close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Critique Utah's Castle Doctrine -- What do you think?

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Zell, Mar 30, 2012.

  1. Zell

    Zell IrregularMember

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,851
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    Below is Utah's Castle Doctrine. Please read it and let me know what you think in terms of how strong it is. One concern I have is it appears to lack a clause to protect -- for lack of a better word -- the shooter from civil lawsuit. Maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts?


    Utah Criminal Code
    Principles of Criminal Responsibility


    Force in defense of habitation.
    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.


    By the way, I believe this law was amended to include not only your home but also your car and front/back yard.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2012
  2. Zell

    Zell IrregularMember

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,851
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    Just got this off the internet from one of Utah's local newspapers. I'm not certain whether or not our governor signed it or not since the legislation passed in both houses just 3 weeks ago. I suspect he'll sign it.


    Utah law: Person defending home cannot be sued

    By Contributed
    The Associated Press
    Mon, 03/05/2012 - 12:22pm
    SALT LAKE CITY -- A person who shoots or otherwise injures an intruder cannot be sued under a bill that has passed the Utah Legislature.

    Republican Rep. Patrick Painter of Nephi says House Bill 129 protects homeowners who defend themselves, their family or their property from being held civilly liable even if the intruder was not committing a felony or is subsequently found innocent.

    Painter says a person should be allowed to defend their home without having to determine what type of crime an intruder is committing.

    The bill is awaiting the signature of Gov. Gary Herbert after the House unanimously agreed to amendments made by the Senate.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2012

  3. DScottHewitt

    DScottHewitt EMT-B

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,908
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Waynesboro, VA
    Section Two, Bro.



    P.S. It's in lawyer-speak. Easy to miss it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2012
  4. Zell

    Zell IrregularMember

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,851
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    Question: how many states protect citizens from civil liability outside of protecting a person's home or property? In other words, how many states civilly protect someone if the incident occurs in a Walmart parking lot?
     
  5. Zell

    Zell IrregularMember

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,851
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    Thanks. Didn't catch the "civil" part of that. I still wonder if that sentence protects me from a lawsuit here. It's not very clear/straight forward.

    The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases . . .

    What does "presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases mean"? Legal-speak.:dunno:
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2012