After a PM from a member and further reading, there may be room for some meaningful discussion here.
March 1, 2012, 10:55 PM
This is part of the article that I would like to see more of:
"The incident was mentioned Thursday morning in the Utah Legislature where the Utah Senate gave preliminary approval to a bill that clarifies a person is justified in defending their home and family against criminal activity and may not be held civilly liable for damage or injury to perpetrators."
March 2, 2012, 09:58 AM
I do not understand how the new laws in Utah really changed anything. Utah already had a castle doctrine. In Utah it has always been legal to open carry. (If this is a wise thing to do so is a whole other topic). Utah has now passed a law stating people open carrying cannot be given a ticket. I do not know if Utah is just making duplicate laws to secure gun rights, or am I missing something?
March 2, 2012, 11:01 AM
Just like North Carolina once was (they have since passed the law mentioned) you could be legally justified in a self defense shooting -- immune from criminal prosecution if you followed the law -- but you can still be sued by the person you shot (or his family). Apparently Utah is considering giving civil immunity as well if the shooting was legally justified.
March 2, 2012, 11:07 AM
As the article notes, another one of those rare 0.9 mm guns. Must be some kind of dart with poison, because 900 microns is a thin projectile.
March 2, 2012, 03:37 PM
It sounds to me that what Utah is proposing is that not only is it difficult for a perp to sue, but if they do sue, they have the burden or proof that they were not there for criminal purposes.
March 2, 2012, 05:59 PM
Castle Doctrine, in a few states, only protects the Homeowner from criminal liabilities. Castle Doctrine pretty much was instituted to make it much more difficult for a DA to bring charges against a homeowner for defending themselves in their own home. Which, as we all know, can be very expensive as far as legal fees and such even if completely innocent of any wrong doing. Most states with Castle Doctrine either amended or, instituted when they made the law, to protect the homeowner against civil liabilities as well. Many people have lost everything because of legal fees for simply defending their lives. These amendments have really saved a lot of people that headache.
Romeo 33 Delta
March 2, 2012, 10:13 PM
That was the main purpose, I believe, behind Wisconsin's recently signed-into-law Castle Doctrine. Prior to that, we had a "duty to retreat" (problematic for me since I'm disabled and NOT able to "outrun" a bad guy).
While I'm not aware that anyone in Wisconsin had been sued prior to the new law ... having that extra protection in law sure does make a body feel better in the event of a "worst case". We got the best of both ... no duty to retreat, we can protect our homes, property, vehicles, and those of others and we are protected from civil suits! Bravo Zulu to our legislators and governor who made this possible.,
March 4, 2012, 08:49 AM
Yep it should be universally acknowledged that you need to protect yourself and family first and that anyone attempting to harm you should realize they no longer have any rights if they attempt to do so. That said defending yourself anywhere with a firearm when your life is in immediate danger should be no more of a problem than swatting a fly. That includes protection from frivolous lawsuits by the perpetrators. This needs to be uniform within all 50 states AND DC.:)
If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting home invasion story" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!