Friend walked in on a burglary.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

You seem to like to omit the words that disagree with your position. Here, it's "or." Your definition of occupant states "A person who resides or is present in a house....." In this case, the homeowner is always the occupant of the home. The use of the term "occupant" in the statute includes all who have the right to be in the home--a renter, a child that doesn't own the home, etc. -- so the right to defend one's self in the home is independent of ownership. You do not cease being an occupant of the home simply because you leave to go to work.

If you want to go that route...

A landlord/homeowner is always an occupant. Therefor, they can make entry into the home you rent from them... Whenever they want... With or without your permission... Ya know, because they're the homeowner.

Would you like that?

[Bailey Guns]

I am astounded by some of the bullshit I'm reading in this thread.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

Ya know what... Fuck this. Let's do this...

I'm going to send an E-Mail to two head DAs and two detectives.

We'll settle this once and for all...

[Ronin13]

I'm not joking at all. That's the way it is.

Can you please cite the CRS that says if there is a de facto danger inside the house you cannot lawfully enter? And where does the burden of proof lie for proving that you knowingly entered your own home unlawfully due to a danger? I've never heard of this, ever. I've never read anywhere in CRS, case law, or anything that states I can't enter my own home (be it owned or occupied) if there is a *possible* danger. How does one prove with certainty that there is a danger or not for sure in there thus absolving them of any legal liability?

[Bailey Guns]

So my wife and I are on the way home. We receive a phone call from the babysitter and she tells us there are two masked men attempting to gain entry into the home. I call 911 and report what the babysitter has told me. We pull into the driveway just in time to see two armed thugs kick in the front door and make entry into our home. Inside the home is the 15-year old neighbor girl babysitting for our 2 year old. You're trying to tell me that I'm going to be in trouble for entering my home and using force against the intruders, to protect the lives of innocent third parties against two armed intruders, simply because I wasn't inside the home at the time the intrusion occurred and because I'd already alerted the police? 100% nonsense.

There is NOTHING in the CRS to support the assertion that you cannot enter your home knowing there is a potential, or even known, threat inside the home.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

So my wife and I are on the way home. We receive a phone call from the babysitter and she tells us there are two masked men attempting to gain entry into the home. I call 911 and report what the babysitter has told me. We pull into the driveway just in time to see two armed thugs kick in the front door and make entry into our home. Inside the home is the 15-year old neighbor girl babysitting for our 2 year old. You're trying to tell me that I'm going to be in trouble for entering my home and using force against the intruders, to protect the lives of innocent third parties against two armed intruders, simply because I wasn't inside the home at the time the intrusion occurred and because I'd already alerted the police? 100% nonsense.

There is NOTHING in the CRS to support the assertion that you cannot enter your home knowing there is a potential, or even known, threat inside the home.

You totally changed the entire situation...

[Bailey Guns]

You totally changed the entire situation...

No, I didn't. You said:

I'm going to slow it WAY down for you...

You CAN NOT enter your home if you KNOW that there could be a clear and present danger inside your home.

Explain to me how my scenario has changed the situation?

[JM Ver. 2.0]

No, I didn't. You said:



Explain to me how my scenario has changed the situation?

In that case you're right. I could have added to that to further explain the "danger to a person" thing.

If you know the house is empty, and the only danger is to property... That's my view of it.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

JM and brutal, do you have a case that resulted in a conviction to prove your point?

You should get your record player fixed... I think it's stuck...

[Dave_L]

Wasn't there a case in Utah where the homeowner pulled up to his house and burglars were in the middle of robbing his house? He shot at them and then was having charges pressed or something? Since he was in no immediate danger, he was supposed to just let them rob his house and be a good witness.

I'm hoping some LE chime in on this because I think it'd truly depend on the jury. On one hand, he didn't know for sure if people were still in there or not and was just going home. On the other hand, he was aware there could be someone inside, was not in danger and no family was in danger yet he still proceeded to go inside "looking". I could easily see a jury convinced that he had "hero" syndrome and went looking for someone to shoot. Especially in today's world where MSM is preaching gun owners are trigger happy vigilantes that are dangerous to the public. Agree with it or not, it's the reality.