I think it's great that an armed citizen was able to deter a felonious invasion of his house. It's a vindication of what we believe as gun owners.
I disagree with the analysis:
Quote:
...it means we had the chance to remove some scum from the Civil Society...
|
That's the wrong mindset for self-defense. A proper mindset is, confronted with an intruder and having identified same, a split-second decision is made as to the level of threat. If lethal force is necessary to avoid a imminent, credible and unavoidable threat of death or great bodily harm, it is deployed efficiently and without injury to others. As soon as the threat is neutralized, the justification for lethal force ends.
The attitude that any burglar deserves immediate execution is not supported by the law. The "Castle Doctrine" can be overcome.
This is mostly a semantic argument. If two guys break into my house armed with a knife, they're probably going to be shot (hopefully with no misses), but not because I think they "deserve" it. I'll do what is required to protect myself, that's all.
Hopefully, I could deter them without resort to lethal force.
I agree with the idea that a miss in such a situation is regrettable, because of the possibility of collateral damage (especially with a rifle). You "own" every round you put downrange. Four misses at point-blank range is a "bolo" for sure.
I'm glad that it seems possible the homeowner was using a legal weapon. He needs to get to the range...