So here in Salt Lake a 19 year old male was trying to break into someones house through the back sliding glass door. The homeowner saw the man and shot him through the glass door. The would be burglar ran away and fled as far as the middle of the street where he was found dead by the police after the homeowner called 911. The homeowner hasn't been charged with anything yet and the burglar only had his wallet and a scredriver on him. I guess we're going to see just where Utah Law stands on this sort of thing. Maybe this sort of thing happens a lot in other states but not here. I think with the details of this case that it will set some precedent for the years to come. I Ipartly hope they don't charge the homeowner since that would discourage anymore would be burglars in this area, but part of me wonders if he really needed to shoot a man that had yet to actually enter his home. Maybe a warning shot would have been nice. Heck, maybe it was a warning shot and the guy has terrible aim (that would be my defense).

Take a look at this for a general overview:

Utah Carry Application

No threat to life = no need to shoot. Whatever the law does, that fact is a constant, as far as my conscience would be concerned.

Weird that he shot through the glass door if burglar was outside. Hoping home-owner doesn't get charged, but would worry where the burglar wasn't in the house, don't know if he was threatened or if any warning was given. I know a screwdriver could be considered a deadly weapon. Just not sure I would have made the same decision if caught in the same circumstance.

In many states you are allowed to shoot through the door if someone is trying to break-in. It is the Castle Defense! Here it has to be a dwelling place, in other words where one has his place of sleep and living quarters. OK for the residence but not the shed or barn.

Problem is that the homeowner has know way of knowing that the burgler isn't armed, nor does the homeowner know the burgler's intent once he gets inside. By the time he discovers these two elements, it might be too late. Tough call.

Back home in Texas, if they're on your property after sundown, it's pretty much weapons free as far as I recall. I remember back in San Antonio a homeowner saw a shadowy figure by his chicken coops and shot him in the middle of the night; turned out to be a teen up to no good, but the homeowner wasn't arrested or charged.

__________________
"... shall not be infringed."

I've slept in the barn a few times- usually with the opposite sex when I was younger. The doghouse has been my residence for lengthy periods too. I am certain the law would cover me in both instances.

__________________
Lost it all in a boat accident

Assuming our facts are correct it would appear that this homeowner used deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony, the definition of which includes burglary per the link I mentioned earlier. Legally it may not be such a tough call, morally is a different story as others have pointed out. I wouldn't be too keen on shooting under these circumstances, but we weren't there and don't have to worry about how this man's choice will affect his sleep at night--thank goodness.

Let us suppose for just a moment that a Russian Bomber enter US airspace....It does not turn back when intercepted by US fighters....do we have to wait until it drops its bombs before we shoot it down? So if the answer is no, why does a home owner have to wait until the burglar enters his home? When burglars invade homes and confront owners the chance of violence against the homeower is severe.......could the home ower defeat the young burglar? Does he have to engage in a physical fight.....so I see no problem with the owner protecting his home, his personal safety and the safety of his family.....he waits....he may die.....if someone is to die, let it be the burglar.....by the way, where would the warnign shot have gone...into the ground, so it can bounce off rock and hit the neighbors 3 year old kid, in the air, where it comes down on the park three blocks away? Here is your warning.....Do not break into homes, it could be hazardous to your health!" and its illegal too.

76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.
(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.

So, it gets down to the question of "reasonableness," and on this subject, Utah law states:

(a) the nature of the danger;
(b) the immediacy of the danger;
(c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;
(d) the other's prior violent acts or violent propensities; and
(e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties' relationship.

Let's hope the homeowner gets a reasonable judge. Things such as the age and infirmities (if any) of the homeowner, the burglar's previous criminal history, etc., will undoubtedly come into consideration.

I'm not going to judge when I don't know all the facts, but I do know that the homeowner would have been on more solid ground had he shouted a warning, and then, being ignored, waited until the perpetrator had actually opened the door.


Bullseye

__________________
Five screws and 3-1/2 inches.

Regardless of the legalities, if you don't want to get shot, don't do that.

I agree with you Bullseye regarding verbal warning. So hard to say as it didn't happen to me, but I don't think I would have made a "warning shot," as I have a wife and two small kids at home, and wouldn't just randomly shoot in a direction to scare someone off. Not sure about the laws, but couldn't this been mistrude as a reckless discharge of firearm?

In regards to the Russian Bomber reference, I am sure the US would give plenty of warning that they would shoot the bomber down before they removed the threat. But I don't know US Government protocol in this situation, I do know how difficult it is to board a plane in US, so I can guess it might be more difficult for a foreign plane to enter US airspace.

In my un-humble opinion: There is NO SUCH THING as a warning shot.

In the eyes of the law, pulling the trigger and missing is still employing deadly force. If you're not reasonably sure it's a clean shoot, you shouldn't be shooting - at anything.

This only happened 6 hours ago. The investigation is still underway. It is unlikely the prosecutors, the Salt Lake County District Attorneys Office, will have a decision about this for a few days at least. The guy had a wife and two little girls in the house with him.

And you would be opening yourself up for the mother of all civil suits for more money than you will ever be able to earn! You are responsible for the results of all shots taken under any circumstance. That defense would get you in criminal court too. Maybe not to the extent of law available to the prosecutors, but certainly for a reduced charge of some sort.

Remember folks, no self-defense shooting ends with the criminal prosecution being settled. The civil suit possibility still is out there for heirs and their ambulance chasing lawyers to consider. ............ Big Cholla

Although I live in utah, this is the first I heard of the incident. All our picking apart for or against, wont affect the outcome. All we can do here is watch and learn.
Once I had a bad wreck. I had to share my hospital room with a youth like that. He was burglaring a house and the owner came home. He ran through a glass door and got cut up bad. The biggest thing that peed me off was the nice visitors he got that never talked about or admonished him as to the incident that got him in the hospital. I think he was glad to see me go home though.

I wouldn't use the defense proposed by Dacoontz either, but in some states civil lawsuits are precluded if a defensive shooting is held to be justified. If you read post #10 again very carefully, I think you'll agree that there are situations in Utah where both criminal and civil liability will not attach.

Patience would go a long way to avoid any major LEGAL problems here. Since the homeowner had plenty of time to shoot through the (still locked) door, it would have been prudent of him to position himself in a defensive position until the door was breached & the burglar took a few steps into the home with the screwdriver before he fired.

I feel a warning shot would never be warranted, if you feel the urgency to fire, it's because you are in mortal danger.

I recall a incident many years ago in california. I came on a accident that had just happened. A car was smashed up and the driver was dieing. A old police officer arrived while I was there. A guy walked up that I hadnt originaly seen and told the cop that he walked in on the guy in his house, got his gun, evidently the guy ran out, got in his car and stacked it up maybe a half block away! Somehow I think but dont know, if the guy was either playing around with his wife, or was burglaring the place. The cop interupted him to listen to the radio and told the guy, he just "flipped!" I left and dont know of any outcome, but now I wish I had kept up with what if anything happened to the homeowner latter.

Yep, there is no such thing as a warning shot -- that's why I specified a loud verbal warning, such as "Stop right where you are!" or "Halt! I am armed and will shoot!"

The fact that the homeowner had a wife and children in the house will undoubtedly be considered when the DA, or the Court, makes a determination as to the reasonableness of the homeowner's actions.


Bullseye

__________________
Five screws and 3-1/2 inches.

My situation is the same with a wife and two young kids. I am not sure how patient I could be in this circumstance either. It will be interesting to see what the DA decides and what kind of message resonates afterward.

Bitstream,

Your assessment is spot-on. I recently had a conversation with my two teenagers and informed them that in the Great State of Texas you could use lethal force in the face of criminal mishchief. They were stunned to learn that "t-p'ing", egging someone's house, or playing "ding-dong ditch" constituted criminal mischief. Hopefully that little talk might do some good.

Regards,

Dave

I live in Ohio. We have castle doctrine.

I'll wait until you get inside... after which you will have to be CARRIED out.

I always love people (especially Brits) who whine, "But he was drinking!", to which I always reply, "Then don't do that."

If being drunk or high causes you to break into occupied dwellings, you either need to stop your chemical recreation or accept the likelihood of having your MOS involuntarily changed to "bullet trap".

Well, based on the current DA in Salt Lake County who has 4 kids and graduated from the very conservative BYU, I would say that no charges are coming. Maybe he'll get a slap on the wrist for discharging a firearm inside county limits or something like that. Now, if the case doesn't get dealt with before Jan 1st then we switch to a Democratic DA that may have a different opinion of firearms. I don't really know much about him yet. Well, it looks like he studied environmental law and was endorsed by the Salt Lake City Mayor (democrat) and Salt Lake County Mayor (democrat). Good thing this didn't happen to him 2 months from now.

It seems that since after being shot he had enough life left to run out to the street he could just as well have had enough life to kill the homeowner(s) or their children had they waited for him to enter the house.

Good lesson for all the idiots out there to really think through your choice of profession before starting.

__________________
Now That's Bullet Maintenance!

All good in theory, but as there are two very important elements to that No. 2) proviso; it is all going to come down to what sort of statement the Home Owner gave at the shooting scene before getting a Lawyer involved. One careless statement by the HO could invalidate either required element.

I did consider that in my statement, but contend that civil suits will still be brought and will still have to be defended at great expense even if one prevails. I know a Las Vegas LEO that was involved in two righteous shootings, one off duty and one on duty. The Dept. he was with defended him criminally on both but refused to pay for his defense on the civil suits. Total cost to him was financially devastating. No, I don't know all the inside details, but I suspect the Dept. was tired of him and just used that tact to get rid of him.

Anyway, here in Nevada if you win criminally, you are still subject civilly. BUT, for some reason, if you first win civilly you are precluded from being charged criminally for the act for which you were civilly sued. ............. Big Cholla

My theory was based on a reading of the applicable Utah statutes and the facts as they were explained by the OP. Yours appears to be based on a Nevada case that appears completely unrelated to what we're talking about here, plus your unshakable belief that if you shoot someone you're going to get sued no matter what. I guess you've got it all figured out, but in the end it doesn't matter. We can probably agree on one thing--shooting someone for any reason can be a real pain in the butt.

Watchman....; :-) Yes, we have both figured that one out! No, I don't believe that one is 'always' going to be sued civilly. I just say be prepared for being sued in every way possible. From the first moment I was turned loose on the street packing a badge and a gun, I had a Lawyer on retainer. Yes, he is a friend and was relatively inexpensive 'on retainer', but I had all his phone numbers with me at all times. A good big handgun is only one form of 'self-protection' in which I believe. ....... Big Cholla

In Louisiana homicide is justafiable by someone inside if a person is in or attempting to make an unlawful entry into your dwelling, business, or car. The shooter must believe the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent entry or compel the intruder to leave the premises or vehicle.
It is justified even though the owner does not retreat from the encounter.
Steve

Just consider the high profile case in the news.

Man breaks into house rapes and strangles the wife, ties the two teenage daughters to their beds and sets the house on fire.

Jury Recommends Death for Connecticut Man in Home Invasion Rape-Murders - FoxNews.com

Don't think it is wise to second guess the intent of someone making forceful entry into your home.

If your State doesn't have "castle doctrine laws in effect", elect new representatives
In the meantime, defend your home or risk ending up like the family mentioned above.

An acquaintance had a similar experience --- Alerted in the night by his barking dogs to some disturbance in his back yard, he grabbed the still-loaded shotgun he'd brought home from a predator hunt, and slid open the Arcadia door to investigate. A young man, yelling almost incoherently, demanding entry, barged through the door, whereupon the homeowner ( a former MP) butt-stroked him across the bridge of the nose with his 870, yelled to his wife to go to the (two, little) kids' bedroom and call 911, which she thankfully did, without taking time to shriek, or question his tone of voice, raise women's rights issues, or the like... The intruder staggered backward through the patio door, still yelling, recovered his balance if not his senses or composure, and charged back through the door into the family room, whereupon David shot him dead at powderburn range. The intruder, even in death, was graceless enough to leave nasty stains to clean up. Cops arrived, ex post facto, of course, separating husband and wife and getting separate statements from each. Between their identical and corroborating accounts of the incident from their different perspectives, and the 911 recording which captured audio from early on, exonerated him. Never went to a grand jury. The kids were oblivious, slept through the whole escapade, and were not psychologically traumatized whatsoever...

The deceased's family threatened civil action, which never materialized, as it turned out that the perp was off-the-charts intoxicated, and had been justifiably shot in the course of committing multiple felonies, and so forth...

This might have turned out differently had my acquaintance shot the guy with the screwdriver through the door, and it turned out to be a 24-Hour locksmith summoned by his wife...

I will say this with absolute and complete certainty...I will never, ever shoot someone through a door, window, or anything else. Period.

Be safe.

So, like even if they are standing there in the window aiming a shotgun at you?

//Sorry, but never say never.

__________________
"... shall not be infringed."

Okay, bitstream; you got me, but c'mon. (BTW, your point is made. Thanx.)

Let me rephrase. I will never, ever shoot an unarmed person...through a door, window, wall or otherwise "outside."

Be safe.

I think to suggest that an armed homeowner should be required to, or even is morally bound to allow an intruder to actually gain entrance before he/she uses deadly force to stop the intruder is a preposterous notion.

I'm glad I live in Georgia. I'm glad I live in rural South Georgia.

__________________
Georgia On My Mind

In this state, even before we legitimized such action with Castle Doctrine, (we don't even have to tell them to drag the body inside anymore) this would have been "case closed." You go messing around with someone's home,regardless of your mental state (which the homeowner obviously doesn't know) and you get hurt or killed it's your own damn fault. I have seen similar incidents in the last 40 years where a perp was killed or injured and have yet to see a homeowner prosecuted or a jury award a civil judgement to the deceased or injured moron or his family. Home invasions are very seldom committed here by someone who lives here. The rare home invasion is usually committed by someone from out of state who doesn't understand how things work locally. The survivors get long prison sentences if they are caught.

I am a big fan of John Locke, the 17th Century British philosopher upon whose thoughts and writings our own founders relied so greatly. Here's what Locke had to say about this subject more than three hundred years ago:

“And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any further than by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases from him: because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretense be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he, who would take away my liberty, would not when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; . . ."

__________________
Georgia On My Mind

So the media here is now reporting that the homeowner will likely not be charged based on the law stating that he was preventing a felony, just to paraphrase. They're also reporting that there was another kid trying to break into a window when he heard the shots and ran, good idea. He's turned himself in. The perp's parents are perplexed and say he was considering entering the military and was the youngest of 4 siblings. Recently I have noticed a lot of potentially good 18 to 24 year old young men getting all kinds of screwed up and involved in bad stuff. It's like there is a widespread dysfunction in this age group of young men. But anyway, I hope this story gets plastered all over the news around here because it should help curtail the increase in burglaries in this town. I had a guy try and wiggle my back door open a few months back but he didn't get past my mini american eskimo chihuahua mutt, in Hollywood they call it an eskachi. That little guy would bark if someone broke wind in the backyard. Anyway, he scared that guy out of range and I never had to aim at anything or anyone, thank God. So hopefully, since my wife couldn't handle the damn barking, that this unfortunate story will do just as much to hinder would be criminals.

Got to say that shooting thru the door might have been an over reaction. But what if he just ran the guy off and the BG found a softer target down the street. That wouldn't make me feel good either.

Just be glad he wasn't out here. Had an older person hit a night time home invader with a bat. That was after the intruder had assaulted another elderly resident in the house. Took the cops and the DA almost 1 month to decide not to press charges. The batman still could face major civil suits.

__________________
Pete.

Honey, I just shot the fuller brush salesman!

76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.
(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.

As a retired Utah Peace Officer of 21 years service I would like to call your attention to the bolded section of Title 76 UCA above. This is Utah law, and all that will be considered in a bench trial, and if it gets to an indictment I sincerely hope he requests a bench rather than jury trial, of the homeowner in the cited case which occurred at approximately 3:00AM today. As described in all accounts on the local media which I have heard so far the circumstances of the immediate event fit the code precisely.

What you would do, or think you would, or what the law is in Texas, Virginia or Hawaii have exactly nothing to do with the situation, only Utah statute. If any of you are ever in a similar circumstance, and it is extremely unlikely, you will be judged by applicable law in your own state so you had better learn well what it says.

Just a few minutes ago it was reported on the news that the accomplice of the burglar who was shot this morning. There were two of them!! Maybe the homeowner was aware of this and it was not reported. Giving him the benefit-of-the-doubt does this change any of your impressions of this situation? They also reported that his (shootee) father had been interviewed by the media and made the statement about his son that "He was just getting his life together". Thought you would like that.

I certainly hope this adjudicated while Mrs. Miller is still in office and not after Mr. Gill takes office, but in the usually time such events take to investigate and, possibly, file it isn't likely.

Alk, does the second statute supersede the first or are they considered equally in cases such as this? And I had the same thought about the change of DA that is going to take place in the upcoming months and how that could affect this case. Although, I could see this being a priority for the current DA as she was drug through the mud in the recent election and may want to leave the office trying to save some respect that her democratic opponent recently questioned.

I could write a book on this, having encountered it often. You are correct as stated but there are provisions and clauses that people do not know of in the law.

To legally shoot one at a residence, the homeowner must be inside the residence. You cannot shoot them from the front yard as you see them trying to break in.

In a car, the car owner has to be inside the car at the time and the perp has to be trying to take possession of the car from the owner. A car owner cannot shoot someone trying to steal his car in the middle of the night from the owners driveway as the owner is inside the home.

NOW, as to the issue of shooting someone period. It is more difficult to get a criminal charge to hold against a person than it is to get a civil judgement against someone. The standards for experts to qualify in court is more strict in criminal cases than in civil court where only money is involved.

I would not shoot someone trying to break in, but rather wait for them to open the door or window and then shoot them while they are still outside. Having to replace carpet, doors or such from bullet holes or blood is not a good thing. Also the crime scene investigators will mark and tear out carpet where a body laid inside the residence. I was in one trial where the investigators took the sheetrock from the wall to show blood spatter. Shooting someone before the door or window opens can be a bad thing as well. Suppose they had the wrong house and was trying a key. Maybe they were trying to repo the home. Too many potentials. Just wait til the window or door has been opened by force so felony intent is there.

in many states your right to repel with deadly force an attempted forced entry into your home is still legal and in a few states it has been reinstituted.

__________________
I'm only allowed 30 characters

Please note the wording in my post:
"In Louisiana homicide is justafiable by someone INSIDE" etc etc
Steve W

All I can say is that I would not have fired in this case UNLESS I saw that the perp was armed with a firearm AND/OR he kept his hands where I could see them and didn't start fumbling around in his pockets.

1. What kind of firearm did Hayes and Kommisarjevsky use to slaughter the doctor's family in Connecticut?
2. How about if he had a 12" hunting knife instead of a gun?

Once you break into my home with ANYTHING that can reasonably construed as a weapon, you should expect to be shot.

And in Kommisarjevsky's own words:

At least twice in my life I would have been fully justified shooting three different people in my house. I didnt and handeled it my own way and police never got involved.

It seems like we're all playing armchair expert here. To tell the truth, does anyone here really think that a better outcome could have happened given the stress of the situation the home owner encountered? At 3 am with 2 guys trying to get in your house....it's dark, you know it isn't the welcome wagon outside, there's a wife and 2 kids to think about, and you need to do something fast. Yeah he could have yelled at these guys...but he also could have been shot when he yelled. At least the bad guy got the worst of it this time, unlike the Komisarjefsky tragedy.