Shoot First, No Burglar Later
I’m not really sure what to make of this story. While I’m certainly no fan of having my house robbed (it’s happened before), I’m not sure how comfortable I am about people having the blanket legal right to shoot intruders on sight.
Maybe it’s the mushy liberal in me, but the thought of empowering rifle-totting suburbanites to use lethal force gives me the creeps. Yes, I know they’re breaking into your house and yes, I know they may try to harm you. At the same time, I am reminded of the statistic that gun owners are more likely to die from gunshot wounds than those without.
Of course, better research may simply tell us that people who own guns are in more dangerous neighborhoods, live more dangerous lifestyles, etc. so the research may be bunk. But given that we live in a country of rule of law where those laws are typically well-enforced, wouldn’t it make more sense to just run out of the house and call the cops?
Anyway, no clear right or wrong here, but certainly an interesting if worrying story. Read all about it below:
Burglars in the United States could once sue homeowners if they were shot, but now a growing number of states have made it legal to shoot to kill when somebody breaks into a house.
John Woodson, 46, found that out last week when he ambled into Dennis Baker’s open garage in a Dallas suburb. A surveillance video showed the robber strolling inside, hands in his pockets.
From the shadows, Baker opened fire and killed Woodson.
"I just had to protect myself and that was it," Baker told reporters despite the fact Woodson had not tried to enter the bedroom near the garage where Baker had been sleeping.
The incident made national headlines since it was Baker’s parrot that gave the alarm when it innocently squawked "good morning" at the intruder.
But Woodson’s death seemed anecdotal compared to another Dallas resident who a few days earlier had killed his second robber in three weeks inside his home.
Police are investigating both cases, but it is unlikely charges will be filed. Texas recently passed a law branding anybody breaking into a home or car as a real threat of injury or death to its occupants.
In contrast with traditional self-defense laws, this measure does not require that a person who opens fire on a burglar be able to prove that he or she was physically threatened, that force was used only as a last resort and that the victim had first tried to hide.
Florida was the first state to adopt in 2005 a law that was dubbed "Stand your ground" or "Shoot first."
But now they have proliferated largely under pressure from the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), the main weapons lobby in the United States.
Today 19 out of 50 US states, mostly in the south and the central regions of the country, have this kind of laws, and similar legislation is pending in about a dozen others.
"This law will bring common-sense self-defense protections to law-abiding citizens," said Rachel Parsons, a spokesperson for the NRA.
"If someone is breaking into your home, it’s obvious that they are not there to have dinner with you," she continued. "You do have a right to protect your belongings, your family and yourself.
"The law needs to be put on the side of the victim, and not on the side of the criminal, who is attacking the victim."
But for the Freedom States Alliance that fights against the proliferation of firearms in the United States, these new laws attach more value to threatened belongings than to the life of the thief and only serve to increase the number of people killed by firearms each year, which currently is estimated to stand at nearly 30,000.
"It’s that whole Wild West mentality that is leading the country down a very dangerous path," said Sally Slovenski, executive director of the alliance.
"In any other country, something like the castle doctrine or stand-your-ground laws look like just absolute lunacy," she continued.
"And yet in this country, somehow it’s been justified, and people just sort of have come to live with this, and they just don’t see the outrage in this."
According to Federal Bureau of Investigation, there were 2.18 million burglaries to the United States in 2006, up 1.3 percent compared to the year before.
But the number is still well below the 3.24 million burglaries a year committed 20 years ago.
source, picture source Tags: dumb news, self defense, gun lobby, nra, shoot first, burglary
3 Comments
Ariel, if you include criminals as “gun owners,” that statistic might be valid, but I doubt it even then. Criminals such as gang members are much more likely to die by gunshot wounds than the average citizen. But most armed citizens are not criminals.
It would not necessarily make more sense to run out of your house. Someone could be waiting for you outside. If you are in your house with a cell phone and a weapon, you are in a much more defensible position. Call the police by all means. The police try their best to protect us, but often they arrive too late. If the police aren’t there yet, then we must protect ourselves.
If the criminal insists upon approaching you, then lethal force should be used. If the criminal is within 20 feet, you are in grave danger even if he is not armed. Most of us are not martial arts experts. Only the criminal knows what his intentions are. Perhaps he would only take your property. But he might decide to eliminate the person who can put him in jail–that’s you. You owe it to yourself, your loved ones, and ultimately to society not to bet your own life on the good intentions of a predator.
If someone attacks you in your own home and gets hurt, he should not be able to sue you. He are the perpetrator. You are the victim. You should have to be victimized a second time by the criminal or his family.
Actually, I do attach more value to the lives of my loved ones, my own life, and my property than to the life of the thief. Yes, I include property in the list of what I would use lethal force to protect. I work hard for what I have. A thief has no right to take it at all. Just for clarification, I would be using lethal force to protect my own life while I prevent the criminal from taking my property.
I do think that most folks in the United States value individual liberty more than is typical in most other countries. We tend to be more self reliant. Self defense is part of that self reliance. That concept might seem to be lunacy to folks who have learned to be dependent on government. Statism is foreign to most folks here.
I don’t understand the “very dangerous path” that Ms. Slovenski is referring to. That path would seem to lead to criminals not invading our homes because they realize that government no longer attempts to protect them from harm while engaging in such activity.
I’m sorry Ariel. I intended to write “If someone attacks you in your own home and gets hurt, he should not be able to sue you. He IS the perpetrator. You are the victim. You should NOT have to be victimized a second time by the criminal or his family.” My fingers seem to have a will of their own sometimes.
Bruce Richardson
Hehe, no offense taken at all. Thanks for your contributions to discussion on the site!