Utah man arrested for shooting at FLEEING burglars

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have little sympathy for criminals
None of us here do. Not one scrap of it. But the laws are written very specifically for very specific reasons. The only reason a citizen can ever use deadly force (outside of one state which has some limited further contingencies) is to stop an immediate, active, direct, realistic threat to his or her life, or the life of another person (who would be acting within their rights to do the same him or herself).

Revenge, stopping what "might happen later," defending items of property, making sure there aren't any witnesses, and all other reasons for assaulting and/or killing someone are completely UNLAWFUL. Felonies that can carry long-term jail sentences. You really do need to understand the VERY FEW instances where you'd be acting within the law to draw and/or fire your gun at another person. As we say, no one else can see your halo. A "good guy" can become a "bad guy" (criminal, felon, murderer) with one bad decision.

It seems our country gives criminals more rights than law abiding citizens.
Meaning no disrespect, that's something a lot of people say when they find out they really can't kill another person for trespassing or theft, or some other minor crime. The laws surrounding these issues have been set in the "Western" justice system for many hundreds of years. This isn't NEW stuff, but most folks just have never taken the time to understand it. And TV and movies have been horrible teachers for generations.

In my opinion, any time a person who has robbed you is within your visual range, it's defense.
And that opinion, if acted upon, would put a "good" person in jail for many years. PLEASE study and understand these things if you carry a gun or keep one at home for defense. Take a class, read some books by self-defense experts. Do whatever it takes to understand the law.

And, how many criminals run, stop, turn around then start firing rounds when you let your guard down? Has that never happened?
That surely has happened. (It MUST have happened at least once or twice.) But the belief that someone MIGHT do that doesn't change anything about your lawful reasons for self-defense. If they actually DO that, you'll have the same justification to respond with force as when they enacted their first assault. I'd recommend using the intervening time to MOVE. The gun doesn't make you bullet proof and if they're fleeing, your justification is gone.

HOME and SELF-DEFENSE IS NOT A FREE-FIRE WAR ZONE WHERE ANYONE IS DECLARED HOSTILE. You cannot shoot/kill someone unless in that moment they are trying to harm and/or kill you or someone else.

Who judges what a threat is?
A JURY.
In a self defense case you will have to present an "affirmative defense." That means, NOT innocent until proven guilty. Instead it means, "I did this thing. I shot/killed a man, which is against the law, but I HAD to because of X,Y,Z..." If your affirmative defense matches what the law grants (you were in reasonable, realistic, fear of immediate death at the hands of the person you shot, etc.), and if the jury finds your story believable, your guilt for killing him is absolved. If they do not, you are guilty of some form of criminal homicide.

The same people who say the 2A is not applicable anymore in the 21st century?
All you are ever promised is a "fair and impartial" jury. What they think about the 2nd Amendment you can't know ahead of time, and should not have anything to do with the case. It may, of course, in a tangential way, but it won't be at issue in your trial. You won't be judged on the 2nd Amendment. You'll be judged against your state's laws against manslaughter and murder.

Just think, one day that person may enter the house of a person and kill an entire family or rape somebody. Most criminals don't just stop with you and are rarely caught immediately.
Utterly and WHOLLY irrelevant. You are NOT the jury and executioner that will "take them off the streets for GOOD." Your ONLY right in this situation is to stop someone from killing you in this instant.
 
Wasnt there a case years back when a US border patrol officer tried to apprehend a running Mexican and he went across the border and tried to flip his hand to the US border patrol. The officer thought it was a gun and he shot the guy? It was big news ...
 
Wasnt there a case years back when a US border patrol officer tried to apprehend a running Mexican and he went across the border and tried to flip his hand to the US border patrol. The officer thought it was a gun and he shot the guy? It was big news ...
Yes, if it is the same case, I believe it was on tape of photographed as well. They were actually throwing bricks which could have been a deadly weapon as well. Once again, I do remember a case of that sort. Not sure it is the same one or not.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...k-throwers-in-mexico-and-three-have-died.html

Hmm, maybe not the same case you are talking about.
 
Sam1911 said:
And that opinion, if acted upon, would put a "good" person in jail for many years. PLEASE study and understand these things if you carry a gun or keep one at home for defense. Take a class, read some books by self-defense experts. Do whatever it takes to understand the law.
Sam.. I completely agree with you 100%..

I was sharing you my ethical opinions. I have read books and taken many classes and everything I have written was merely my opinion of how things would be in what I feel would be a perfect society.

As for me.. I would never shoot a fleeing intruder.. That is ludicrous. Not because I think it is entirely wrong (in some cases), but I know that I can be convicted of Murder for doing so and it wouldn't be worth spending my life in prison over such a thing.

Sorry, that you misunderstood the point I was making. I guess I should just leave ethical opinions out of my posts.

My goal is to be 100% law-abiding citizen. That doesn't mean I agree with the way things work 100%.


Sam1911 said:
HOME and SELF-DEFENSE IS NOT A FREE-FIRE WAR ZONE WHERE ANYONE IS DECLARED HOSTILE. You cannot shoot/kill someone unless in that moment they are trying to harm and/or kill you or someone else.
I think this is a response for a statement, I, myself blew up a little bit about what a "threat" can be classified. Ethically, not legally, just my opinion, anytime a criminal is still in your house, regardless if he acts like he is fleeing, he is still very much a threat. If he is 50 yds down the street and you start taking shots and risk harming your neighbors, then obviously, you become more of a threat than he does. I still think the laws are unjust, giving more protection to criminals than law-abiding. What if instead of fleeing to the door, he runs to my child's room and takes her hostage? I thought he was fleeing, so therefore, I had no means to stop him.

Once again, if I saw an intruder fleeing I would give him the benefit of the doubt, because that is what the Law says to do. Does it mean I think it is ethical? No. Thankfully I don't have any children, as I think people with children would risk breaking such laws much more than myself, out of fear and panic for the safety of their loved ones.


Sam1911 said:
Utterly and WHOLLY irrelevant. You are NOT the jury and executioner that will "take them off the streets for GOOD." Your ONLY right in this situation is to stop someone from killing you in this instant.
Everything I have written here is totally irrelevant with regards to the Law. What I wrote here is simply opinion of the ethics behind the laws that I will 100% fully follow and abide by, but which I feel are not rational, ethical and perhaps, not even constitutional.

I am just writing my opinion about laws that protect thieves and burglars and how I don't agree with the ethics behind them. I do believe everyone MUST follow the law of the land, even if they don't agree with it.


If I was in a situation where an intruder was in my house, I would be secured in my bedroom with my firearm and dialing 911 and shouting for the intruder to leave. If I had children, my goal would first be their safety. That is where things would be much more challenging. The jury will decide if the life of the burgler or your children are more important, if for some reason, that person gets between you and your children.

Here's an interesting question that I would like to ask people here who have kids. What would you do if an intruder was fleeing in the direction of your crying child's bedroom, that also may be the direction of the door/window out of the house. You are terrified and wondering if he will leave or go to your child's bedroom. What would be going through your head? Just know if you shoot the intruder in the back and tell a jury you were protecting your children, depending on what county/state you live in, you may still be deemed a "murderer".
 
Last edited:
Sam.. I completely agree with you 100%..

I was sharing you my ethical opinions. I have read books and taken many classes and everything I have written was merely my opinion of how things would be in what I feel would be a perfect society.

As for me.. I would never shoot a fleeing intruder.. That is ludicrous. Not because I think it is entirely wrong (in some cases), but I know that I can be convicted of Murder for doing so and it wouldn't be worth spending my life in prison over such a thing.

Sorry, that you misunderstood the point I was making. I guess I should just leave ethical opinions out of my posts.

My goal is to be 100% law-abiding citizen. That doesn't mean I agree with the way things work 100%.



I think this is a response for a statement, I, myself blew up a little bit about what a "threat" can be classified. Ethically, not legally, just my opinion, anytime a criminal is still in your house, regardless if he acts like he is fleeing, he is still very much a threat. If he is 50 yds down the street and you start taking shots and risk harming your neighbors, then obviously, you become more of a threat than he does. I still think the laws are unjust, giving more protection to criminals than law-abiding. What if instead of fleeing to the door, he runs to my child's room and takes her hostage? I thought he was fleeing, so therefore, I had no means to stop him.

Once again, if I saw an intruder fleeing I would give him the benefit of the doubt, because that is what the Law says to do. Does it mean I think it is ethical? No. Thankfully I don't have any children, as I think people with children would risk breaking such laws much more than myself, out of fear and panic for the safety of their loved ones.



Everything I have written here is totally irrelevant with regards to the Law. What I wrote here is simply opinion of the ethics behind the laws that I will 100% fully follow and abide by, but which I feel are not rational, ethical and perhaps, not even constitutional.

I am just writing my opinion about laws that protect thieves and burglars and how I don't agree with the ethics behind them. I do believe everyone MUST follow the law of the land, even if they don't agree with it.


If I was in a situation where an intruder was in my house, I would be secured in my bedroom with my firearm and dialing 911 and shouting for the intruder to leave. If I had children, my goal would first be their safety. That is where things would be much more challenging. The jury will decide if the life of the burgler or your children are more important, if for some reason, that person gets between you and your children.

Here's an interesting question that I would like to ask people here who have kids. What would you do if an intruder was fleeing in the direction of your crying child's bedroom, that also may be the direction of the door/window out of the house. You are terrified and wondering if he will leave or go to your child's bedroom. What would be going through your head? Just know if you shoot the intruder in the back and tell a jury you were protecting your children, depending on what county/state you live in, you may still be deemed a "murderer".
Running to your daughter's room and taking a hostage is not fleeing. Keeping with the story of the OP, he shot at a car fleeing and a person fleeing. That will be very hard to prove a self defense situation if not impossible. Even police are prohibited in that situation. He deserves his day in court, but it does not look like it will be pretty.
 
Utah does have Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. (We had it before it was cool.) You are allowed to use deadly force if someone is ATTEMPTING to gain entry, either by violence or by stealth, with the intent to commit a felony. That does not cover someone who is fleeing.

He is being charged with misdemeanors.
 
These articles have more information:
http://www.standard.net/stories/201...rested-shooting-handgun-burglary-suspect-fled
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...hots-in-burglary-of-his-house-police-say.html

It seems the homeowner fired a shot at the accomplices as they tried to flee in a vehicle. He then held the first burglar at gunpoint until an officer arrived on the scene. Then the homeowner turned to talk to the officer, the burglar made a break for it. The homeowner then gave chase and fired into an empty field.
 
These articles have more information:
http://www.standard.net/stories/201...rested-shooting-handgun-burglary-suspect-fled
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...hots-in-burglary-of-his-house-police-say.html

It seems the homeowner fired a shot at the accomplices as they tried to flee in a vehicle. He then held the first burglar at gunpoint until an officer arrived on the scene. Then the homeowner turned to talk to the officer, the burglar made a break for it. The homeowner then gave chase and fired into an empty field.
Sounds like a plea deal will be made and the case will go away. Fortunately, no felony involved at this point. With a good lawyer, he should be able to keep his guns hopefully. Perhaps shooting in city limits or something like that. Just a guess, I ain't no lawyer.

Not an ideal encounter at all. The police are already on the scene, let them handle the guy running away. Shooting at a car, not a smart thing unless it looks like it is coming at you used as a weapon.
 
Thank you, that is why I posted this. Just because a crime is committed, even the police are not allowed to shoot at a fleeing suspect. I can't remember the SCOTUS decision on that, but we learned about it in all three of my CCW classes.
Unless you're a US Marshall shooting at a 15yr old boy fleeing.
 
You can't shoot someone for what they MIGHT do sometime later...

If you look deeper at it, this is the whole genesis of why we *DON'T* want the universal background check or magazine limits. We don't want to be punished for what might happen.

Laws aren't in place to prevent crime. Laws are in place to define crime for subsequent prosecution. Social mores are the ordinary mechanism societies use to prevent crimes.

But back to this particular shooting, while the venue and details are different, it's probably going to look a lot like the case of the pharmacist who shot the drug store bandit some years ago. It was following him outside that did him in.

I don't know if these assailants are in mortal danger or not. But the theory is at least similar from an ethical analysis.

Edit: Ok, so it's resolving into a misdemeanor. Good.
 
Sorry, but shooting folks in the back is NOT self defense.

While shooting folks in flight may not be considered self defense or even legal, the location of impact itself is not a legal stipulation of self defense. In fact, there do not appear to be any US laws stipulating shot placement as a criterion for self defense and numerous shootings where the BG has been shot in the back have been ruled as justified under the guise of self defense laws. I noted a couple in post 42 here...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=600836&page=2&highlight=shot+in+back

Also
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=286786&highlight=shot+in+back

Shot in back during home invasion whilst fleeing cops after bank robbery
http://www.folsomtelegraph.com/arti...nk-robber-shot-back-sacramento-sheriff-deputy

Assuming the criteria for self defense and lethal force are met, then the location of the impact isn't salient despite all the TV westerns that claim otherwise. Remember that self defense includes the defense of others. For example, Larry Phillips was shot in the back during the North Hollywood Bank of America robbery, the shot severing his spine. Just prior to the incident, he had been engaging officers in front of him when and officer approached from behind and fired the shot. The shot was in self defense.

As such, the blanket statement that shooting somebody in the back isn't self defense isn't necessarily true just as shooting somebody in the front isn't necessarily self defense either.
 
Getting arrested in the not the same thing as getting charged, indicted, or convicted. It maybe that he is arrested/charged/indicted/acquitted.

That being said, people do not turn into Satan when the violate the law. In modern society there is this view that when someone does something bad, that they are "evil personified", not even human really, nothing like the rest of us, monsters! Kind of strange that we laugh at past societies because many believed just that, criminals were literal demons.

Most shooting events, are like the Zimmerman shooting and unless they are breaking into your house or some other clear cut situation, the same result will likely happen, you will be arrested. Remember that no one is going to see Satan as the perp in the cold light of day. Keep Calm, Move On... Batman is a comic book hero.
 
I think anyone in the commission of a crime should be fair game and should not have any recourse in courts for injuries sustained in that criminal act. It is time to quit coddling law breakers.
 
I think anyone in the commission of a crime should be fair game and should not have any recourse in courts for injuries sustained in that criminal act. It is time to quit coddling law breakers.
So you can observe what you think is going on and then act as a one-man judge, jury, and executioner. That sounds very reasonable, and couldn't possibly contradict the last like 500 years of law.
 
It seems our country gives criminals more rights than law abiding citizens.

How exactly is preventing anyone from shooting anyone in retreat "giving the criminal more rights than law abiding citizens?" You'll need to explain that to me.



In my opinion, any time a person who has robbed you is within your visual range, it's defense.

My opinion, as a motorcyclist, is that anyone who even looks at their phone, touches their makeup or lunch in their car while driving should be sent to jail for 20 years without trial.

The thing is, my opinion is not a substitute for the law.


And, how many criminals run, stop, turn around then start firing rounds when you let your guard down? Has that never happened? Who judges what a threat is? The same people who say the 2A is not applicable anymore in the 21st century?

They're called your peers. There will be 12 of them. And their opinions are no substitute for the law either.
 
Personally, I really really really don't ever want to shoot anyone. Even if I catch someone in my house, they're welcome to the TV, stereo, computer.. whatever they can carry as long as they don't threaten me or my loved ones. Once they DO become a threat, then I will do what is necessary to protect.

I realize you can never be assured that a thief in your house will not try to harm you, but that is why I have a plan that takes me through several locked doors to a stronghold with a shooting advantage. If I'm able to get there and someone follows me, I'm pretty sure they mean to do me harm.
 
They're called your peers.
As an aside: technically not really. The 6th Amendment promises you a speedy and impartial trial, but since the US has no established system of aristocracy, there is no guarantee given that you'll be tried by a jury of those of your social station or who are in any way similar to you.
 
Just so you all know, Surprisingly, Utah does NOT have castle doctrine. None of those justifications apply here.
And, again, if UT DID have C.D. or SYG laws on the books, they wouldn't have anything to do with this case we're discussing.
 
The only times when deliberately shooting someone in the back is legal is when they are endangering or about to endanger someone else (i.e., headed into the room they are in) or headed to a location with weapons.
 
stand your ground and the castle doctrine

Basicly all these laws do is remove the burden on the self-defender to prove in court that retreat was not an option, and if the evidence reasonably indicates self defense, you stay out of jail until the prosecutor makes a presentment to the grand jury, and only go to jail if they return a true bill on manslaughter or murder.

They don't justify shooting an attacker who breaks off and retreats, or someone fleeing with property, and especially someone fleeing empty handed.
 
So you can observe what you think is going on and then act as a one-man judge, jury, and executioner. That sounds very reasonable, and couldn't possibly contradict the last like 500 years of law.
You mean like it was in the frontier days when they could hang you if caught horse or cattle rustling????... little less than 500 years ago...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top