I'm glad we can plea bargin a charge from actions that could have
potentially injured or killed another person into a slap on the wrist but we
make sure and exact 100% of any fine for something really important, like a
speeding ticket where no one was in any danger and nothing in question except
the revenue stream to the Court and the City.
Oh, good grief, tsfy. Speeding tickets are tossed out all the time. Heck, drunk
driving is given a slap on the wrist. No, in point of fact, you are not too
smart for us.
anyone who has taken a course on the use of deadly force knows he plainly
violated the law. the burglars did not use deadly force, there fore he had NO
right to use deadly force against them. he should have dialed 911 instead of
playing cops and robbers..lucky no one was injured or killed, or he'd be
facing a muder charge.
So the burglars only tried to burgle the home right? And since this guy missed
on his shot, he only tried to use deadly force, in fact he didn't use
deadly force at all. I don't agree with his actions, as they make all gun
owners look bad at this turbulent time. However, those who are downplaying the
fact that this guy was violated FIRST, are off base. I'm using the argument
that had these crooks not made the decision to commit a crime in the first
place, this man would never had to have chosen whether or not to get his gun.
It's amazing to me that we are so willing to overlook what happened FIRST.
Layton city is joke anyway.
I don't think anyone is overlooking what happened first. If it's the
law you don't like, then lobby to change the wording of the law. However,
this person broke the law as written!TSFY: Some would argue, myself
included, that speeding is inherently dangerous and life-threatening, and that
there should be stronger enforcement of traffic laws and much stiffer fines, so
those of us who actually obey the traffic laws feel safe at staying within the
speed limit, without someone tailgating us and feeling the need to beat us to
the next red light!
The "first" crime (burglary) is the ONLY one that should be considered.
If a cop catches you coming out of a bank after robbing it, he is free to shoot
you if you won't surrender. Is the mistake here of the defender of his
property simply not telling the bad guy to surrender? Maybe. If not, that
should be the extent of his charges. Calling 911 really is NOT a viable option,
for they take 30 minutes to show up on the scene.It will be
interesting to see if the burglar gets convicted!
Watch Dog,This article glosses over the details of what happened, but
earlier articles are more thorough. Reading them will clear up the
misconceptions you have about the case. The mistake of the property
owner was firing a gun when the burglars were running & driving away from
him and off his property. He wasn't being threatened, so he had no legal
justification to shoot. He isn't a police officer. 911 was a VERY viable
option; Mr. Niederhauser dialed it & held the burglar at gunpoint in his
front yard until the police arrived. That was legal, and the right thing to do.
But the burglar ran away after the police arrived, and that is when the
homeowner fired his second shot. That part was illegal, and rightfully so. The
burglar is facing far more serious charges than the homeowner.I'm glad Mr. Niederhauser was able to plea his charges down. His actions
may have been illegal and dangerous to others in the neighborhood, but he
didn't wildly empty his gun in all directions and I frankly don't know
how rational I would be if I came home to find an intruder exiting my front
Wow Emajor,Quite the additional information. Maybe this article
should have rehashed what really happened.The additional info certainly
helps. Thanks,Shouldn't all CCP holders have to complete a
course regarding the use of deadly force?
Meanwhile, the two burglars Neiderhauser didn't capture continue to roam
free. Hey Clare, how 'bout coming over and catching the guys that stole my
snowblower yesterday? Seems like you're more effective at catching burglars
than the cops.
Based on the information presented here, there is only one way to resolve this
type of issue. Make sure there is only one story, and that story is yours.
The laws definition of deadly force is a breach of our rights to defend and
protect property and persons being threatened. It seems to be an assumptive that
this home invasion and home owner was a mind reader about the intent of the
invader. How does anyone know the intention of invasion? That is where the law
has gone wrong with its definition and interpretation of our right to defend
personal lives and livelihood and country.Anytime anyone in or on
the property of a home, is at their own risk. Every citizen has right to use
deadly force to prevent theft and injury with in their safe zone. Deadly force
and kill is a right when under attack of theft or injury and we don't have
to risk our lives to allow crime or criminals to threaten us.We all
know law enforcment and injustice system treats theft and endangerment as
nuisance crimes they do not want to deal with, any threat is life threatening by
law and statute.Theft must have a higher ranking defensible right,
and I won't hesitate to save my life or property inside or outside my home
as an inalienable Constitutional right.
I think the issue here is that the guy was heading away.Hard to say
that ones life is in danger when the guy is running in the opposite direction
What has been omited is he did not fire at the criminal, he fired a warning shot
into the air in hopes of startling the criminal from fleeing while police cars
were driving down the street. That is why he took the plea bargin of firing a
shoot across a road, because it was not aimed with intent to harm.