Still too many unknown facts for a definitive conclusion of who is at fault here. But these "tried to enter wrong home by mistake" incidents sure do seem to be increasing the past few years, whatever the facts are on this particular one. I'm curious as to what triggered the shooting (pun intended) AFTER the police were called cause that's what's going to determine whether this is truly self-defense or 2d degree murder/manslaughter.
Interesting they still haven’t released the name or details on the shooter. I can only assume, like the Ohio killing, the homeowner was older and was frightened. Probably watching too much Fox TV. Granted, older people certainly are vulnerable and dont have many options if it was a real intruder.
The Castle Doctrine is so ingrained in people in this country, it's almost a reflex to shoot an intended intruder whether there's a real threat or not. A lot of people seem way too eager to exercise their right to defend their home and many more are so fearful, they're likely to overreact during a confrontation. I know how to shoot but have never contemplated buying a handgun to protect my family. I can't imagine a situation where a firearm would be any more effective than handling an intruder physically. Our home is pitch black at night and I know where everything is. I've trained in martial arts for many years and have highly attuned situational and positional awareness. I can't imagine a scenario where the intruder would have an advantage over me unless they were armed which is extremely unlikely.
Might should have told this story to the victims of Danny Rolling......Wonder how many of these poor girls would be alive today if they had a gun when Danny broke into their apartments?
How do you know none of them had guns? Only one of the victims was actually able to react to him (after he killed her roommate). He ambushed all the others.
Not a single person posting on this board thinks it was ok that the student was shot and killed... not one. So, the issue is NOT that he was killed. The issue was that he was so drunk he didn't know where he was. My guess is had he not had that much to drink he would have never tried to enter the wrong residence. Still doesn't mean he deserved to die, but there MUST be some level of personal responsibility here. This is tragic no matter how you look at it, but the "gun" is but one piece of the issue, not the entire issue.
Agree with your last sentence. The rest of your post, though, reads as a deflection. "The issue is NOT that he was killed." . . . . . . . disagree, it's the primary issue Blaming drunkeness as "the issue" . . . . . disagree, there's also an issue from a person who chose to shoot the kid Stating that "had he not had that much to drink" while ignoring another fact ("had they not chosen to shoot") Agree also that there must be some level of personal responsibility, including for the shooter
38 states have stand-your-ground laws 10 states include specific language that one may "stand his or her ground." Eight states enacted stand-your-ground laws through judicial decisions or jury instructions instead of legislation.
Would you apply that same standard had said drunken person mistakenly wandered onto a busy highway or fell from a balcony? That said, I'm of the opinion that you generally should not shoot through a locked door at an assailant unless you have observed that they have means to come through the door, but I'm also able to reach that conclusion in the presence of rational though and not under the influence of an adrenaline dump and having just been startled awake. Sometimes when people ___ around, they find out. The outcome is tragic but this isn't a prima facie criminal act.
I'm not certain which standard you are referring to, but yours is an interesting question. If the drunken 20yr college kid caused an accident while stumbling onto the highway causing injury or death, obviously he is responsible. If a car hits and kills him, it would not likely be the driver's fault, but I see that driver differently from a person who chose to shoot someone. The driver presumably has less control of the situation. Falling off a balcony is also quite different than getting shot and killed. Agree all around here and it will be interesting to find out whether the door was opened/forced opened, etc. All we know is that the kid was found bleeding on the porch. As for prima facie, I agree, but I haven't indicated that this was a crime committed solely by the shooter, I'm responding to those who seemingly dismiss/excuse the act of shooting the kid.
Did you really write that? Because I run in a very gun heavy Circle. Guys who know firearms. I don’t think a single one imagines themselves blasting the bad guy as you said. Most do not ever want to have to shoot their gun at a human. The idea is repulsive and frightening. This idea that most gun owners are wanna be Rambos is just asinine. It’s a narrative that just isn’t remotely true.
We have all been woken from a dead sleep where you can hardly walk straight.. much less defend yourself. Add to that some one trying to come through your front door. Even as you are calling the police There are a lot of details we need to know to a certain what actually happened, but to just flat blame the 2a as the OP did is nothing but flame throwing, pot stirring , teoubke searching garbage at this point.
I think you are being disingenuous and you may have misinterpreted my previous comment. I wasn't suggesting that people want to use their guns to kill another person. Do you own any guns for home defense? If yes, then why? The answer to your question would be a reflection of the intent of my comment. I have a neighbor who certifies LEOs for annual tests and certain weapons, facilitates concealed carry permits, and gives live shooter trainings for hospitals and other businesses. When teaching me on the 12 gauge and 9mm, he specifically taught me what to shoot for and why under a home defense situation. IOW - people who own guns for self-defense are considering scenarios where they use them for self-defense. My suggestion was that too many gun owners probably imagine those scenarios, not realizing all the other factors that may come into play; factors which may complicate the effective use of the weapon. I didn't say anything or even suggest anything about Rambo.
I thought the single statement about 2A from the OP was merely an opinion and pretty innocuous, not a matter of flame throwing or teoubke searching (?). From what is known of the case, it's more likely that the shooter freaked and killed an innocent 20yr old than it is that the 20yr old threatened the shooter, crashing in through the door. I certainly may be wrong and will admit it if that's the case.
What if it was everything you described, except, he wasn’t watching fox tv? Wouldn’t that be something
Your choice of words matter.. as you well know. You chose the word BLASTING people for the emotional response it triggers. I don’t know a si no Ke person who imagines themself BLASTING people. Yes, I own home defense guns.. many. Never once have I imagined myself blasting someone under any circumstance. The idea of having to take a life is revolting. In that moment, if I or mine are threatened I will defend my family. You claim too many gun owners have this fantasy of blasting the bad guy.. again.. I don’t know anyone in my gun heavy circles who falls into that category. Over 300 million guns in America. By far most LEGAL gun owners are law abiding, gun respecting citizens. As for the OP Again words matter.. he chose the title for the emotional response. To stir the pot. Student killed in 2a lesson? Really? How about drink student tries to enter wrong house and scared home owner shoots him? I mean.. isnt that all we know? But that doesn’t fit the narrative nearly as well. Doesn’t paint the 2a boogeyman picture certain people want. GUNS BAD!! ( alcohol is ok because every does it.. it’s expected to be drunk and make mistakes) but guns bad!
Don’t take (only) a fist or a foot to a gunfight, especially if you don’t know the intent and size and capability and number and desperation level of a potential adversary(s). Lots of perps travel with accomplices. I don’t have the training nor physical capability any more to have your level of confidence. Accordingly, my family and I have a choice of different kinds of firepower but will be patient within the walls of our “castle” if ever the situation warrants enacting the doctrine. Don’t expect to have to do so but better to be prepared than not.
Hard to imagine your first sentence here being true. You've practiced shooting at targets. You've most likely considered the best way to defend yourself/your family with a gun. I have a hard time believing you've never considered the thought of center mass. Perhaps you're offended by the word "blast." You blame me for using emotionally-charged words (I don't think blast is emotionally-charged btw), but you use words like "revolting." And as for "GUNS BAD," this is a case in which a gun was used with a BAD outcome.
Revolting TO me. Not applied to everyone that owns a gun as you did with imagines blasting the bad guy. And no, I don’t imagine blasting the bad guy. Never have. Have you? You own guns. You admit to imagining blasting the perp? Shooting center mass, watching his body shudder? You imagine the life leaving his eyes as you barrel smokes and your ears ring? I don’t. I don’t spend time imagining killing others . My friends and family that have been u fortunate enough to have had to take a life don’t imagine blasting bad guys either. Instead several have nightmares and refuse to discuss it. A gun was used in this case and the outcome was terrible. A life lost. Shin was used because someone CHOSE to get inebriated, so much so they couldn’t identify their own home, attempted to enter someone else’s home at 2am. You can blame the gun all you want. But the blame isn’t on the tool used by the man woken up at 2am with an unknown person trying to get in his home. That doesn’t mean I think it was a good shoot. I don’t know .I don’t shoot at what I can’t see. I don’t know all the details.
