Riverton Homeowner shoots armed intruder

[utbagpiper]

Plenty to criticize here, but ultimately the bad guy is arrested and the good guy walks away (mostly?) unharmed....

From KSL's report a few fair use excerpts:

"RIVERTON — A man who police say was intoxicated, armed with a knife, and at one point without pants, was shot by a homeowner late Monday.

...

At that point, witnesses have given conflicting stories about whether [the bad guy] threw his knife at the homeowner or dropped it. But it prompted the homeowner to fire twice, hitting [the bad guy] in the jaw and chest, the [police] lieutenant said.

...

The homeowner was initially placed in handcuffs as officers began an investigation. That's when [the bad guy] tried to move.

...

Officers then deployed a Taser on [the bad guy] and he was taken into custody. [The bad guy] was taken to a local hospital in critical condition and was later upgraded to serious condition.

The homeowner, whose name has not yet been released, was not arrested, [the police lieutenant] said. "
​

 

[OC for ME]

Handcuffing the alleged good guy for his own protection...oh-kay...

 

[utbagpiper]

Handcuffing the alleged good guy for his own protection...oh-kay...

I guess I missed the part where anyone claimed the homeowner was handcuffed "for his own protection." The article pretty clearly indicates the homeowner was cuffed because officers were not clear on what was happening. IOW, they didn't know who was the good guy and who was the bad guy as they got on scene. Once the good guy was cuffed after complying with the officers' commands, the bad guy made perfectly clear who was who.

I think there is a lesson or two to be learned here about staying on the phone with 911 as officers arrive so they are aware of what is happening as they pull up and also giving some thought to where one is positioned and where the gun gets put so that officers are not nervous and so the bad guy doesn't get access to it.

 

[JoeSparky]

After reading the linked story me thinks that some training be updated or changed to include NOT handcuffing a compliant person at a scene before cuffing the identified bad guy. I do recognize that this can't be an ALWAYS type instruction.

Glad the BG didn't get access to the firearm almost given to him as a direct result of officer instruction and good guy compliance!

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

After reading the linked story me thinks that some training be updated or changed to include NOT handcuffing a compliant person at a scene before cuffing the identified bad guy. I do recognize that this can't be an ALWAYS type instruction.

Glad the BG didn't get access to the firearm almost given to him as a direct result of officer instruction and good guy compliance!

The trouble is these situations are all volatile and each one is so different having any type and hard fast rule is very difficult.

Bad guys do lie and can pose as the good guys. It is not always apparent who the good guy is or who is the bad guy. You know you are the good guy and may think it is obvious but the responding officers might have no clue.

Don't know but it might have been cuff them all and the home owner was the first one available thus giving the bad guy a chance to act.

The more populated and bigger areas make it a lot harder. Smaller populated Rural areas a lots of time the officers know the caller.

Good phone technique is very helpful but information can be lost between caller dispatch and officers.

One has to give serious thought on how to act when the uniforms arrive.

 

[Maverick9]

His mistake?

The father went out to confront him in the driveway.

 

[JoeSparky]

His mistake?

Assumes, posted/linked story is 100% factual and accurate in all matters. While "confronting him" in the driveway may not be the wisest of actions here in Utah it is 100% legal!

 

[OC for ME]

"You're not under arrest, but I'm going to handcuff you for my safety and your safety." I have witnessed such a statement used by my local cops on more than one occasion. Courtesy, cooperation, and compliance are demanded by cops while there is no reciprocation required of the cops.

https://www.policeone.com/use-of-fo...tizens-better-understand-police-use-of-force/

 

[JoeSparky]

Contempt of cop is reciprocated contempt of citizen.

Regardless of citizen contempt of cop!

 

[utbagpiper]

"You're not under arrest, but I'm going to handcuff you for my safety and your safety." I have witnessed such a statement used by my local cops on more than one occasion. Courtesy, cooperation, and compliance are demanded by cops while there is no reciprocation required of the cops.

The only benefit to my safety of being cuffed is if a cop decides he doesn't need to shoot me because I'm now not a threat.

Now, that said and admitted, nothing in the story suggests the officers in this case made any such asinine claim about the good guy's safety. He might just as easily as said, "I'm cuffing you for my safety and convenience until I get everything sorted out." Yes, such blatant honest is unusual in any case these days. But from the article, we can just as easily make that conjecture as that the officer said anything else.

Regardless, I'm afraid your posts on this matter add nothing to the OP or the subject being discussed.

The article does highlight the likelihood of being cuffed--if not outright arrested--following a self-defense incident involving a gun (even if not fired). Being mentally and otherwise prepared for that eventuality is important. But what the office says as he cuffs a good guy is way less important than how the good guy reacts.

Please do not hijack threads with anti-cop rantings. There was nothing in the story itself nor any prior post to warrant your speculation that the officer claimed the good guy was cuffed for the good guy's safety. Rather, the story is fairly clear that the officers did not know who was who when they arrived.

Thank you.

Charles

 

[Maverick9]

Assumes, posted/linked story is 100% factual and accurate in all matters. While "confronting him" in the driveway may not be the wisest of actions here in Utah it is 100% legal!

Cite? Legal to confront someone and detain using armed detention? I find that difficult to believe, thus my request for a cite.

 

[utbagpiper]

Cite? Legal to confront someone and detain using armed detention? I find that difficult to believe, thus my request for a cite.

Given the report that the bad guy attempted to enter the home (attached garage), I might start with Utah's defense of habitation law:

76-2-405:

76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.

(1) A person is justified in using force 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; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) 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, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or

(b) 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.


(2) 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.
​

We might also consider on Utah's Citizen's Arrest statute at 77-7-3:

77-7-3. By private persons.
A private person may arrest another:
(1) For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence; or

(2) When a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe the person arrested has committed it.
​

There may be others that apply depending on the exact timing of events and whether the homeowner had a reasonable man belief that he or his children were in danger from the intoxicated trespasser and would-be home invader.

But at the end of the day, given totality of circumstance including that this happened in Utah, I predict no charges against the homeowner unless something very different than reported comes to light.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Follow up article provides additional details

It seems that in legit self-defense situations, follow-up media reports are somewhat rare. In this case however, KSL has run just such a report today.

The article answers a lot of questions about why the homeowner was outside his home and how all this came to be.

As for the bad guy not yet being charged, I'm hoping that is just the usual slow pace of the SLCo prosecutor's office.

Charles