Utah man arrested for shooting at FLEEING burglars

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...

Click to expand...

An overstated popular belief that, where it did happen, was largely an effect of folks operating OUTSIDE the effective rule of law, not within it. When folks took the duty of judgment and the execution of sentence into their own hands it was often known as lynching and was indeed completely illegal.

In MI you are not allowed to shoot anyone stealing property outside your house.
If you were to run out & start a gun fight outside you would be held as the criminal. You have to sit there & watch them steal. you could run out with a baseball bat but that would be a big mistake in most cases.
If you are in your house or in your car you can open fire if they break in or try to steal your car.
You can't shoot at a criminal running away unless he has killed or shot someone.
Remember--anything can be contested in court.

In the local coverage here, the first shot was fired at the fleeing car. The second shot was fired in the general direction the other suspect fleeing into the field _after_ the police had already arrived.

If the suspect still had the crowbar in his hand and was facing me on the front lawn, he'd have exactly one chance to drop it, which this guy did. There was also some time that elapsed between that event and the police arriving.

He's been charged with two counts of Reckless Endangerment, which is a Class 'A' misdemeanor since the homeowner stated that he wasn't trying to hurt/kill anyone, just trying to disable the vehicle with the first shot and scare the perp into stopping with the second shot. At least that's what he told the police. :banghead: In that statement, he effectively admitted that he wasn't within the law in Utah to fire the gun.

My guess is that the charges will be reduced and he'll get a slap on the wrist. I think he made a really dumb decision, twice. I know that Utah law states that reckless endangerment can be a felony if committed with a firearm, but I don't think they will go that route.

Matt

Wait. So what I'm hearing here, is if someone breaks into your home, pops a round into you, and turns to leave, your duty is to roll over, die, and not shoot back?
I'm not sure I like this much.

BBQJOE said:

Wait. So what I'm hearing here, is if someone breaks into your home, pops a round into you, and turns to leave, your duty is to roll over, die, and not shoot back?
I'm not sure I like this much.

Click to expand...

There is so much left out of this scenario that it must lead to endless speculation. I'm not sure if you really want to carry on a serious discussion or not. Just to show where this might go:

1) The assailant turns. How do you know it is to leave? Do they still have the opportunity to turn right around and shoot you again, and are you still reasonably in fear of your life? If so, shoot first, and sort it all out later (with the help of an attorney, do not say a thing to the cops).

2) The assailant turns, and starts moving toward an exit. How far must they go before you feel the threat is gone?

3) The assailant is out the door, running away. Are you still wanting to shoot back?

It is all about the perception of mortal threat. Any scenarios you posit where that is gone, you have no moral basis to shoot at them. It is just that simple.

You dont go shooting down your street at a car driving away! and you dont shoot across an open field with houses on the other side. If he would have remained focused on the guy with the crow bar coming out the door and detained him rather than worrying about the car driving away he would have been ok.

Pulling in behind the car in the driveway would have held the car; he then could have dealt with the guy coming out the house. IMO

Nalgi said:

You dont go shooting down your street at a car driving away!

Click to expand...

Way too many movies and cop shows promote this.

mljdeckard said:

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.

Click to expand...

I didn't think Utah had "Castle Doctrine" like Texas. Utah's code 76-2-405. "Force in defense of habitation" doesn't seem to have as much teeth as other states.

There's a difference between dropping your weapons and surrendering or running away though. The threat is already neutralized if they have surrendered, however they are still a potential threat to either you or someone else if they run away.

Click to expand...

potential threat =/= immediate threat.

if Whitey Bulger moved in next door, that would be a potential threat....but that doesnt mean i can shoot him while hes getting his morning paper.

6 guys standing on the sidewalk outside my house wearing ski masks and holding pipes are a potential threat......however, if they are just standing around not doing anything illegal or threatening, they are not an immediate threat......and i cant justifiably shoot them and claim SD.

the fact is, a man running away from you is not an immediate threat to your well being....and you cant shoot someone because they might come back.

the threat is neutralized when they no longer pose an immediate threat to your life.....whether they run away or surrender is up to them....but you cant shoot them because you dont like their answer.


Edit:

hell, if given the choice, ide rather that they DID run away......because even if they surrender, they are still a potential threat, they may get desperate, change their mind about surrendering and try and fight me for my gun, or even pull a second weapon.......if they run away, its just putting more distance between me and the threat.

im not the police, my job isnt to arrest people.....its my job to protect the well being of myself and my family, and ide rather get any source of danger as far away as possible.

Texas is the only state that extends the protection to property under narrow circumstances.

Shooting a fleeing suspect would generally mean shooting him in the back, right? Sounds a bit cowardly, doesn't it?

I have no "thing" in my house worth putting a bullet into someone, regardless of the law. If he were fleeing with my daughter I might hit her. No, no way I'd take a shot at a fleeing person.

What I find to be the most puzzling aspect of this thread is the lumping of "criminals" into some dehumanized class that effectively, "needs killing", and so many advocate breaking the law in order to do so. In effect, becoming criminals themselves.

That's what makes people criminals - breaking the law. I can guarantee you that everyone of them before they commit whatever act they do that puts them into that class mentally justified it somehow. Their justification is no more valid than yours if you choose to operate outside of the law and criminally attack someone.