Homeowners in Utah are given the right to defend their families and property

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Relapse**

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/utah-law-person-defending-home-cannot-be-sued/article_db3d8712-66ea-11e1-a80c-001871e3ce6c.html

Good call.

**dogma**

I don't know if I agree with the bit about being subsequently found innocent, but I would have to read the law to hold any kind of opinion.

**Joey**

If I lived in Utah I wouldn't visit my neighbours' house unless I knew them VERY well.
"Hey neighbour, fancy watching the game?" HOME INTRUDER *BOOM*.

**Frazzled**

Relapse wrote:http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/utah-law-person-defending-home-cannot-be-sued/article_db3d8712-66ea-11e1-a80c-001871e3ce6c.html

Good call.

Fixed your typo. Government grants nothing we don't already have.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:If I lived in Utah I wouldn't visit my neighbours' house unless I knew them VERY well.
"Hey neighbour, fancy watching the game?" HOME INTRUDER *BOOM*.

But why? There are potential mountain lions in Utah for you to wrassle Joey.
I'd bet their crime levels are substantially lower than anywhere in jolly old London Brit boy.

"An armed society is a polite society."

**AustonT**

Joey wrote:If I lived in Utah I wouldn't visit my neighbours' house unless I knew them VERY well.
"Hey neighbour, fancy watching the game?" HOME INTRUDER *BOOM*.

Maybe you should be more worried if your neighbor has a cougar in a rancor pit.

dogma wrote:I don't know if I agree with the bit about being subsequently found innocent, but I would have to read the law to hold any kind of opinion.

I think they are trying to absolve the homeowner of attempting to "discover" what an intruder is doing...I'm sure it's clumsily written to basically say, "If your in your house you can defend it without consequences(period)"

**biccat**

AustonT wrote:I think they are trying to absolve the homeowner of attempting to "discover" what an intruder is doing...I'm sure it's clumsily written to basically say, "If your in your house you can defend it without consequences(period)"

Looks like it's simply bad reporting:

Link.

A person may not recover from the victim of a crime for personal injury or property
damage if:
(a) the person entered the property of the victim or the victim's family with criminal
intent and the injury or damage was inflicted by the victim or occurred while the person was on
the victim's property; or

(b) the person committed a crime against the victim or the victim's family, during
which the damage or injury occurred.

(2) The provisions of Subsection (1) do not apply if the person can prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the person's actions did not constitute a crime.

The law shifts the burden to the home intruder to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he was not engaged in a crime (misdemeanors and felonies). So the article is technically accurate, you could be found not guilty of the underlying crime and still be unable to recover, but conveys a false impression that there is no remedy for innocent intruders.

**Joey**

Frazzled wrote:
Relapse wrote:http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/utah-law-person-defending-home-cannot-be-sued/article_db3d8712-66ea-11e1-a80c-001871e3ce6c.html

Good call.

Fixed your typo. Government grants nothing we don't already have.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:If I lived in Utah I wouldn't visit my neighbours' house unless I knew them VERY well.
"Hey neighbour, fancy watching the game?" HOME INTRUDER *BOOM*.

But why? There are potential mountain lions in Utah for you to wrassle Joey.
I'd bet their crime levels are substantially lower than anywhere in jolly old London Brit boy.

Well where I live crime is virtually non-existant, as is gun ownership. I can't speak for the fetid squalid blight that is London, however.

**hotsauceman1**

So, If you get a baseball bat. Hit the guy on the knees. Incapacitating him, you can continue wailing on him until he dies and yuo cant be prosecuted?

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:So, If you get a baseball bat. Hit the guy on the knees. Incapacitating him, you can continue wailing on him until he dies and yuo cant be prosecuted?

Of course. Thats just contract negotiation.

**BuFFo**

hotsauceman1 wrote:So, If you get a baseball bat. Hit the guy on the knees. Incapacitating him, you can continue wailing on him until he dies and yuo cant be prosecuted?

Good.

**biccat**

hotsauceman1 wrote:So, If you get a baseball bat. Hit the guy on the knees. Incapacitating him, you can continue wailing on him until he dies and yuo cant be prosecuted?

No.

Well, that's not what this law addresses. Maybe you would be immune from prosecution under some other theory.

**AustonT**

biccat wrote:
AustonT wrote:I think they are trying to absolve the homeowner of attempting to "discover" what an intruder is doing...I'm sure it's clumsily written to basically say, "If your in your house you can defend it without consequences(period)"

Looks like it's simply bad reporting:

Link.

A person may not recover from the victim of a crime for personal injury or property
damage if:
(a) the person entered the property of the victim or the victim's family with criminal
intent and the injury or damage was inflicted by the victim or occurred while the person was on
the victim's property; or

(b) the person committed a crime against the victim or the victim's family, during
which the damage or injury occurred.

(2) The provisions of Subsection (1) do not apply if the person can prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the person's actions did not constitute a crime.

The law shifts the burden to the home intruder to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he was not engaged in a crime (misdemeanors and felonies). So the article is technically accurate, you could be found not guilty of the underlying crime and still be unable to recover, but conveys a false impression that there is no remedy for innocent intruders.

After I posted I read the bill with amendments and saw the House amendment with the innocence clause struck. Depending on when the article was written and when the amendment was struck it might have been factually correct when written. /shrug.

**biccat**

AustonT wrote:After I posted I read the bill with amendments and saw the House amendment with the innocence clause struck. Depending on when the article was written and when the amendment was struck it might have been factually correct when written. /shrug.

The article specifies "felony." So I think the author was working from the latest amended version.

Plus, the article was written more than 1 month after the last update (2/1/2012).

**Samus_aran115**

Joey wrote:If I lived in Utah I wouldn't visit my neighbours' house unless I knew them VERY well.
"Hey neighbour, fancy watching the game?" HOME INTRUDER *BOOM*.

Yeah, really. But now you can keep those pesky Mormon recruiters away!

I thought this was basically law of the land anyway, but that's nice.

**AustonT**

biccat wrote:
AustonT wrote:After I posted I read the bill with amendments and saw the House amendment with the innocence clause struck. Depending on when the article was written and when the amendment was struck it might have been factually correct when written. /shrug.

The article specifies "felony." So I think the author was working from the latest amended version.

Plus, the article was written more than 1 month after the last update (2/1/2012).

Is it lazy of me that I'm unwilling to open the bill back up?
I'm pretty sure that it was amended and not stuck to just read "crime" right? To absolve the homeowner of trying to figure out what kind of crime their home was being invaded to commit?

**Relapse**

Frazzled wrote:
Relapse wrote:http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/utah-law-person-defending-home-cannot-be-sued/article_db3d8712-66ea-11e1-a80c-001871e3ce6c.html

Good call.

Fixed your typo. Government grants nothing we don't already have.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:If I lived in Utah I wouldn't visit my neighbours' house unless I knew them VERY well.
"Hey neighbour, fancy watching the game?" HOME INTRUDER *BOOM*.

But why? There are potential mountain lions in Utah for you to wrassle Joey.
I'd bet their crime levels are substantially lower than anywhere in jolly old London Brit boy.

"An armed society is a polite society."

Not sure what you meant about the typo, because people get sued all the time for protecting their homes.

On a another note, concerning your quote about an armed society, I agree. Nobody has ever read about a shooting spree at a gun show or NRA convention.

**biccat**

AustonT wrote:Is it lazy of me that I'm unwilling to open the bill back up?
I'm pretty sure that it was amended and not stuck to just read "crime" right? To absolve the homeowner of trying to figure out what kind of crime their home was being invaded to commit?

Yes

The law previously read "felony" (with a number of other provisions) and was amended to "crime."

**AustonT**

Having a rather good rememberoy inspires a certain amount of fact checking laziness...I accept that.

**ShumaGorath**

Oh, it's now lawful to kill innocent people with post facto legitimacy (Not like the dead guys gonna get to defend himself) in Utah. Goodie.

**biccat**

ShumaGorath wrote:post facto

Ex post facto or post hoc.

Not post facto.

Also, yes. It's easier to seek forgiveness than to seek permission.

**ShumaGorath**

biccat wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:post facto

Ex post facto or post hoc.

Not post facto.

Also, yes. It's easier to seek forgiveness than to seek permission.

Forgot the Ex. Time to fall on my sword.

**AustonT**

ShumaGorath wrote:Oh, it's now lawful to kill innocent people with post facto legitimacy (Not like the dead guys gonna get to defend himself) in Utah. Goodie.

except that it's not as discussed already in this thread. and clearly shown in the legislation itself.

**Frazzled**

biccat wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:post facto

Ex post facto or post hoc.

Not post facto.

Also, yes. It's easier to seek forgiveness than to seek permission.

Also it is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

**Vulcan**

ShumaGorath wrote:Oh, it's now lawful to kill innocent people with post facto legitimacy (Not like the dead guys gonna get to defend himself) in Utah. Goodie.

Someone breaking into your house with the intention of committing a crime is hardly a definition of innocent I've ever heard of before.

Let's face it. No one in America goes into someone else's house without either being really good friends or recieveing a specific invitation... or with the intent to rob/rape/kill.

**KingCracker**

Agreed. I think the line is pretty clear cut.

**CT GAMER**

Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:So, If you get a baseball bat. Hit the guy on the knees. Incapacitating him, you can continue wailing on him until he dies and yuo cant be prosecuted?

Of course. Thats just contract negotiation.

Besides thats how they keep their gimps in line...

**ShumaGorath**

Vulcan wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Oh, it's now lawful to kill innocent people with post facto legitimacy (Not like the dead guys gonna get to defend himself) in Utah. Goodie.

Someone breaking into your house with the intention of committing a crime is hardly a definition of innocent I've ever heard of before.

Let's face it. No one in America goes into someone else's house without either being really good friends or recieveing a specific invitation... or with the intent to rob/rape/kill.

It's hard to determine intent when the person intending has been killed. You have a time, a place, and you can derive motive by circumstance. That the law allows the dead to defend themselves it pretty great for them now isn't it?

**KingCracker**

So your saying we shouldnt be allowed to shoot to kill, an intruder in our homes, because we dont yet know the extent of why they are illegally in said homes? Am I reading that right?

**Emerett**

This law will get interesting when a homeowner shoots some hotshot cop that lets himself in.

**ShumaGorath**

KingCracker wrote:So your saying we shouldnt be allowed to shoot to kill, an intruder in our homes, because we dont yet know the extent of why they are illegally in said homes? Am I reading that right?

I'm saying that when you rule in the favor of the land owner in scenarios when the defendant is dead then it creates a situation where killing is preferred to other means. This is supposed to be a nation of laws but the most important one no longer matters as long as they are standing on a piece of land you happen to own.