Alk8944
US Veteran
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.
(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.
