Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. The Last Bad Choice He’ll Make

 

We had an incident here in Polk County that involved a lethal shooting. In many other communities, there would have been shouting about gun control, and the shooter would have at least been arrested. Not in Polk County.

Here’s what happened: Two couples went out for the evening. At the end of the date, the two fellows drove the two women to one of the women’s homes. The fellows drove off after one of the couples had a bitter discussion, after which the two women entered the home.

Later, the man involved in the altercation decided that he wanted to confront his girlfriend further. He drove back to the house with his friend; when he banged on the front door and she refused to open it, here’s what happened next:

The boyfriend returned to what appeared to be a bedroom window with a tire iron, screaming, and allegedly proclaimed he would knock the windows out if she did not let him in the home. Neither of the women responded and the boyfriend proceeded to break the window and attempted to gain entry. The female homeowner [victim] shot the boyfriend, resulting in immediate death and causing him to drop the tire iron at his feet.

According to Sheriff Judd, all information provided is preliminary evidence and is subject to change following a more thorough investigation. At this early stage in the investigation, Sheriff Judd claims the female victim was fully within her legal rights to defend her home from a burglar, adding, ‘when you come back to the house that’s not your home and you tried to break in to get a girlfriend who didn’t want to go with you, and you’re shot and killed while trying to break into the house with a tire iron, that’s a bad choice. And that’s the last bad choice he’ll make.’

Gun control advocates are probably up-in-arms. They probably think that the girlfriend only needed to try to calmly convince him to leave. Or open the door and they would have worked out the problem. (There is reason to believe the boyfriend had been drinking earlier.) Also, his friend had tried twice to talk the victim out of pursuing this action, but he paid no attention.

You may say to yourself that you’d never be in this situation and therefore wouldn’t need a gun. But what about when someone tries to conduct a home invasion robbery? Or someone tries to rob your home, thinking you’re not there? Or a neighbor with a drunken friend visiting announces that he hates all Trump supporters and after visiting at a neighborhood barbecue, he later comes to your home to “take you out.” Or a group in the next town over decides to hold a “peaceful protest” on your street.

Gun ownership should be taken seriously. The owner must be responsible, trained, and avoid confrontations whenever possible.

He or she should also want to live in a County where a Sheriff states that he’s got his back.

It could be a matter of life or death.

Published in Guns
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 16 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. OmegaPaladin Moderator

    Gun rights means the right not to be a victim

    • #1
    • August 26, 2020, at 1:40 PM PDT
    • 16 likes
  2. Rodin Member

    A cautionary reminder to everyone that self-defense involves the reasonable fear of the shooter of bodily harm or death, not the actual intention of the shoot-ee. If the US actually had a more pervasive gun culture this would be well understood. Like the line out of the movie Grand Canyon when the punk is holding a gun on a tow truck driver and asks “Do you respect me for me or because I am holding this gun?” To which the driver responds, “Son, if you ain’t holding that gun we aren’t having this conversation.” Respect the gun.

    • #2
    • August 26, 2020, at 1:54 PM PDT
    • 14 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  3. Hammer, The Member

    She should have called in a social worker.

    • #3
    • August 26, 2020, at 2:32 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  4. Chuck Thatcher

    I can’t tell who was driving, but I hope the other male was at least arrested as an accessory to breaking and entering.

    • #4
    • August 26, 2020, at 3:35 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  5. GrannyDude Member

    Susan Quinn: (There is reason to believe the boyfriend had been drinking earlier.)

    Ya think?

    • #5
    • August 26, 2020, at 3:37 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Housebroken (View Comment):

    I can’t tell who was driving, but I hope the other male was at least arrested as an accessory to breaking and entering.

    The victim was driving and his buddy, the passenger, tried twice to convince him to leave. But he wouldn’t.

    • #6
    • August 26, 2020, at 3:47 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  7. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    I suspect there won’t be much fuss about this. Females killing male attackers get extra credit with nearly everyone – and should. 

    • #7
    • August 26, 2020, at 5:01 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
  8. J. D. Fitzpatrick Member
    J. D. Fitzpatrick Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    TBA (View Comment):

    I suspect there won’t be much fuss about this. Females killing male attackers get extra credit with nearly everyone – and should.

    And they are conveniently forgotten every time the gun control lobby starts to trot out its points. 

    • #8
    • August 26, 2020, at 8:38 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  9. Stad Coolidge

    Susan Quinn: He or she should also want to live in a County where a Sheriff states that he’s got his back.

    This is crucial.

    There are many links in the chain to back up honest citizens who use firearms (or any weapon) to protect themselves – the investingating officers, the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury. If any one of these people fail to support a self-defense shooting, protecting your own life can become a Hell on Earth.

    The jury is the last stop, and if the general citizenry finds you guilty of wrongdoing, they’re putting their own lives at risk.

    • #9
    • August 27, 2020, at 6:07 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  10. kedavis Member

    Stad (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: He or she should also want to live in a County where a Sheriff states that he’s got his back.

    This is crucial.

    There are many links in the chain to back up honest citizens who use firearms (or any weapon) to protect themselves – the investingating officers, the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury. If any one of these people fail to support a self-defense shooting, protecting your own life can become a Hell on Earth.

    The jury is the last stop, and if the general citizenry finds you guilty of wrongdoing, they’re putting their own lives at risk.

    Even the people on the jury who have guns at home and would shoot an intruder, probably believe that if THEY had to do it, THEY would do it PERFECTLY and there would be no doubt about that, from anyone.

    • #10
    • August 27, 2020, at 10:39 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  11. Kervinlee Inactive
    Kervinlee Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Some guys need killing.

    • #11
    • August 27, 2020, at 11:59 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  12. Franco Inactive
    Franco Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Susan Quinn: Gun control advocates are probably up-in-arms.

    Not to mention the tire-iron control advocates…

    • #12
    • August 27, 2020, at 2:30 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  13. Anthony L. DeWitt Coolidge

    This article is a good example of why gun control is inherently misogynistic. If a locked door is not making the point that a woman doesn’t want you in her house, the solution is not to bash in her windows, it’s to leave and find a new life partner. It amazes me how some men believe that they can force another person to love them. I for one am glad this woman had a gun and knew how to use it. And as for the sheriff, I am glad he had her back. Contrast this with the case of Commonwealth v. Shaffer, the defendant had been severely beaten by the purported “victim” on several occasions. On the morning of the homicide, the defendant was having breakfast with the victim when an argument ensued. At one point, the victim rose, saying, ‘Never mind. I’ll take care of you right now.’ The defendant threw a cup of tea at him and ran downstairs to the basement playroom, where the children were having breakfast and watching television. Shortly thereafter, the victim opened the door at the top of the basement stairs and said, ‘If you don’t come up these stairs, I’ll come down and kill you and the kids.’ She started to telephone the police, but hung up the telephone when the victim said he would leave the house. Instead, he returned to the top of the stairs, at which time the defendant took a .22 caliber rifle from a rack on the wall and loaded it. She again started to telephone the police when the victim started down the stairs. She fired a fatal shot. More than five minutes elapsed from the time the defendant went to the basement until the shooting took place.

    Here’s what the court said in affirming the conviction for manslaughter:

    The defendant asks us in this case to adopt the majority rule that one assaulted in his own home need not retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force. See, e.g., People v. Tomlins, 213 N.Y. 240, 107 N.E. 496 (1914). See also the cases collected in Perkins, Criminal Law, 1005-1012 (2d ed. 1969) and in LaFave and Scott, Criminal Law, s 53, pp. 395-396 (1972). This has never been the law of the Commonwealth, and we see no reason to adopt it now. We prefer instead to follow our long-established rule that the right to use deadly force by way of self-defense is not available to one threatened until he has availed himself of all reasonable and proper means in the circumstance to avoid combat.

    The Massachusetts Supreme Court is populated by idiots. Thank God this happened in Florida.

    • #13
    • August 31, 2020, at 10:20 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  14. kedavis Member

    Anthony L. DeWitt (View Comment):

    This article is a good example of why gun control is inherently misogynistic. If a locked door is not making the point that a woman doesn’t want you in her house, the solution is not to bash in her windows, it’s to leave and find a new life partner. It amazes me how some men believe that they can force another person to love them. I for one am glad this woman had a gun and knew how to use it. And as for the sheriff, I am glad he had her back. Contrast this with the case of Commonwealth v. Shaffer, the defendant had been severely beaten by the purported “victim” on several occasions. On the morning of the homicide, the defendant was having breakfast with the victim when an argument ensued. At one point, the victim rose, saying, ‘Never mind. I’ll take care of you right now.’ The defendant threw a cup of tea at him and ran downstairs to the basement playroom, where the children were having breakfast and watching television. Shortly thereafter, the victim opened the door at the top of the basement stairs and said, ‘If you don’t come up these stairs, I’ll come down and kill you and the kids.’ She started to telephone the police, but hung up the telephone when the victim said he would leave the house. Instead, he returned to the top of the stairs, at which time the defendant took a .22 caliber rifle from a rack on the wall and loaded it. She again started to telephone the police when the victim started down the stairs. She fired a fatal shot. More than five minutes elapsed from the time the defendant went to the basement until the shooting took place.

    Here’s what the court said in affirming the conviction for manslaughter:

    The defendant asks us in this case to adopt the majority rule that one assaulted in his own home need not retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force. See, e.g., People v. Tomlins, 213 N.Y. 240, 107 N.E. 496 (1914). See also the cases collected in Perkins, Criminal Law, 1005-1012 (2d ed. 1969) and in LaFave and Scott, Criminal Law, s 53, pp. 395-396 (1972). This has never been the law of the Commonwealth, and we see no reason to adopt it now. We prefer instead to follow our long-established rule that the right to use deadly force by way of self-defense is not available to one threatened until he has availed himself of all reasonable and proper means in the circumstance to avoid combat.

    The Massachusetts Supreme Court is populated by idiots. Thank God this happened in Florida.

    Was there another exit from the basement? And what about the children? Geeze.

    • #14
    • August 31, 2020, at 11:20 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  15. Anthony L. DeWitt Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Anthony L. DeWitt (View Comment):

    This article is a good example of why gun control is inherently misogynistic. If a locked door is not making the point that a woman doesn’t want you in her house, the solution is not to bash in her windows, it’s to leave and find a new life partner. It amazes me how some men believe that they can force another person to love them. I for one am glad this woman had a gun and knew how to use it. And as for the sheriff, I am glad he had her back. Contrast this with the case of Commonwealth v. Shaffer, the defendant had been severely beaten by the purported “victim” on several occasions. On the morning of the homicide, the defendant was having breakfast with the victim when an argument ensued. At one point, the victim rose, saying, ‘Never mind. I’ll take care of you right now.’ The defendant threw a cup of tea at him and ran downstairs to the basement playroom, where the children were having breakfast and watching television. Shortly thereafter, the victim opened the door at the top of the basement stairs and said, ‘If you don’t come up these stairs, I’ll come down and kill you and the kids.’ She started to telephone the police, but hung up the telephone when the victim said he would leave the house. Instead, he returned to the top of the stairs, at which time the defendant took a .22 caliber rifle from a rack on the wall and loaded it. She again started to telephone the police when the victim started down the stairs. She fired a fatal shot. More than five minutes elapsed from the time the defendant went to the basement until the shooting took place.

    Here’s what the court said in affirming the conviction for manslaughter:

    The defendant asks us in this case to adopt the majority rule that one assaulted in his own home need not retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force. See, e.g., People v. Tomlins, 213 N.Y. 240, 107 N.E. 496 (1914). See also the cases collected in Perkins, Criminal Law, 1005-1012 (2d ed. 1969) and in LaFave and Scott, Criminal Law, s 53, pp. 395-396 (1972). This has never been the law of the Commonwealth, and we see no reason to adopt it now. We prefer instead to follow our long-established rule that the right to use deadly force by way of self-defense is not available to one threatened until he has availed himself of all reasonable and proper means in the circumstance to avoid combat.

    The Massachusetts Supreme Court is populated by idiots. Thank God this happened in Florida.

    Was there another exit from the basement? And what about the children? Geeze.

    Court was silent on the other exit. Wouldn’t be in my house.

    • #15
    • August 31, 2020, at 3:55 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  16. kedavis Member

    Anthony L. DeWitt (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Anthony L. DeWitt (View Comment):

    Here’s what the court said in affirming the conviction for manslaughter:

    The defendant asks us in this case to adopt the majority rule that one assaulted in his own home need not retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force. See, e.g., People v. Tomlins, 213 N.Y. 240, 107 N.E. 496 (1914). See also the cases collected in Perkins, Criminal Law, 1005-1012 (2d ed. 1969) and in LaFave and Scott, Criminal Law, s 53, pp. 395-396 (1972). This has never been the law of the Commonwealth, and we see no reason to adopt it now. We prefer instead to follow our long-established rule that the right to use deadly force by way of self-defense is not available to one threatened until he has availed himself of all reasonable and proper means in the circumstance to avoid combat.

    The Massachusetts Supreme Court is populated by idiots. Thank God this happened in Florida.

    Was there another exit from the basement? And what about the children? Geeze.

    Court was silent on the other exit. Wouldn’t be in my house.

    All of these courts need a big sign on the wall, “When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.”

    • #16
    • August 31, 2020, at 4:04 PM PDT
    • 3 likes