When two gunmen smashed through the front glass door...

Oh, now the backtracking starts. Now who sounds like a lawyer?

So morally you approve government-sanctioned killing but not individual-sanctioned killing? I see. You my friend trust your government a little too much. America's distrust for central government does not come from the inherent nature of our form of democracy, it's born out of the history of oppression that led to our founding.

 

You are referring, of course, to the oppression of the indegenous peoples of North America, aren't you?
(most of the land was taken by force of arms)
The colonists weren't really oppressed too much by mother England, at least not by way of musket volleys.

PS, I don't believe in government-sanctioned killing. Nor do I particularly trust "the government" (US or NZ).

I think the perception that guns can be used to solve disputes or for protection is a myth perpetuated by movies and TV.
I thought guns usually wind up killing members of the household in which they are kept.

PPS I was raised with guns around the house. Was given my first rifle at 9.
Decided I didn't need them when I grew up and moved away from the farm.
Have a farm again, but still haven't need anything more than an air rifle as yet.
No offense intended, just another perspective.

 

Your government has tanks and guided missiles. It has aircraft that are gone before the rockets it carries hit its targets so if you feel you have some power against a corrupt government with a few hand held fire arms good luck to you.

What can you do about lawyers JamesWyatt? It isn't legal to shoot them just because they are lawyers you know.

 

There is a certain irony here not to be lost. We are the "good guys" spreading peace loving freedom and democracy throughout the world, telling other people how they should live their lives. But at home we need to keep an AK in the closet in case our own peaceful freedom loving democracy tries to get uppity and tell us what to do.

I've never wrapped my head around that paradox.

How dare you suggest that America is not the greatest country in the world, but I need to keep a gun in case it turns out not to be. Obama is a traitor and terrorists because he knew someone that once suggested those being abused by the government should overthrow it, but I am a patriot for keeping a stash of arms in the basement in case I at some point decide we need to overthrow the democratically elected government of this nation.

Sorry, don't get it.

Rob

 

Good point Rob, the worlds greatest democracy, yeah right!

 

People seldom murder strangers. If you are going to be murdered, the odds are very good that it will be by a member of your household. If you kill yourself, by definition you are a member of the household and also fall into this category. This is true with or without guns. The bad part about guns is that they make killing easier. It's easier to pick up a loaded firearm and shoot someone in an act of anger than to strangle them with your bare hands.

Anti-gun groups like to roll these family murder and suicide figures into the overall statistics and imply that owning a gun increases your chances of being killed by a stranger. They imply that some crazed person is going to break into your house, pry your firearm from your trembling fingers, rape your wife, eat your kids, and kill you with your own firearm - all because you own a gun. Does it ever happen? Sure. Is it likely? No. Ordinary thieves avoid confrontation, especially with armed home owners.

Tom

 

I think that's a whole 'nuther issue not even considered here yet.

 

Wildkow

 

Kow

Sarcasm aside, let's just agree that in the future, you either follow through or not bother with a confrontation. With an attitude like yours, you will end up dead or seriously f***ed up

Utah had the original "make my day" laws regarding defense of property and person. As with the rest of the US, defense of person is far more important that real property, and is so written

Utah Code Section 76-2-406

However, the tricky area is that in the defense of one's real property, what if that person then faces a threat against their life? You will usually - not always - get off in that case.

Consider this sneaky exemption, if somebody happens to "stealthly" enter your real property or habitation

Utah Code Section 76-2-405

There are other Utah codes that apply

Utah Code Section 76-2-402

Utah Code Section 76-2-401

This one is the usual justification for use of terminal force

Utah Code Section 76-2-407

I'll reiterate: if you go looking for trouble, you will find trouble. I know when to back away and let the pro's deal with it, and when to get involved.

jay

 

Jay, let me make this clear to you because you have alluded several times to my "attitude" and the fact that I was pulling a "stunt" looking for "trouble" or seeking this "confrontation", I was not. Kapeesh? If you reread my original post you will see that I called the "Pro's" and they stated that they could not help and in fact never did come. I went with what I had and felt I could do at the time and the result turned out to be something I can live with. Your attitude of not bothering to enter a confrontation to aid a friend and/or neighbor, I find distasteful to my palate.

Additionally, Colorado not Utah was the originator of "Make My Day" law in the USA. This law also referred to as the "Castle Doctrine" was adopted from English Common Law. Nor is it called either of those in Utah, it's referred to as the "stand your ground" principle. This principle specifically states that a person does not have a duty to retreat from a place (real property) where a person has lawfully entered or remains. Unlike the "Make My Day" or "Castle Doctrine" which applies only to a person in his/her own home. It's also in the "Utah Code" not the state constitution.

Neither concept AFAIK allows the use of "deadly or terminal" force to protect property. Therefore, if for example, you discovered someone out in a parking lot breaking into your Prius you could not use "deadly force" to prevent that taking unless you were inside the Prius at the time of the entry or were otherwise put in jeopardy of life or serious injury during the taking. Furthermore, many states have a clause attached to their protection laws that limits or prevents civil lawsuits for damages.



Wildkow

 

Face it, once you picked up your shotgun, you went looking for a confrontation. Why didn't this "friend" of yours assist, or did you have an agreement that in the worst case scenario, your friend would pay for a pricey lawyer?

So you think I'm a coward who wouldn't assist a friend/neighbor facing danger? I'm ex-Army with combat training, in a fight I know how to look after myself. I also know my limits, and what I can reasonably expect from the law, especially here in Canada.

If you think I'll put my cubes on a chopping block for nothing, think again. Property isn't worth it. However, video surveillance of property *is* worth it, the few times I've had to go to court with it, the decision is pretty much automatic.

Folks will spend thousands on trinkets and useless things, a very high quality digital video system with night vision can be installed yourself for under $2,000. Just the ease of an eventual court case makes such a system worth it. Hint: have a UPS so momentary power bumps don’t crash the system

If a friend or neighbor is facing personal injury, I'll use my training to assist. Matter of fact, I have, and the "alleged perpetrator" suffered badly as a result. If an "alleged perpetrator" is tagging graffiti on the garage door, that isn't worth a confrontation. Just show the video evidence to the police, they’ll eventually track down and deal with the people

As far as most property crimes, the police could give a s***. Judges could give a s***. So right there you have 2 strikes against you. Then you have a choice to make, either let it go or follow through, to the bitter end.

Some folks think they can tote a gun around and go looking for trouble. In many cases, they will find trouble, and it ends badly. I trust you know when to stand your ground, and when to back down. It does tell me something that the police couldn't be bothered to come out, either they thought the event was a non-event, or they are so corrupt you had better consider a move to a safer locale

As far as Utah, it has historically had and still has Castle Doctrine. CO was the first state to specifically codify that, which the State of Utah saw no need to do so until much later: it was already a "given" and assumed you could use whatever means and force necessary to protect your life and your property - within reasonable limits. Eg: if a child brushes up against your car or wanders onto your property, you do *not* use force

I suggest you contact your local NRA chapter and determine the extent - implied - of Utah statute wrt "stand your ground."

 

This is the part of your quote that bugs me:

"because I don’t want to shoot/kill someone over property"

So Wth are you doing walking around with a shotgun, looking for a confrontation? The only time I have been in a confrontation - helping a neighbor - over property, we had a strict man-to-man agreement to not get anybody official involved. We just really worked over the person involved, and that person decided to have a change of heart and no longer damage/steal property that didn't belong to him

I have to wonder about the competance of your police force. In the community I now live in, if I were to hear a breakin, or my alarm would go off, and I called the police to state "somebody is breaking into my home" there would be 3-4 cruisers screeching to a stop in front of my home, within 5 mins. What could possibly be higher priority than a break in, except a homicide in progress?

At least, that has been their track record around here. Winnipeg itself is iffy, and yes there are politics involved in that. Eg blinders on refusing to accept there is a problem, so if we refuse to see the problem, there *is* no problem. And isn't that the essence of politics??