In the area I live there was something that happened that kind of caught my attention.
A 18 year old man was shot and killed while reportedly trying to break into a home. The male home owner inside the house is said to have fired the fatal shot. At first glance that story didn't really surprise me but as I read on it really caught my attention.
Now the story has been reported like this. In the early hours of the morning a young male was attempting to break into a residence. The residents called 9-1-1 to report the break in that was in progress. The police arrived on scene to find the young man still attempting to break into the structure. It is reported that the police ordered the young man to "stop". The young man continued with entry into the residence. A few minutes later a shot was fired with in the residence. That shot was fired by one of the home owners and killed the young man.
Now for alittle background. This house was in a higher income neighborhood. The home owners were a elderly couple, both husband and wife were home at the time of the break in.
The case is currently being reviewed by the District Attorneys office.
Now the question that comes to my mind is was the "Castle Law/Doctrine" in effect in this case?
The Castle Law/Doctrine states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force. The Doctrine pertains to a person's home or vehicle.
Now I hear everyone screaming 2nd Amendment rights and "if he would have broke into my house I would have killed him to". Taking a life is never an easy thing to do and to think that way is wrong. I have seen death happen right in front of me and actually in my hands more times then I want to remember. I am definitely a believer in the 2nd Amendment, I am curious though of how many people actually know what the 2nd Amendment says. People spit out "oh it says I have the right to have a gun and protect myself". Well yes and no.
In 2008 and 2010 our own government stated that the 2nd Amendment protects an individuals right to possess firearms unconnected to servicing a militia/military use - to use in a TRADITIONAL LAWFUL purpose of self defense, such as defense within ones home. I wrote about this in my previous blog about Texas Colleges and Handguns. It also says that you may use deadly force if your life is immediately threatened. If you come home to find your home has been broken into and you find a unarmed 10 year old young boy in the house attempting to steal your things and you shoot him dead is that defending your home/life in a traditional lawful way?
The preliminary story is that this young man was intoxicated and thought he was going into the wrong house.
What role did the police actually play in this situation? Does the Castle Doctrine even apply to this case at all sine the police where right outside. The police allowed the young man to continue entering the structure minutes before being shot and later dying from the wound.
Was the home owners home invaded? Well technically yes, but only after being allowed by police officers. Could they have not prevented this young man from actually entering this home, other then saying "stop". Is a unarmed intoxicated 18 year old young man a threat to ones life? Might be might not be.
As I have stated in my previous writings, I own guns and will defend myself home and family against people that threaten my life and family. If the police are right outside and I have to be judge jury and executioner there will be some explaining to do on my part as well as the law enforcement's part.
Of course this case is still under investigation and these are only the preliminary reports. But they certainly caught my attention.
Tell me what you think about this case the 2nd Amendment or anything you want to share with us.
Agree with me or disagree with me, either way I learn what the PEOPLE think. L2
12 comments:
I believe the situation was a little drastic. Although i do agree with protecting yourself a long with your family, but the situation presented that the police were at the scene already. This life should have been spared, but i do not blame the shooter because not everyone has the ability to aim and shoot to wound instead of kill. Personally i would have done my best to wound the intruder to slow them down knowing the police were outside.
Sometimes in the heat of the moment you dont think about "sparing" someones life. Protecting your family at all cost is my opinion. It is sad the intruder was young, but poor decision making can end bad.
@Anonymous 1 thank you for your comment. I agree with you I do not blame anyone for protecting their life or family's life. For us to say we would do the same thing is hard until we are put in that situation. As for the police being there and saying "stop" while the young mam was still in the process of entering the home is hard for me to swallow. They state that since the home owner had a gun they could not go get the intruder. What happen to protect and serve. What if what happened was reversed and the young breaking in killed the elderly couple because they let him keep going in. Just food for thought.
@Anonymous2 thank you for your comment if you havent already sign up to follow and subscribe via email. Agreed that in the heat of the moment the best decisions are not always made. I believe the same as you do that protecting your family at all cost is correct. As I stated before and this is just something to think about but what if this was a 10 or 12 year old boy? It happens. I am not saying that what the homeowner did was wrong by any means but could there have been another way in order to spare a life and let out judicial system work. Could they have locked themselves in a room and then the police come in? Maybe maybe not, they did not know if the intruder was armed. It is reported that the police responded with such quickness that they actually caught the young man in the act of breaking in. So why let the homeowner make the decision of whether to shoot or not. In my opinion you are right again that poor decision making ends bad and there were multiple poor decisions that morning not only by the intruder.
I read this story. Sad.
I have read the post and also listened to the news....Either way it is sad. If intruder was drunk and went to the wrong house then he must have been EXTREMELY intoxicated which is also sad.. not only that he was under age but also getting that drunk to not know what house he was at. I would have also probably shot ANYONE entering into my home uninvited at that time of day to protect myself and my children. I have met and been friends with many a people and just because they are "good" people doesn't mean you always know what they do in their spare time. Sorry that a life was lost but no one has the right to enter into anyones home uninvited.
@Julie thank you for your comment and thank you for following us. Sign up to be a follower of the website if you haven't already. I agree it sad that a life was taken and I agree you must protect yourself and family but what about the law enforcement that were outside saying stop..could they have done more to prevent him from going in? As I stated earlier if they let that man keep going in the home and then that man ended up killing the elderly couple that lived there, they would have more to answer for. Just food for thought but are law enforcement officers suppose to protect lives of criminals as well?
Yes, The law ENFORCEMENT (key word) should have RUSHED to the intruder and tried to stop him or maybe even shot him in the leg to stop the rest of the story from happening(also protecting the criminals life) If they were quick enough to get there then what was the point if they are just going to yell stop?! That really bothers me because one night I was up at midnight trying to register for a class as soon as the registration opened up and I heard a dog barking crazy right at my door... I looked outside and there was someone there with a big metal pole. I called the cops and then turned my porch light on... they ran off. what would those enforcers have done at my house? watched the person? People need to do their jobs, whatever it is their job is. No matter what your job, there are MANY people counting on the one person and holding them responsible.
@Julie thank you for your comment and thank you for following us we are trying to spread the word. I am sorry to hear about that night you had that is definitely a scary moment. I hope and pray that the police showed up during your incident they would not of allowed that person to enter you home. I agree if they got there fast enough to yell at the man why did they not use something to stop him they carry tasers pepper spray asparagus handcuffs. These men and women signed up for a very dangerous job we know that and they know that. It comes with the territory. In my line of work I risk my life so that I may save others. Do I know it is dangerous absolutely but I do it because lives are worth saving, I don't judge whether some is high class citizen or a lower income gang banger I do it because it is my job. I know I may get hurt and so do law enforcement officers. So did they do all they could? Well we all have our opinions.
law enforcement is not trained to take a wouding shot, they are trained to take a stopping shot that is a shot to stop current threat same goes for anyone who gets concealed license, stopping shot is defined as aiming for center mass that being torso, the shooter is responsible for his/her shot that being if you miss and wound or kill a bystander shooter is responsible and can be charged with a crime, aiming for anything other than center mass is wreckless, cop or not, its not hollywood, just like how clear everything is inside a structure fire in backdraft or ladder 49, thats just not how it is in the real world. so cops not knowing whether guy was armed what his intetions were etc.. like previous post stated you dont know untill you are in that situation
law enforcement is not trained to take a wouding shot, they are trained to take a stopping shot that is a shot to stop current threat same goes for anyone who gets concealed license, stopping shot is defined as aiming for center mass that being torso, the shooter is responsible for his/her shot that being if you miss and wound or kill a bystander shooter is responsible and can be charged with a crime, aiming for anything other than center mass is wreckless, cop or not, its not hollywood, just like how clear everything is inside a structure fire in backdraft or ladder 49, thats just not how it is in the real world. so cops not knowing whether guy was armed what his intetions were etc.. like previous post stated you dont know untill you are in that situation
@crash7631 thank you for your comment please sign up to follow us and subscribe via email. I disagree with you that law enforcement are trained in subduing criminals. They are not always looking for the Bin Laden head shot. If law enforcement officers were to kill everyone that had to take down there would be no need for a court system. I agree that the shooter is responsible for his shot. You are also correct that it is not Hollywood but remember there is alittle truth in every lie. It is sometimes clear inside a burning structure and sometimes law enforcement officers wound criminals in order to take them in. I do agree that none of know until we are in that situation of what we would do. Hopefully none ever have to.
Post a Comment