadly force to prevent illegal entry into our homes. We do not have to wait for the door or window to actually be breached. And, tactically speaking, I'd argue it is very foolish to let a burglar actually breach your home before acting to stop him. We might argue about whether, when, and how best to encourage him to break off his attempted illegal entry before having to use deadly force. But in Utah, we are not required to do that. Breaking into an occupied home is a very dangerous proposition in Utah. Don't do it.

There is a world of difference between defending yourself inside your own home against a determined home invader, and actually chasing someone down the public street in some vigilante fashion.

While de-escalation is always the preferred option, even out in public we have a "no duty to retreat" law. Inside our own homes, the legal presumption is essentially that anyone in or attempting to get into the home illegally intends to rape and murder everyone inside and the lawful resident may respond with any and all necessary force until such time as there is strong evidence the intruder or attempted intruder does not actually pose a threat. There is no legal duty to warn. There is no duty to retreat. There is no duty to wait for the bad guy to get so much as a little toe over the threshold or inside a window. If he is attempting to illegally enter the home via stealth or force he is subject to whatever force the lawful resident reasonably believes is necessary to stop the attack. And it is viewed as an attack.

The homeowner shot in lawful defense of self and family inside his own home. He did not chase anyone down. He immediately called the police, who found not only the criminal who had been shot, but also an accomplice about whom the homeowner was completely unaware. There has been zero evidence to suggest any criminal conduct on the part of the homeowner.

Clean shoot that will likely carry personal, psychological costs for the homeowner, but against which he will most certainly both criminal and civil protections. He isn't getting charged with a crime, and neither the bad guy nor the BG's estate has any chance of a successful civil suit.

Welcome to Utah. Don't break into homes. Remind your kids of how dangerous sneaking into a girlfriends bedroom in the middle of the night can be.

Charles

Since no-one has done so yet - the law.

I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV, but since no-one has done so yet, I am posting the Utah law dealing with justifiable deadly force in defense of your domicile (place of habitation):

76-2-405 – Force in defense of habitation
A person reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack on the habitation.

Force likely to cause death or serious injury is justified only if:

The entry is made or attempted in a violent tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth and he reasonably believes the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence or

He reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

(Source: November 2010 BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor Course - Slide 79)

At 76-2-402(4) we see that burglary is a "forcible felony" within the meaning of Utah Law. Anyone acting to defend a place of habitation against a "forcible felony" such as burglary is acting within the scope of UCA 76-2-405.

Again, I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV. I am not offering legal advice, but I am providing a copy of applicable Utah law for the reader to interpret as he may.

uhhu,,,

HankT said:

It sure looks like a a legitimate, justified use of deadly force in defense of self and home.

Good work by the homeowner.

Click to expand...

thanx for the cites and explanations of utah law, i did not know it was that loose!

my main thrust was HANKTs acceptance of shooting an unarmed man!

my main thrust was HANKTs acceptance of shooting an unarmed man!

i also have to accept the shooting of an an armed man
firts rule of a gun fight "dont go to a gun fight" second rule "if you have to go bring a gun"
i just feel bad that it is the stupid criminals that more often get killed in the act of committing a crime. we really should focus on the smart ones they are harder to catch. if we get the smart ones out of the gene pool we wont have to worry so much about deadly force cause they are not smart enough to properly commit a crime or get away with one
just a thought

hey k31,,,

you havent been here long,
hankt is famous for "her", "hank ts postulate of civilian self defense". HTPCSD!
to wit, it is unwise to shoot an unarmed man.
this postulate was used and repeated in nearly every post made be hankt!

in re this shoot! i believe that a bad guy is dead and gone,, good riddance!

1245A Defender said:

y "hank ts postulate of civilian self defense". HTPCSD!
to wit, it is unwise to shoot an unarmed man.
this postulate was used and repeated in nearly every post made be hankt!

Click to expand...

This shooting highlights an important part of self-defense law in Utah:

Out in public, you may not employ force until there is an overt act to justify it.

Inside your own home, the very attempt to gain (much less to actually gain) unlawful entry is the overt act that justifies the use of force.

Out in public, Hank's postulate is very prudent. A person, especially an able bodied male, better be very careful about shooting an unarmed man. Disparity of size/strength or numbers may save you. But be prepared to be put through the wringer.

Inside your home, however, you are much more protected in a decision to use deadly force even against an unarmed attacker. Since a clear, overt act has already justified the use of deadly force even if the BG ends up not to be armed or is armed "only" with sharp objects common for burglars to carry.

Ideally, all crimes could and would be ended without use of deadly force. Even more ideally, there would be no crime. But both legally and culturally here in Utah, there is a lot more latitude given to self-defense within your habitation than would be afforded while out and about in public.

I am not a lawyer, This is not legal advice.

Charles

Reading through the comments...certainly seems that a lot of folks wanted the homeowner to fire a warning shot.


Seeme to me that he did - in the only acceptable manner allowed.

Contrarian said:

Reading through the comments...certainly seems that a lot of folks wanted the homeowner to fire a warning shot.


Seeme to me that he did - in the only acceptable manner allowed.

Click to expand...

And it seems that he was aware of his target and what was behind also!

very very good point
always besure of who you are shooting at aswell as where your shot lands if it goes threw or misses
adrenaline wont save your case in court