Lessons from the Public Reaction to a Justified Shooting part 2

No matter how extreme the need for self defense, many people will condemn you for doing what you are forced to do

If you haven’t already done so, can we suggest you first read our article ‘Excellent Example of Public Reaction to Justified Shooting part 1‘ then after reading that, come back to this article second.

There is a scary lesson in the way too many ill-informed and un-informed comments posted in response to the account of the homeowner who shot a violent intruder who was hellbent on killing the homeowner.

The scary lesson is simply this :  What say if the homeowner wasn’t so fortunate, and ended up facing a criminal charge?  Or (as he still may) if he faces a civil charge?  What say some of the people on the jury have the same opinions these posters do?

It isn’t really a ‘what say if’ scenario at all.  It is close to a certain fact.  Statistically, there’s much more than a one in 12 chance of getting a juror who implacably hates the use of lethal force even in the most obvious case of necessary self defense.  Read again through the list of complaints that readers posted about this – which ones do you think jurors would have as well?

Some people quite literally and truly believe it is better to allow themselves to be killed than to instead kill a fellow human being.  One can perhaps almost understand this element of self-sacrifice in a one on one situation, but these people usually go further than that and say ‘Yes, and it is better the violent criminal be allowed to kill my children too than I should kill him’.  They add with a triumphant conclusion ‘Nothing can justify taking another human life’.

It is even crazier than this.  When it is pointed out to them that their selective ‘sanctity of human life’ belief has now not only caused them to allow a crazed murder to kill them and their family, but has left the murderer free and enabled, encouraged to murder again and again with impunity, they might start to realize they’ve painted themselves into a bit of a corner, and when one then says ‘So, in other words, your refusal to kill this one man has resulted in the deaths of four or more other people, some of whom rely on you for their protection and safety, and others of whom are total strangers simply relying on a just society to protect them as much as possible’ they will then say something like ‘Well, I still don’t agree with killing anyone’ and change the subject.  They don’t say ‘Oh yes, I see your point – perhaps the lives of four good ordinary innocent productive members of society are worth more than the life of one violent criminal’.

Sadly, there’s no more way you can reason with these people than you can with the violent criminals they’re so determined to protect.

Our point is simply this :  You need to keep in mind that your actions will be judged not just by people of similar values and beliefs as your own, but by people with unfathomably different values.  Apart from a very limited amount of pre-screening, there is little quality control that goes into the make-up of juries (and even less quality control that goes into the make-up of district attorneys and judges – success at politics and winning an elective position does not necessarily correlate with general ability and common sense – just look at most of our elected officials in DC for further evidence of that!).

You need to be able to justify your shooting to people who view a shooting as impossible to justify.  You need to explain why you selfishly took your attacker’s life to someone who believes you should have instead generously sacrificed your own life.

It isn’t only potential jurors you need to explain it to.  How about your friends and colleagues?  Your employer and your customers?  Maybe even your spouse, children, and parents.

And it isn’t only immediately after the event that this will be an issue.  Any time anyone Google searches you or does a background check on you (perhaps a credit check, perhaps an apartment rental background check, perhaps an employment check) the fact that you killed someone is likely to appear.  Your life will change, enormously, unpredictably, but absolutely not for the better, and will stay changed for the rest of your life.

In other words, you need to do everything you can to always avoid any situation where you’ve ended up needing to use lethal force.  Maybe the people who offer to sacrifice themselves have got it half right!  Because the consequences, even of the most righteous acts of self defense, will be appalling.

If you’re not convinced of this, go to part one of this article and then re-read the justifications/excuses from people who thought the intruder shouldn’t have been shot.  The people who posted those comments could be your boss, your future boss, your bank manager, your (formerly) best friend, your church minister, and so on.