DefenseHe Could Have Fired. This Utah Homeowner Held an...

He Could Have Fired. This Utah Homeowner Held an Intruder at Gunpoint Instead

-


Key Takeaways

  • A shirtless man entered John Santy’s home while fleeing from police after a violent incident.
  • Santy held the intruder at gunpoint without firing, successfully controlling the situation until deputies arrived.
  • Legal expert Clayton Simms explained that deadly force isn’t justified once the threat is no longer immediate.
  • Simms advised that using force can lead to legal consequences, including civil suits, even if no criminal charges are filed.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

PARK CITY, Utah — A shirtless stranger was standing in John Santy’s kitchen, and Santy had no idea why.

The man had been running from law enforcement. According to KUTV, the Summit County Sheriff’s Office said deputies were called over a domestic dispute and that the man was acting violently and threatening people with scissors before he ended up inside Santy’s home last Thursday.

Santy drew his firearm. He held the man until deputies arrived. He never fired a shot.

“I didn’t want to shoot him,” Santy told KUTV.

Video from the scene captured Santy ordering the man to the ground and warning that he would shoot. The warning did the work. Santy said the intruder heard the gun and complied, and deputies took him into custody in the front yard.

This is what a firearm in trained hands looks like. It handed Santy control of a violent situation and the option to end it without killing anyone.

After KUTV’s first report, the comments turned ugly. Some readers said an intruder forfeits his life the moment he steps inside. One claimed it is simply safer to shoot anyone who comes through the door uninvited.

That is bad advice and worse law.

KUTV asked attorney Clayton Simms whether it was that simple. Not necessarily, he said.

Simms said people can defend themselves and others in their homes, but using deadly force turns on the nature and immediacy of the threat. Once the intruder complied, force was no longer justified.

More from USA Carry:

“You can’t shoot someone in the back just because they’re in your house,” Simms said.

He added that prosecutors would weigh whether the homeowner could have stopped the threat without firing, and that physical mismatches matter. Santy said the intruder was bigger and stronger than he is.

Simms cautioned that any use of force carries risk, including a possible civil suit even when no charges are filed.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest news

Winchester USA .45 ACP 230 Gr FMJ 500-Round Case — $242.24 With Code

Limited Time Deal .45 ACP is not cheap plinking ammo, so when a solid name-brand load drops under 50...

The Attacker Fired First at a Daytona Beach Park. His Intended Victim Fired Last.

Key Takeaways A man survived an attack at Derbyshire Park by carrying a firearm during the encounter. A stranger approached...

Springfield 1911 Defender Mil-Spec .45 ACP Package – $599.99

Limited Time Deal Classic American firepower is on sale. The Springfield Armory 1911 Defender Mil-Spec .45 ACP package is...

RSWC: Lizzie Jackovich Talks FOAC, Carry, Training & Pennsylvania Gun Rights

Nearly everywhere I’ve gone for the last several years, I try to film an episode with someone. I’ve...

Flying with Guns: Episode 59 – Southwest from Las Vegas to New Orleans

Key Takeaways Episode 59 was filmed flying Southwest from Las Vegas to New Orleans on May 20th. Check-in involved traveling...

Virginia Prosecutors Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban — and They’re Dead Right

“A prosecutor who indicts you for possessing or carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifles carries the constitutional burden of...

Must read

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you