Excellent Example of Public Reaction to Justified Shooting part 1

What should a person do when a violent intruder attempts to kill them in their home at night?

Here’s a short and to the point story about a clearly and completely justified shooting – so clearly justified that it took the police less than 24 hours to announce not only that the killing was justified but that the homeowner had shown extreme restraint.

Go read the short report.  It is a short and simple story.

A couple were asleep in bed, and woke to the crashing sound of an intruder smashing their back sliding door by throwing a propane tank through it, just before midnight.  The couple hid in their bedroom and called 911.  The intruder gained entrance to their house and started noisily smashing stuff up, while calling out ‘Where you at, I’m gonna (expletive) you up. I’m gonna kill you’.

The homeowner called out to the intruder to go away, and warned the intruder he had a gun.

The intruder ignored the warnings and next broke into the bedroom where the couple were hiding.  The homeowner thereupon shot the intruder who died from his wounds.

We know what happened because the 911 tape recorded a lot of what transpired, and deputies were quickly on the scene, having already been called out by a woman one block away – the intruder had first banged on her door and tried to get in (and apparently had also created a ruckus at a local convenience store earlier in the evening).

This is as classic a case of a ‘perfect’ justified killing as there ever could be.  You’re at home asleep, when a total stranger violently breaks into your house and starts smashing it up, while calling out threats that he will kill you if he finds you.  You call the police, you call out to the intruder and warn him to leave because you have a gun.  You wait in your bedroom, but when the guy breaks into your bedroom, you shoot him.

This is exactly as how we and most other schools teach home owners to behave.  You don’t go looking for the intruder, you don’t lay in wait for them, you don’t set a trap and catch them.  You call the police, you retreat to the safest place, you call out to the bad guy and warn him you have a gun and tell him to leave.  But if he persists and enters your safest place, you resolutely then shoot to stop the threat without further pause or hesitation.

The police clearly agreed.

But.  And it is a huge but.  What about other readers of the article?  Did they sympathize with the two homeowners who were terrified out of their wits, who experienced a horrific event, and the man who was forced to break the ultimate taboo in our lives and kill another human being?

Sure, some people did.  But a lot of people did not.  Go read the huge number of reader comments that quickly started piling up (at the time of writing this there were 202 comments already).  Some comments are way off topic and some are unfathomable as to if the person agrees or disagrees with anything at all.

Let’s look at and respond to some of the very wrong comments.  It is helpful to read things like this, because it reminds us of the misinformation and misperceptions out there.

Shoot to Injure/Disable Rather than to Kill

There was the sadly predictable rhetorical question ‘Why couldn’t they just have shot him in the leg?’.  This is perhaps the most common complaint by people objecting to the use of deadly force, no matter how justifiable it may be.

Two quick responses.  The first response is that there’s no such thing as a shot that is guaranteed to only wound.  The asked for shot in the leg might have hit the femoral artery; meaning that 20 – 40 seconds later, the attacker would be dead.  Any shot is a potentially fatal shot.  If you’re not in a situation where lethal force is needed, you shouldn’t be using a gun, period.  Which leads to the second point.

When you’re in a life or death situation, and when the bad guy is almost on top of you, there is no time for feats of marksmanship.  Your priority must be simply to stop the threat before it stops you.  You shoot for the biggest target – the ‘center of mass’ – ie more or less the center of the guy’s chest.

One extra thought, here.  What if you did shoot to wound.  Does this attacker sound like the sort of guy who would then break off his attack?  Or would this just enrage him even further and propel him faster towards you with more determination?  When he’s across the bedroom from you, it is not a good point to start indulging in social experiments.  You must stop the threat urgently and fully.

Let’s understand the moral obligations here.  The homeowner had no moral obligation to do anything other than defend himself and his partner as best and as certainly as possible.  This strange crazy man broke into their house, ignored warnings, and called out threats to kill them.

But some people think we should risk our own safety so as to diminish the risk to our attacker.

Attempt to Crawl out a Bedroom Window and Run Away

Washington state law imposes no obligation on people to run away.  We can ‘stand our ground’ when we’re somewhere lawfully.

But, quite apart from the letter of the law, what makes the best sense?  If you leave the safety of your ‘safe room’, what might happen outside?  Maybe the mad man’s friends are waiting outside?  Maybe the mad man is a faster runner than you, and catches you halfway down your driveway?  Tactically, it is usually a mistake to leave a safe room where you can take cover and defend yourself and the room’s space.

But some people think we must be prepared to risk ourselves rather than defend ourselves.

These Sorts of Situations are Never Black and White

Some commenters attempted to adopt a statesmanlike tone of wisdom and said that these sorts of scenarios are never black and white – in other words, they were implying that some fault or blame must lie on the part of the attacked homeowners too.

Excuse me, but this was completely and utterly black and white!  It doesn’t get any clearer than this.  You’re at home, a stranger smashes into your house and calls out he is going to find you and kill you.  He ignores your warnings, smashes into your bedroom; – some people say this isn’t black and white?

Some people just refuse to accept there is ever any excuse for self-defense and so pontificate about ‘shades of grey’ even in the most black and white situations.  Don’t be trapped into taking the ‘easy way out’ and agreeing with their pointless sophistry.  This was black and white.

Should Have Been Tolerant Because The Attacker Was Drunk/Drugged/Mistaken

Several people suggested that the guy was simply drunk (or on drugs) or in some other way acting out of character.  Maybe so.  But what difference does it make when you’re confronted by a guy who has been violently smashing up your house, telling you he is going to kill you, and smashing into your bedroom, ignoring your warnings?

Does the possibility that 12 days ago, at 3pm, he might have been in a good mood and helped a little lady cross the street make any difference to what he is doing to you, now?  No, of course it doesn’t.

Others make comments about the world crumbling today under various pressures.  Maybe life isn’t assuredly easy for all of us, but that’s no excuse for behaving the way this intruder behaved, and it is no reason for the terrified homeowner to submit to the attacker’s desire to kill him.

Does being drunk excuse one from liability from one’s actions?  Should we perhaps go easy on drunk drivers who cause accidents, rather than being much tougher on them?  Does it hurt any less if you are beaten up or killed by a drunk person rather than by a sober person?

And should we require a householder, in a desperate situation protecting their life against a raging intruder, to try and call a time out and ask the intruder if he is only doing this because he is drunk?

Of course we can’t expect that.

This Shows Why We Need Better Mental Health and Drug Treatment Programs

Maybe it does show this, maybe it doesn’t.  But what relevance does that have to the immediate issue?  Some people are quick to repurpose any event and situation to support whatever cause they wish.

Let’s keep it plain and simple.  The homeowners were validly in fear of their lives, and had no choice but to defend themselves as they did.

The Police Should Not Have Exonerated the Homeowners, Only the Prosecutor Should Do This

Here’s another oblique way of trying to subtly suggest that this is a grey area rather than a black and white fully righteous act, and also of trying to ‘punish’ the homeowners – perhaps with some gratuitous jail time, perhaps with days/weeks/months/years of mental anguish about possibly facing a murder charge, and perhaps with a legal bill in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for protecting their interests while prosecutors dig every which way to try and turn a justified shooting into an illegal act.

The police aren’t trained to do this, the poster said.  That rather begs the question – what are the police trained to do, then?  If they can’t tell a righteous shooting when it is so obviously apparent, what good are they at anything at all?

Innocent people who suffer terrible experiences and attacks from criminals shouldn’t then have to suffer a second time, at the hands of our justice system.  The police did the absolute right thing here.

They Should Have Used Pepper Spray

Pepper spray is sometimes a great way of neutralizing a threat, and it has a place in the continuum of escalation of forces.

But when you’ve a crazy man rampaging around your house, smashing things up, and calling out that he will kill you, and when you have warned him that you have a gun and told him to leave, if he persists in the attack and breaks into your bedroom, you’re way past the point on the escalation of forces where pepper spray is appropriate.

Pepper spray – especially in civilian strength sprays – doesn’t work reliably, against all attackers, all the time.  If a person is crazy on drugs, they might not feel the effects at all.  Pepper spray might work well against some youths making you fearful in a car park at night, but not in a case like this.

Lastly, when someone chooses to break into your home, and says he is going to kill you, why should you be under any obligation to do anything other than respond as affirmatively as possible to the threat?

If the Bad Guy was Given a Second Chance, He Might Have Been Able to Turn His Life Around

There are two responses to that.  First, that in giving the bad guy a second chance, that would have required the homeowners to risk and possibly give up their lives to the bad guy in his current violent rampage.  So, the person saying this has already agreed it is okay for two innocent people to lose their lives in the hope that a bad guy might turn his life around.

And what if the bad guy doesn’t turn his life around?  We’ve let an unstable killer remain loose to terrorize and possibly kill others.

We’ll use this statement again in a minute in the second part of this post, but after this terrible outpouring of nonsense, we need to freshen up a bit.  Happily, there were also some more sensible comments.  One is worth repeating in its entirety

So the police, responding to another call about the same man, heard the glass door break.  They were close enough to hear the door break and respond, but not close enough to stop the intruder from getting to the occupants of the home.

Those of you who have a false sense of security because you believe the police will come save you, should rethink that “logic”.  Once the police arrive and believe there may be an armed intruder in your home, do not expect them to rush in to save you.  You are on your own and you are going to have to save yourself and your family.

To believe, and prepare for anything less, is not only foolish but places your family in real danger.

Or, to paraphrase the comment, ‘When seconds count, the police are only minutes away’.

That is why we arm ourselves and train ourselves in how and when to appropriately use our firearms.  This homeowner was clearly well trained and clearly acted appropriately.

But, note the large number of people who disagree.  Which leads us to the second part of our analysis.  Please click on to read ‘Lessons from the Public Reaction to a Justified Shooting part 2‘.