Typical gun nut.... feared for his life? Or wanted to prove a point?I can understand protecting ones property but to fire bullets in a residential
neighborhood is going over the edge.Nothing in this guys home is
worth the death of another person.
Clare is one of the best men in the state of Utah. I applaud him and know
he's smart enough to use his firearm responsibly.Bottom line:
no one has the right to come on someone else's property, break into someone
else's home, or put them in harm's way in any way. And, frankly,
it's about time people started standing up for themselves against thugs
like this. What if someone had been home when this guy broke in - how would he
have used the crowbar then? Take a good look at his photo - he's a
criminal. Clare did the right thing - he WAS protecting the neighborhood.
I agree that firing a gun in a residental area is a bad idea, but being familar
with the area involved there are no houses across the street or in the back
yard. There are a lot of details left out of the story as printed and we ought
to be careful drawing emotional conclusions not knowing all the facts. If I
read the article correctly it also mentioned he was not shooting at the
individuals. Lastly, if we are going to lay blame or condemnation on someone,
none of this would have happened if some individuals hadn't decided to
break the law by burglarizing a home. Frequently these days it seems the
crimals rights overshadow the honest citizen.
@HopScotch - Clare was way out of line in using deadly force. At the time he
discharged his firearm the criminals posed no danger to his personal safety
(they were fleeing the scene) The charges failed against Clare are fare and
chances are he will get a plea in abeyance.@cwwvc - "Frequently
these days it seems the crimals rights overshadow the honest citizen." The
criminal was also booked into Davis County jail and will face charges. Clare too
broke the law by discharging his firearm with the intent of using deadly force
when it was not necessary. Had the criminal not been fleeing the scene or was in
his house Clare may have been within his rights to use deadly force. However,
that was not the case.
This is a very poor heading for this article. Better said arrested for shooting
at fleeing house burgler
The homeowner was not arrested because he drew a gun to protect his property and
safety. He was arrested because he discharged his firearm in an illegal manner.
The law does not allow someone to fire at someone running away from you and off
your property. He shot at a car driving away and at the burglar who had dropped
his pry bar & was running away, neither of which were directly threatening
him at the time. That's why he was arrested. He did the right thing by
keeping the burglar at gunpoint until the police arrived. He did the wrong thing
when he pulled the trigger at someone not directly threatening him. These laws
exist for a reason; you don't want bullets ricocheting around neighborhoods
and punching holes in walls above your baby's crib if it's not a
life-threatening situation. Don't like that, then change the law. Really, if someone can't understand the distinction here, they
shouldn't be carrying a firearm.
@ HopScotch "I applaud him and know he's smart enough to
use his firearm responsibly." The evidence suggests
otherwise.@ cwwvc"If I read the article correctly it
also mentioned he was not shooting at the individuals."They why
was he shooting in his neighborhood? Was he trying to scare the
thief into surrending? We learn that bluffing with a gun isn't effective.
To make a gun work effectively, you'vve got to be willing to shoot someone
else. That's the bottom line.The neighbors and this man need
to learn the laws regarding the use of deadly force. Yes it was wrong to have
crminals burlge your home, but two wrongs don't make a "right" and
shooting at a fleeing person is not legally defensible by either police or
citizens.Tough lesson to learn; wonder how many "carrying"
folks don't really know rhe law or are stable enough to keep their cool in
a stressful situation versus being trigger-happy. Expect more violemce as gun
Good luck finding a jury to convict.
I would always stand on the side of the homeowner in a case like this. If a
criminal wants to break into someones house they deserve to be shot. Period.
Home owner=innocent by any standard.
I lived in West Valley City years ago and while my wife and I were sitting at
our kitchen table, a man ran by, right past our window in our yard. He was
followed by a West Valley Mall security officer firing his revolver at the
fleeing robber who robbed a jewelry story in the mall. The suspect jumped our
fence into the field and the officer shot him in the butt and stopped him cold.
No charges were filed, but the robber was caught, charged, convicted and jailed.
One bullet went through our neighbors' front door and lodged in the wall
next to where they were sitting. Things would have been different if someone
innocent would have actually been shot and possibly killed, but I applaud the
guy in this story for shooting at burglars. I hope it is a deterrent to these
idiots who think it's ok to rob and steal. But for the actions of the
burglars, this would have never happened. And but for this guy's efforts,
they likely would have gotten away and kept it up.
clydesdale; What about no knock warrants?
It's time our laws were in favor of the victim and not the criminals.So does the current law mean that to protect yourself you have to wait for
thecriminal to shoot you first or someone in your home, then its all right
to do something about it?Its too late by then.I'm getting sick
of the way this country is going, you have to be a criminal to have any rights.
The homeowner here did the neighbors andothers a service by at least
stopping one of the burglers. Doesn't sound like the cop wastrying to
stop him or the getaway car. Now those guys are free to go on and break into
someoneelse's home. The burglers are getting so they don't even
care if someone is home when theybreak in. This man didn't even
shoot to kill, sounds to me like he was being careful how and where he was
shooting. We need more people like Clare. If these druggies are desparate
enough to break in homes, one of these days they are going to be desparate
enough to kill, and it may be your house. !
@ Brian in Wasilla, Alaska....If I were called to serve on a jury in this
matter, based on the story, I'd vote "guilty" to the charges lodged
against this individual.To fire a deadly weapon at a fleeing suspect in a
residential neighborhood is not only stupid and I emphasize stupid but its also
against the law.Gun carrying nuts have murdered enough people in this
nation on with the phony I feared for my life law.Most are bullies that
feel to carry a loaded weapon makes them a man.There are too many gun
carriers that have no experience or training that is truly needed.A 4 hour
discussion isn't training, it's a joke.
"Burglers deserve to be shot, period."Really? Who else
deserves to be shot breaking the law? Speeders? Red-light runners? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but where do we draw the line?
To all of you who think Clare is trigger happy or a "gun nut" - my
statement to you: you don't know the man. Anyone in the area where he lives
knows he is an absolutely guile-free person. If the police had apprehended this
thug when Clare had him held, no more action would have been necessary. Go
Layton City Police. I'm also familiar with where Clare lives
(which most of you are not) and the criminal was heading to an area where he
could have easily disappeared - never to be found again (until he committed more
crimes and put others at risk). And, I ask you what would have happened to Clare
had he not gotten his gun in the first place - a crowbar over his head? Bottom line - Clare was defending himself and none of you who
weren't in the situation should judge him. You have no idea how he felt and
what he was experiencing. He's a good man and I (and A LOT) of others stand
behind him 100%.
The robbery victim broke the law, that is pretty clear.However, laws
can be changed. This should be the first example cited to the Legislature to
support a change in the law so that lethal force can be used to protect yourself
or others from death or serious bodily injury (as it is now) PLUS:To stop
a fleeing suspect who has committed a felony burglary, robbery or assault if on
your own property. But, the victim could be held jointly (and equally) liable
with the fleeing felon for any damages or injuries resulting from the shots.Let's get back to supporting victims' rights, not those of
criminals, and change the law.
@ hopscotchI applaud your support of a good man, but reality says he
was charged with shooting towards a person fleeing a crime and even the police
are not justified in such response. I strongly urge and suggest you look at the
fact that he was charged and will have a trial. The problem wasn't that he
got his gun, it's that he discharged it illegally. Running away isn't
a crime that rises to the level of allowing a person to be shot.@ DN
Subscriber 2Yes, not only did the robber break the law, but so did
the gun owner/shooter. On that we agree. Otherwise, why was he charged?You can't be serious that in our gun-toting, wild west culture you
honestly feel the law should now allow you to shoot at a fleeing criminal just
because he had a crowbar in hand a few minutes before and decided to drop it and
run. Maybe if your could assure that the bullets would remain on your "own
property" it would make more sense, but how are you going to police that?@ xscribeGood point.
@owlmaster2:"Most are bullies that feel to carry a loaded weapon makes them
a man." Is this just your opinion or do you have any kind of reliable
research that backs up your claim.
Can someone please help me here. . .I don't understand how the police in
this case can make the assumption that Niederhauser wasn't personally
"at risk" or in body danger when the robber runs out the house wielding
I disagree...The title of this article should be, "Burglars who break into a
house of an elderly man premeditated and with a crowbar weapon fully assume the
risk of their actions". I am just glad that the man did have home
protection and that he is safe...
Seminole,You could easily help yourself here if you read the article
somewhat carefully. Mr. Niederhauser fired at the burglars AFTER they began to
drive/run away from him. Holding them at gunpoint on his property was legal.
Firing shots once when they were fleeing the scene is not.
People are buying weapons...lots of weapons.Even though...This citizen had a CWP.Went to his vehicle.Secured his
weapon.Steadied his weapon.Fired his weapon at the perps
as they were driving away from the scene.Two rounds scattered around
the neighborhood.Luckily, no unarmed innocents were wounded or
killed.The nra would have you think that all you have to do is buy a
weapon, practice at the range and than viola, you're Clint Eastwood.The nra has a financial interest in the public buying as many weapons as
possible.The central purpose of the nra is to run cover for those
who manufacture and/or sell weapons.Period.
It speaks volumes about our society that the debate on this page is about
whether a man has a right to protect his property rather than the fact that a
career criminal is allowed to roam the streets.
Too Smart For You,First of all, that is a really silly title for
your posting name. Second, you have no idea what he was feeling. If
that man had gotten away, which he was about to, he could have easily come back
and harmed Clare at a later time. I suggest that you think through and put
yourself in the shoes of a 60plus year old man who came home to face criminals
in his home and on his property, tried to contain at least one of them from
fleeing, and felt he was in harms way as the criminal started fleeing the scene.
If and when Clare goes to any trial, he'll be represented by
the best there is in this town and he'll be in good shape with the outcome.
Perhaps it would be well to put yourself in Clare's shoes
rather than piping up with your brilliant pseudo legal insights. Remember, the
scale of Lady Justice could easily go in a direction you don't want it to
at some point in own your life.
I thought the White House just said there was no need for imminent threat before
killing an American citizen?
In a situation such as this there is a high amount of adrenalin and from my view
it seems that Mr. Niederhauser was more in control than out of control.
Intentionally firing away from people and property. That isn't to say
something unforeseen couldn't happen. I agree it was a bad choice to fire
at a car. However I do disagree with the term "deadly force" That
shouldn't be used in this discussion because that implies knowing with
intent to cause harm. He has stated he was intentionally away from the
individuals. Its hard to second guess but if I was between a man with a crowbar
and a getaway car I may have considered myself in imminent danger."Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force
which a person uses, causing—or that a person knows, or should know, would
create a substantial risk of causing—death or serious bodily harm."