“A man fired his gun twice and scared away a burglar on Wednesday at his home on East Austin Avenue near Martin Luther Kind Avenue,” mlive.com reports. It seems a fairly routine news item—until you look closer. “The man was repairing damage to the home made during a previous burglary when he heard what sounded like someone breaking into the home again, according to the [police] report. He then observed a man, described as 6-foot-2, between 30 and 40 years old and wearing all black clothing, climbing into a hallway window at around 8:30 p.m. He told the suspect to put his hands in the air, warned that he had a gun and then fired one shot into the air and one toward the suspect using his 9mm Taurus handgun.” To quote Brian Griffin: Wait. What? No . . .
A certain gun guru of my acquaintance says if he sees someone in his house who’s not supposed to be there (e.g. someone standing in his hallway at 2am), he’s going to shoot first, ask questions or issue commands later. That’s . . . hardcore. And, it must be said, illegal.
State rules vary a bit here and there, but a “good shoot” is one where the defender believes that he or his loved ones are in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm at the moment he or she pulled the trigger. While the ultimate determination of what’s acceptable in a self-defense shooting comes down to a jury’s determination as to what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances, warning shots are off the menu.
As they should be. Tactically, either shoot or warn. Warning shots are a waste of valuable time and ammo. Not to mention the fact that a warning shot is a negligent discharge; who knows where that bullet’s going to go? Ideally, a home owner would draw their weapon, keep it at a medium ready, issue a verbal warning (if there’s time/space) and hold off firing until the invader moves towards them, preferably with a weapon.
Anyway, there are plenty of gun owners who share the aforementioned gun guru’s belief that a bad guy in their territory is all the proof they need of imminent danger. And you may agree. But the outpouring of sentiment below this story clearly reveals a blood-thirsty desire to, well, assassinate home invaders. And one of them is a political candidate, no less.
This is another good example of the power of the armed citizen!
It’s just too bad the homeowner didn’t shoot to kill.
The perp could have been justifiably and legally put down for good. Now he will probably be breaking into another house very shortly.
Any armed homeowner who confronts a criminal inside their residence should not hesitate to shoot to kill. He who hesitates often ends up dead.
With the breakdown of law enforcement in Flint, citizens need to arm themselves to protect themselves. The City of Flint should be sponsoring free CPL classes for its citizens, since it cannot provide any meaningful police protection. And if the City fails to act, the business community and civic groups should step forward to make it happen.
Michigan State Senate