Friend walked in on a burglary.

[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.

[Bailey Guns]

I would also tend to agree based on many definitions of the word "occupant" that a person not necessarily be at or in a particular place to be considered an "occupant". Here's one:

oc·cu·pant

[ok-yuh-puhnt] Show IPA
noun 1. a person, family, group, or organization that lives in, occupies, or has quarters or space in or on something: the occupant of a taxicab; the occupants of the building.

2. a tenant of a house, estate, office, etc.; resident.

3. Law. a. an owner through occupancy.

b. one who is in actual possession.

IIRC there is no statutory definition of "occupant" in Title 18. It's been a while.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

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.

This is what I'm trying to get at...

[brutal]

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

No. Do you have a publicized event that proves yours?

It's my layman's interpretation of the law in this single, particular event.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

[Ronin13]

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

Maybe if you would stop doing the Eric Holder dance and actually answer the question Cameron wouldn't have to constantly repeat himself... Or as Stephen the Irishman says:

[JM Ver. 2.0]

Maybe if you would stop doing the Eric Holder dance and actually answer the question Cameron wouldn't have to constantly repeat himself... Or as Stephen the Irishman says:

Don't you have work to do?

[Dave_L]

Explain to me how my scenario has changed the situation?

Now flip it a little. A neighbor calls you while you and your entire family are at dinner and says "Hey, I saw 2 masked men break into your house. I've called the cops but wanted you to know, too". Now, if you leave dinner, drive home, enter your house and shoot the men, how does that play out? Difference being no human was in immediate danger, just your stuff. The first story had human lives at risk inside the home. It is different.

[Bailey Guns]

Doesn't change a thing. It's simply not illegal to enter your own home simply because there's an intruder inside whether you believe you might be in danger or not.

It might not be the smartest move from a safety perspective but it just isn't illegal and there is no statute you can cite that will support that position. You might not be doing yourself any favors if you call the police and say, "I just saw a guy go in my house while I was at the neighbor's house across the street. I'm going over to my house to kill the son-of-a-bitch! You better send the cops." But simply entering your home knowing there might be a threat to you or your property inside is not illegal.

[Ronin13]

Don't you have work to do?

Nice move, did you learn that from NYNCO- do what the liberals do and deflect and turn this around and try and make it about me... try and focus now, homeboy.

Now flip it a little. A neighbor calls you while you and your entire family are at dinner and says "Hey, I saw 2 masked men break into your house. I've called the cops but wanted you to know, too". Now, if you leave dinner, drive home, enter your house and shoot the men, how does that play out? Difference being no human was in immediate danger, just your stuff. The first story had human lives at risk inside the home. It is different.

Well first off that's pretty loaded. Confront perhaps, but shoot? Come on. Do you walk down the street and expect to shoot the first person who makes a threatening move toward you? No. Are you prepared to shoot someone who poses a danger to your life/safety? Yes. But hopefully you won't have to and the fact that your armed may deter them. So no, I won't enter my home with the express intent to shoot an intruder, but if threatened I will, it depends on the situation.