View Full Version : home invasion - I hope he is not charged.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50630730-76/homeowner-hutson-kearns-police.html.csp
Police have identified a 19-year-old man fatally shot as he was attempting to burglarize a Kearns home Monday.
Kyle Stuart Poulton, most recently living in Kearns, was pronounced dead at the scene, according to Unified Police Department Lt. Don Hutson.
The shooting occurred about 3 a.m. at a home near 5600 South and 5100 West. The homeowner saw a man trying to enter his sliding glass window and fired a pistol once at him through the glass, said Hutson.
The intruder ran away, and when officers responded they found Poulton’s body next to the road, Hutson said. Poulton had one bullet wound to the chest.
“All the evidence is consistent with what [the homeowner] presented,” Hutson said.
Hutson said the homeowner had answered a ring at his doorbell about 1½ hours earlier but found no one there. The homeowner was investigating strange noises when he found the man at the glass door, Hutson said. The man had opened a sliding screen door and was trying to open the glass door.
Police were still investigating the shooting Monday morning. No arrests have been made. In general, Utah law permits the use of force against home intruders.
Neighbors in the area said Monday they support the homeowner and hope no charges are filed against him.
“I don’t think anyone can say what they would do, until they are put in that position,”said Anndra Modrcin, a neighbor and friend of the homeowners since they moved across the street about two years ago. “I can’t even imagined being that position.”
Modrcin, along with the homeowner, are members of a neighborhood watch. She and others described the family as good people who keep to themselves, home school their children, and don’t have other relatives in the area.
Another neighbor down the street, Ron Benefiel, called the shooting “justified.”
“If he was breaking in, he had the legal right to protect his kids,” Benefiel said.
Poulton’s family, who also live in Kearns, were not available for comment late Monday morning.
Here is the crucial fact:
The homeowner saw a man trying to enter his sliding glass window and fired a pistol once at him through the glass
I bet that guy in Connecticut wishes he had shot the home invaders through the glass, criminal charges or not.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeast/view/20101108jury_continues_to_deliberate_steven_hayes_fate/format=comments&position=also
ThirdWatcher
11-08-10, 18:27
The way I see it, the homeowner had more than the right to protect his children... he had the duty to protect them. In addition, I believe he had a good reason to fear for his safety (and that of his family).
Bolt_Overide
11-09-10, 02:46
On the face of it, I beleive he was justified. I just hope that he doesnt get stuck with some closet liberal prick of a prosecutor who trys to make his spurs on this.
Bobert0989
11-09-10, 05:25
On the face of it, I beleive he was justified. I just hope that he doesnt get stuck with some closet liberal prick of a prosecutor who trys to make his spurs on this.
+1 here.
Only thing they could try to push was the fact that he hadn't yet opened the door. I probably would've shot too, but a prosecutor will try to prove whether or not he actually "feared for his life" if the guy did not brandish a weapon, nor could actually open the door. I fear it will turn into a "should've called the police" scenario, instead of a "man defends home and family" case. I hope not, but it is possible in today's society.
Like I said, I probably would've shot as well, to defend my family and home, but I do not know that for sure until I am put into that situation. Everyone's eyes are different...
~Bobby
John_Wayne777
11-09-10, 06:48
Without knowing the exact circumstances of what took place it's difficult to tell whether or not I would have made the same decision. Generally I would wait until the bad guy has actually succeeded in gaining entry into my home before using lethal force...but the accumulated jurisprudence in other areas may make pulling the trigger while the break-in is in progress preferable to waiting until the guy has succeeded.
The benefit of any doubt, however, should go to the guy who was in his own home minding his own business rather than the assclown who didn't belong there.
Rmplstlskn
11-09-10, 07:56
On the bright side of it... He and his family are safe and he didn't have to replace any carpet or flooring from where the bad guy bled out...
I think that case in Conn. and the brutality of it, will help people who use lethal force for now on.... I hope.
Rmpl
My personal feelings on the subject, regardless of what the law says anywhere, is they are trying to break in. They aren't there to sell you Girl Scout Cookies and you have no way to know if they are just wanting to steal your TV or rape and murder every person there.
I say good shoot and make him captain of his Neighborhood Watch Team.
Heartland Hawk
11-09-10, 09:03
I wonder how far the intruder was into the process of forcing /trying to open the door.
John_Wayne777
11-09-10, 09:27
They aren't there to sell you Girl Scout Cookies
I don't know why, but my mind just lit up with the image of someone militantly pushing Girl Scout Cookies.
"THIN MINTS!!! YOU WILL TAKE THESE THIN MINTS, DAMN YOU!!!"
...then a box of thin mints attached to a brick smashes through the glass door. The homeowner runs away, but the intruder pulls out a funnel and a box of caramel treasures....
"THESE COOKIES ARE GOING IN YOU, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!!"
This was on the radio here yesterday (being local). The radio news announcer stressed each time they gave the story or an update that Utah law allowed the use of force in defending ones home.
Hopefully that is an indication of how this will turn out for the guy...
citizensoldier16
11-09-10, 12:30
Does Utah have a Castle Doctrine?
Does Utah have a Castle Doctrine?
According to wikipedia it does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law
Clicking Utah pulls up the code
ThirdWatcher
11-09-10, 14:46
My personal feelings on the subject, regardless of what the law says anywhere, is they are trying to break in. They aren't there to sell you Girl Scout Cookies and you have no way to know if they are just wanting to steal your TV or rape and murder every person there.
I say good shoot and make him captain of his Neighborhood Watch Team.
I agree. Productive law-abiding citizens don't try to break into people's homes at 0300 hrs. As a LEO that works the nightshift, I ALWAYS identify myself as a police officer when I contact a residence after dark.
Without knowing the exact circumstances of what took place it's difficult to tell whether or not I would have made the same decision. Generally I would wait until the bad guy has actually succeeded in gaining entry into my home before using lethal force...but the accumulated jurisprudence in other areas may make pulling the trigger while the break-in is in progress preferable to waiting until the guy has succeeded.
The benefit of any doubt, however, should go to the guy who was in his own home minding his own business rather than the assclown who didn't belong there.
Any scenario can be twisted.
The prosecutor would simply state how you "laid in wait" to assassinate the man who for all you knew was unarmed. He would say how if you had the presence of mind to wait until he entered you could have exercised other options such as shouting a warning which would save lives or calling 911 and possibly getting help in time.
There is no end the the ridiculous "what ifs" that can be applied against a home defender no matter what you do. This is why all such distortions should simply never be tolerated when a person is defending their home from criminals.
They should address threats as soon as they are able and not have to worry about playing silly legal games.
John_Wayne777
11-09-10, 17:19
The prosecutor would simply state how you "laid in wait" to assassinate the man who for all you knew was unarmed. He would say how if you had the presence of mind to wait until he entered you could have exercised other options such as shouting a warning which would save lives or calling 911 and possibly getting help in time.
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of not shooting because he hadn't broken in yet and using other methods to dissuade him from entering when...assuming that the 12 gauge aimed at him is insufficient motivation for him to cease and desist. (911 gets called the moment I'm aware someone is trying to break in) If none of that gets through his thick little noggin...well...that's why firearms have triggers.
They should address threats as soon as they are able and not have to worry about playing silly legal games.
It's not a "silly legal game". Lethal force is something that is only justified by an exigency. In many jurisdictions, a guy inside your house is an exigency while a guy who is still outside your house is not.
Personally I couldn't care less whether someone ventilates an intruder who is actually in their house versus one who is trying to get in...but judges, juries, and prosecutors tend to care about that sort of thing quite a bit. Therefore it's wise to know the laws and judicial application of them in your area and to set some guidelines for yourself ahead of time to ensure that you don't have to beat criminal charges after you've beaten the bad guy.
It's not a "silly legal game". Lethal force is something that is only justified by an exigency. In many jurisdictions, a guy inside your house is an exigency while a guy who is still outside your house is not.
Personally I couldn't care less whether someone ventilates an intruder who is actually in their house versus one who is trying to get in...but judges, juries, and prosecutors tend to care about that sort of thing quite a bit. Therefore it's wise to know the laws and judicial application of them in your area and to set some guidelines for yourself ahead of time to ensure that you don't have to beat criminal charges after you've beaten the bad guy.
It's a silly legal game in the sense that it is a consideration one shouldn't even be required to make if you have somebody trying to break into your home. Nobody should have to deal with such a threat in the first place, the fact that you have to play the "will I get arrested if I do this" song and dance at all is just a further victimization of the individual who shouldn't have to deal with any of this uninvited nonsense in the first place.
If somebody is trying to break into your home they are the exact same kind of threat whether they are inside yet or not. The distinction is an absurd one kinda like attempted murder vs. successful murder. The notion that a person gets in less trouble for incompetence of murder is a similar example of the ridiculousness of our legal system. Just as the murderer is just as dangerous to you regardless of if he succeeds or fails in his attempt, somebody trying to break into your home (especially if you are there) is the same exact threat before they get into your home as they are once they are inside. They mean you exactly the same amount of harm in both locations.
Thankfully FL laws mean I don't have to play as many games in that situation.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.