This story has caused a broo-ha-ha on radio here in the greater Boston area. There's a camp that believes the woman should be sent to jail and never allowed to see her son again. They believe that she should have offered herself physically to the intruder to slow things down until the police could arrive. They also say that the intruder has as much right to be in the home. One caller on WTKK said Thursday morning "This is all because of private property". (editorial humming: Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs...)
Then there's the folks that are supporting the mother to the extreme, saying that people have a moral obligation to shoot first and ask questions later, that the moment the guy entered the house, his life was forfeit.
Thankfully, most of us are a bit more nuanced and fall somewhere in-between. Had the intruder been content with larceny, and collected valued items from the living room and absconded, there would have been no need to shoot him. I stick to what I learned in my concealed-carry class... "If somebody's life is in jeopardy, you do what you have to do. But if you shoot somebody in the back carrying a television, you're no better than he is".
Echoing PJ's comments: @Husar.... is it your contention that if brutal home invasions happen infrequently, we should tolerate them? How many rape/killings a year are "acceptable"? And for Shaka, I can play the anecdotal evidence game too... Christmas at the Petit family house would have been very different this year had this family been able to defend themselves? The police's role? They arrived after the house was on fire... and couldn't save the 3 women (including a 12 year old girl) who had been repeatedly raped and beaten for days, who ended up being burned alive, quite possibly the most excruciatingly painful way of dying.
I believe among other things gun ownership is fundamentally a women's right issue. As the old saying goes "God made all men, but Sam Colt made them equal".
Bookmarks