Man arrested after home invasion

[utbagpiper]

Spoiler alert, the armed home-owner is a St. George police officer. I think she showed remarkable restraint. But a good idea to keep the doors locked, especially before going to bed.

KSL Article posted 4/21.

Excerpt

....

About 3:30 p.m., Nathan Gardiner, 43, of Hurricane, entered the house of an off-duty St. George police officer near 400 North and 2480 West through an unlocked door, Hurricane Police Sgt. Brandon Buell said.

...

"The suspect made comments toward the victim that caused her to feel threatened," Buell said. "Fortunately, no one was injured, and the (woman) was able to remain calm and act in a manner that helped protect her."

 

[color of law]

"The suspect made comments toward the victim that caused her to feel threatened," Buell said. "Fortunately, no one was injured, and the (woman) was able to remain calm and act in a manner that helped protect her."

She is a cop for crying out loud. Because she is a female she should curl up in a fetal position? Is that their point?

 

[utbagpiper]

She is a cop for crying out loud. Because she is a female she should curl up in a fetal position? Is that their point?

No. I think the point was to make clear that this wasn't merely a case of a sleepy drunk accidentally wandering in through the wrong, unlocked door and peacefully passing out on the couch. Rather, once confronted the home invader said something that made clear he was a risk.

He seems to have continued his poor manners after he was arrested:

"(He was) very combative with officers and assaulted them. The suspect made death threats toward the officers during the incident," he said.

Investigators believe Gardiner was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time, Buell said.

....

A search of Gardiner's home by police after his arrest resulted in the seizure of a gun and methamphetamine.

The joyous, and predictable side-effects of some of the popular recreational drugs.

Charles

 

[JoeSparky]

Given Utah law on this type of situation... the perp in this incident is very lucky to have not been perforated and ventilated with some lead at a somewhat rapid rate of delivery!

 

[utbagpiper]

Given Utah law on this type of situation... the perp in this incident is very lucky to have not been perforated and ventilated with some lead at a somewhat rapid rate of delivery!

Yes indeed. The homeowner / police officer showed tremendous restraint, perhaps to the point of extreme charity in not taking immediate action to the end the threat, which action would likely have resulted in the criminal's death. Of course, such charity also saves the homeowner from the psychological consequences of having taken a human life.

I'm glad the drug-addled, violent criminal was apprehended before he was able to pull such a stunt against someone who wasn't as well prepared to protect herself.

Charles

 

[texassugar]

HE WAS A RISK when he walked into her home uninvited.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[davidmcbeth]

Change the law .. anyone on your land...feel free to use as target practice ; anyone inside the home? LOL - close range target practice.

 

[utbagpiper]

Change the law .. anyone on your land...feel free to use as target practice ; anyone inside the home? LOL - close range target practice.

I should avoid feeding trolls.

On the other hand, a post such as this should not be left entirely unanswered lest anyone think it actually represents the views of law-abiding gun owners.

I find your position to be reprehensible, morally repugnant, and as small minded as current "zero tolerance" polices enacted in schools by bed-wetting liberals, but with more serious consequences.

Simple trespass on outdoor areas is not and should not be a capital offense.

Deadly force is acceptable in defense of innocent life and limb.

Utah's laws regarding defense of habitation and defense of self are quite adequate to cover cases where innocent life and limb are a danger. The home-owner would have been legally justified in shooting the home invader. Had she done so she would have enjoyed protections against both civil and criminal proceedings against her unless evidence indicated she had acted when there clearly was no need to use deadly force.

Even those of us who most strongly support Utah's laws in this case, do not take human life so lightly as to consider the use of deadly force to be "target practice."

You are a troll. A provocateur. Your views in this matter are disgusting. You do not represent the bulk of this nations gun owners.

Go away.

Charles

 

[davidmcbeth]

<snip>

You are a troll. A provocateur. Your views in this matter are disgusting. You do not represent the bulk of this nations gun owners.

Go away.

Charles

Irrelevant if you think my views do not represent the bilk of gun owners. This viewpoint has been the jurisprudence for hundreds of years before you were born.

You think that an intruder can come into your dwelling and you are required to do some analysis prior to defending your castle; and you support this. I think that this is a reprehensible viewpoint that just tries to diminish property owners' rights.

Hardly a "provocateur" - seeking change in the law is 1st amendment activity. Respect it. Argue against it if you wish. You sound like antis when people demanded their RKBA in states before permitless OC was allowed in many states.

I'm a visionary. Home break-ins would plummet, families would be safer, and people would respect each other better. You find this reprehensible?

 

[Grapeshot]

Davidmcbeth - what you say nor what you intend to imply is the question.

How you say it is frequently the problem. You and I have had much interaction relating to your style of posting here on this publicly viewable, privately owned forum.

Please, do not continue in this manner. Doing so will have an easily predictable result.

 

[utbagpiper]

Utah's Force in Defense of Habitation law grants residents very strong latitude in using force and deadly force to defend themselves within their habitation.

Force may be used by a resident against another "when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation"

Deadly force may be used if "the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person .... in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence" OR if "he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony. "

Furthermore, "The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony."

Simply put, in Utah, if someone enters your residence without an invitation, the presumption is that the resident can use force or deadly force until and unless there is evidence that said force was not necessary.

In contrast, outside your residence, deadly force can only be used against another when the other person creates a "reasonable man" fear of imminent harm to innocent life or limb.

Charles