Gun related topic to discuss - Homeowner/suspect = suspect dead in the street

[muleskinner]

If after he/she heels up and tries to sue, Castle Doctrine is in the homeowners favor.. Their lawsuit would be dead in the water.

What about a civil suit? For pain and suffering? That's what I'd be worried about.

 

[TRNDRVR]

Castle Doctrine.......Google -Vang Khang Minneapolis Minnesota-

 

[SAMI]

What about a civil suit? For pain and suffering? That's what I'd be worried about.

Maybe in a more Democratic state, but not likely in Utah.

Castle Doctrine.......Google -Vang Khang Minneapolis Minnesota-

I'm not understanding the relation between Vang Khang Minneapolis Minnesota and Castle Doctrine. Minnesota is not Utah, *Utah being the better state between the two for allowing weapons and the use of weapons in self defense. I've not reviewed what Minnesota's wording of a Castle Doctrine looks like, but they are rarely identical state to state. Again, you're bringing in an apples to oranges comparison IMO.

*I derived the info about Minnesota from the Brady group's "State Scorecard". Utah scored 0/100, and Minnesota 15/100.. "0" is a perfect score if you like your 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[TRNDRVR]

I'm not understanding the relation between Vang Khang Minneapolis Minnesota and Castle Doctrine.

Maybe I should have put a question mark at the end of "Castle Doctrine". Sorry. My bad!!!

My point was here is this guy protecting his family from a perceived threat who happened to turn out to be the cops. He was not charged with a crime when all was said and done. He shot and hit 2 cops too.

I just posted it for the hell of it.

*edit* I can't think of too many people who have shot 2 cops and walked away with a "We're sorry Mr. Khang!"
In a sick sort of way I would walk around with my head held real high for that one. I would compare that to winning the lottery.

 

[SAMI]

Ah, I gotcha now. Thank you for clarifying. That's a weird story, in that the officers were awarded.. I can see that they be praised for not mowing down the family, and using their heads in an ugly situation.. But, to dredge up the emotional issues all over again as the victimized family watches these officers awarded for their bravery.. There could've been a bit more tact on the LE departments part.

 

[hedonist]

ONE LESS D-BAG TO WORRY ABOUT

 

[Johnny4X4]

Thanks Jeremy. I'm in it for the cool masked costumes.

yup yup man- in the movie dark justice

 

[Grim]

if you dont want to get shot ....dont break into someones house. i thought that was a no brainer

 

[snccoulter]

Listening to the article last night one of the news stations had a law professor on and they were talking about this situation and the professor stated that in the Utah law the individual does not have to cross the threshold of the house he just has to be trying to enter and you have to fear for your safety or the safety of someone else. I will be surprised if he is charged. There is also the law of reasonableness when it comes to firing a weapon. There is no hind sight it is simply put if a reasonable person would fear for his life it is justified. Not a highly trained individual a simple lay person in the situation.

 

[SAMI]

^ Yup..

76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation. wrote:
(1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
(b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
(2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.

 

[Rusted]

Careful with your highlights. As I read it the first paragraph justifies FORCE but not DEADLY FORCE

DEADLY FORCE is justified if the entry is violent, tumultuous (loud/overwhelming), surreptitiously (stealthy), or by stealth AND made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence

OR

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


From the media we have seen so far 1A is enabled because the entry was made using stealth. The screen was removed, they had tools to break into the building. Also 1B seems clear because the entry was for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation, and there is reason to believe the entry was for assault.



I agree that the homeowner is justified, but it maybe a little more involved for him legally. Thinking this through my own mind I would probably acted the same way if I was in the same situation.

76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation. wrote:
(1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
(b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
(2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.

 

[SAMI]

I used highlights in the 1st paragraph to compliment the italicised section 1a.

 

[SAMI]

Story updated with much more info on the accomplice.

Link

KEARNS -- Police say the accomplice to an attempted burglary in Kearns Monday morning, where a 19-year-old man was shot and killed, actually knew his friend had been injured during the crime.

Eighteen-year-old Derek Sego is in jail on felony charges of burglary and obstruction of justice. The obstruction of justice charge is because Sego knew his friend, 19-year-old Kyle Poulton, had been shot during their attempted burglary, yet he never called police.


Kyle Poulton
Police originally thought Poulton was alone during the attempted burglary; however, after talking to several of his friends, checking his phone and Facebook page, they knew there was a possibility the two were together during the crime. Police say when they located Sego at his house Monday night to question him, he admitted to being involved in the crime.

"He is suggesting that they were going to break into the home and that he was at a different location, at a window that was at a different part of the house than Mr. Poulton was at the time of the shooting," Lt. Don Hutson, with Unified Police Department, said. "He did say he did hear the shot and heard reaction from Mr. Poulton, and then he immediately left the area and ran all the way home."


Derek Sego
Sego reported to police that he and Poulton were under the impression that no one was in the house when they attempted to break in. He says they rang the doorbell and then checked in the garage for cars.

Police say it appears to have been a crime of opportunity. "I think they probably looked at other homes as well and ultimately made a decision," said Hutson, who doesn't believe the two young men knew anyone living inside the home.

Sego told police an hour and half later he and Poulton made their attempts to get into the house to get what they could for money.

Police say Sego's statement contradicts what the homeowner told them about what happened that morning. The homeowner told police he turned on his lights and walked outside to see who rang his doorbell. Police say it's unclear if Sego is telling the truth.

Sego turned 18 in August. He does have a juvenile record, but police say those were just minor run-ins, mainly some fighting when he was in school. In some of those cases, he was actually the victim.

Poulton had been living on his own for a period of time and had recently been allowed to move back home.

 

[Wasatch Quad]

Wasatch, you sir are 100% wrong. You would get nowhere in a court or with a statement of 'i shot to kill'. You shoot to stop a threat, never to "kill".

I have to disagree. If I feel the need to shoot, you can bet it will be aimed at a vital.
Shooting to kill is the same as shooting to stop the threat, perminately.
I hope I never have to worry about this situation, but if I do I am prepared.

 

[mesha]

I have to disagree. If I feel the need to shoot, you can bet it will be aimed at a vital.
Shooting to kill is the same as shooting to stop the threat, perminately.
I hope I never have to worry about this situation, but if I do I am prepared.

So you love killing?


I know what you mean, but be careful of the words you choose when the cops are asking you why you shot someone. If you have to shoot someone to stop them you should shoot for vitals, but saying you shoot to kill makes you sound like you welcome the violence(at least to lawyers).

 

[Unimog]

I think everyone is saying the same thing. You need to be careful how you talk about and describe the situation - especially to LE and lawyers. At the same time, it is ridiculous to think you are going to try to just injure a guy who is a real threat. This 'shoot in the leg' concept is a bunch of bunk. If you or those around you are threatened, you should aim for the most vital areas and shoot til the threat is gone. If you are not mortally threatened, you have no business pulling the weapon out. There is even some question of brandishing the weapon or firing a warning shot, even if it is a deterrent. It think that last part is what is crazy from a legal standpoint.

 

[SAMI]

Actually Unimog, a minor correction on what is legal as far as 'brandishing' your weapon. Just this year 76-10-506 was ammended to allow a legal carrying citizen to display their weapon in order to "prevent another's use of unlawful force". See quoted... This was a great change in Utah code.

Utah Code
Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
Chapter 10 Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, Welfare, and Morals
Section 506 Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.

76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.
(1) As used in this section, "threatening manner" does not include:
(a) the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening; or
(b) informing another of the actor's possession of a deadly weapon in order to prevent what the actor reasonably perceives as a possible use of unlawful force by the other and the actor is not engaged in any activity described in Subsection 76-2-402(2)(a).
(2) Except as otherwise provided in Section 76-2-402 and for those persons described in Section 76-10-503, a person who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
(3) This section does not apply to a person who, reasonably believing the action to be necessary in compliance with Section 76-2-402, with purpose to prevent another's use of unlawful force:
(a) threatens the use of a dangerous weapon; or
(b) draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon.
Amended by Chapter 361, 2010 General Session

As you can see by the emboldened section if you display your weapon in these circumstances you are immune from prosecution for displaying (commonly referred to as brandishing).

 

[Unimog]

Actually Unimog, a minor correction on what is legal as far as 'brandishing' your weapon. Just this year 76-10-506 was ammended to allow a legal carrying citizen to display their weapon in order to "prevent another's use of unlawful force". See quoted... This was a great change in Utah code.

I was not aware of this recent change. Now it makes sense! Thanks!

 

[mbryson]

I'm not a personal fan of "brandishing". If I'm pulling iron, it's to get used, not to be a warning. Warnings are over at that point

 

[Herzog]

I'm not a personal fan of "brandishing". If I'm pulling iron, it's to get used, not to be a warning. Warnings are over at that point

I agree but every scenario is different. Having the law on your side to diffuse a bad scenario without actually firing is also a good option to have. But like anybody else, you just have to hope you never get into that kind of scenario. :sick: