Reader comments
West Valley homeowner shoots an intruder

Amen! | 10:25 a.m. Sept. 18, 2008

I would have done the same thing. My home was recently burglarized and if I would have been there when it happened they would have paid a big price. I'm sure Mr. Hunter will try to file some civil charges even though he broke into the home.

Agreed | 11:21 a.m. Sept. 18, 2008

If Mr Hunter files civil charges, I hope he gets laughed out of court. He was carrying loaded handguns, and he broke into the house by shattering a glass door. His intentions seem pretty clear to me, and he's lucky he isn't dead.

timbala | 11:21 a.m. Sept. 18, 2008

ya i would have done the same thing also then the government wants to take away our gun rights thank god we still have some gun rights to protect ourselves and our property im sure mr hunter will try to press some charges when he should be the one to be charged and pay for the crime he commited he commited it and was cought red handed why waste taxpayers money if someone is cought red handed they should be convicted and punished like the next day man that would save a lot of money that wouldnt have to be spent on the legal system and put extra money into everyones pockets but that process is too simple u get cought u pay simple easy no trial u get sentenced and do the time i think we need to change our legal system imagine the money saved

Comments continue below

Sly | 11:36 a.m. Sept. 18, 2008

This is why I am getting my concealed weapons permit! It is such a downer that civil charges can be filed for defending yourself!

Please get it right | 12:27 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008

It is very annoying to read in your paper the use of the phrase "Salt Lake District Attorney's Office" when that is a significant misstatement. Eliminating the word County from the title implies Salt Lake CITY. Clearly in West Valley City, Salt Lake City has no jurisdiction. Would you please share this with your editors that the correct reference is Salt Lake COUNTY District Attorney?

Re:Sly | 1:31 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008

Why the concealed carry permit? if your worried about someone breaking into your home buy a shotgun. They are easy to use aim and maintain. do extensive damage without the worry of an errant shot hitting one of your neighbors houses. Also if it jams it is heavy enough to use as a club.

Just my 2 cents

He was probably lost... | 2:03 p.m. Sept. 18, 2008

I bet he was looking for the 1st Annual Genius Convention and accidently went into the wrong house. Simple mistake for someone with so much on the ball.

SLC gal | 9:43 a.m. Sept. 19, 2008

Chalk one up for 2nd Ammendment rights!!!

ccw4me2 | 6:26 p.m. Sept. 19, 2008

Utah needs to pass the "Castle Doctrine" as we have in Florida and abut 16 other states. Homeowners who defend themselves should not be forced to defend their actions when they are the victim of a violent attack. It makes absolutely no difference whether the victim knew the perpetrator was armed or whether he fired first or not. If someone breaks into your home you have the right to shoot first and ask questions later. Concealed Carry & Castle Doctrine mean a safer society for the law abiding and a less safe world for the predators prowling amongst us.

Observer | 11:29 p.m. Sept. 19, 2008

From the story: "...had McIntosh and the woman come outside and surrender." Should have been reworded. Surrender in common use might imply wrong doing and subsequent arrest.

From the story: "McIntosh was not arrested." It's odd that there no mention of whether Hunter was arrested or not. That would seen to be at least as important as whether McIntosh was arrested or not.

From the story: "...what charges to file, if any, and against whom they should be filed." If the information stated is factually correct, charges obviously should be filed and using "and against whom" too much implies equivalency of the legality of the various actions.

To Amen!: Making an intruder "pay a big price" is not within your authority. You do have the human right to reasonably defend yourself given the nature of the threat. And the benefit of the doubt should be given you, to the defender.

If someone sues for injury sustained while that person was committing a crime, the suit should dismissed and he or she should have to pay any costs of contesting that suit.

To SLC gal: the human right to self defense precedes and is much broader than Second Amendment.

Lysander | 7:52 a.m. Sept. 20, 2008

After illegally trespassing on the homeowners property, illegally shattering the glass door to allow the forcible entry, the mere fact that the perp was armed should be sufficient for the homeowner to shoot first and ask questions later.
"If you think it's wrong to kill someone who is about to kill you, you are too stupid to vote." - Michael James

d-dog | 5:44 p.m. Sept. 26, 2008

I think the country is pretty messed up when a person can invade your private residense ,you defend yourself and then get sued when the guy should have never been there in the first place!You should be able to sue him for mental distress for being forced to have to shoot someone. I hope I never have to do this it would haunt me forever!

Brad | 8:55 a.m. Oct. 5, 2008

Maybe it would not be as good as a shot gun, then again, if Mr. Hunter had broken into my home, he would have received 2 .45 hydra shoks to the center of mass, and the state would be working on funeral arrangments for him. Bravo Mr McIntosh, may we all defend ourselves, our property, and our loved ones as you did!

JACK | 4:22 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

It all starts with stealing another freinds wife!!!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.