Category: Carrying / Self-Defense

Hat tip to Joan Peterson for this story on a guy who shot two burglars execution style, and is being charged with murder. It is not often I agree with Joan, but I do agree that the homeowner’s behavior here was criminal and reprehensible. But I do want to explain the law here, especially as it relates to Castle Doctrine, so that we may dispel some common myths. First, from the story:

Brady fell down the stairs and was looking up at Smith when the homeowner shot him in the face.

“I want him dead,” Smith explained to the investigator for the additional shot.

Smith put Brady’s body on a tarp and dragged him to an office workshop.

A few minutes later, Smith heard footsteps above him. As in Brady’s case, Kifer too started down the stairs and was shot by Smith by the time he saw her hips, sending her tumbling down the stairs.

Smith attempted to shoot her again, but his rifle jammed, prompting Kifer to laugh.

Upset, Smith, pulled out a revolver he had on him and shot her “more times than I needed to” in the chest, he said.

Smith dragged Kifer next to Brady as she gasped for her life. He pressed the revolver’s barrel under her chin and pulled the trigger in what he described as a “good, clean finishing shot” that was meant to end her suffering.

Smith acknowledged leaving the bodies in his home overnight before calling a neighbor to ask about a lawyer and to request that authorities be notified.

In nearly all 50 states, including Minnesota, the mere use of deadly force in the circumstance of someone feloniously entering your home is, generally speaking, legitimate self-defense. In many states, forced entry into an occupied dwelling is considered prima facie evidence that a deadly threat exists. Minnesota, following traditional common law, allows for deadly force to be used to prevent the commission of a felony, though in MN limited to one’s place of abode, and burglary is a felony in Minnesota. Minnesota law states:

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor’s place of abode.

Regardless of whether castle doctrine has passed in Minnesota or not, there is already an absolute unqualified right (qualified by a duty to retreat in some circumstances in the home imposed by judicial fiat) to respond to burglars invading an occupied home in Minnesota with deadly force, but only if the purpose of such force is to prevent the continuing felony, or to protect life and limb. Murder is never lawful, and Minnesota, like most states, defines (in this case 2nd degree) murder as when someone “causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation,” (emphasis mine). As soon as you say something like this to the police:

“I want him dead,” Smith explained to the investigator for the additional shot.

[…]

Upset, Smith, pulled out a revolver he had on him and shot her “more times than I needed to” in the chest, he said.

Smith dragged Kifer next to Brady as she gasped for her life. He pressed the revolver’s barrel under her chin and pulled the trigger in what he described as a “good, clean finishing shot” that was meant to end her suffering.

That’s the intentional infliction of death, which is murder. The intent in self-defense is never to inflict death, but to stop the attack, or in the case of Minnesota law, to prevent to commission of a felony. Once they are down, they are no longer a threat and no longer committing a felony. To take a “finishing shot,” becomes murder. This is regardless of the Castle Doctrine law.

I say this because our opponents characterization of this law as “shoot first,” and “license to kill,” creates the very real danger, when combined with an ignorant and unquestioning media willing to repeat their rhetoric, that some fool or whack job may actually believe it. This man confessed his crime willingly to the police. Why would he do that if he did not believe he was in the right? Let us not continue to peddle the myths about deadly force laws. Murder is always illegal.

This is one of the worst ideas I’ve seen in a long time.

Only with an issued-only-to-the-connected license to carry can you open carry in New Jersey. As usual, the New York Times has no idea what it’s talking about when it comes to guns and gun laws.

I’ve seen people I’ve suspected of carrying, but not anything this obvious. I’m sure I’ve blared out at full volume before myself, though. Since Bitter has been around, I sometimes get “You’re printing wearing that, just so you know.” No, I didn’t know. I’d worn that before and didn’t think it would be a problem. Sometimes it helps to have an extra pair of eyes for that kind of thing.

It really is a good lesson that bears repeating.

Wow, check out this incredible editorial by a California paper against a concealed carry ban – for the specific reason that good people should be able to defend their lives. The mind boggles.

CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS.
Senator Roberts has introduced a bill to repeal the law making it a penal offense to carry concealed deadly weapons in this State. It may not sound well in theory to defend the repeal of this law; but we think the movement practically a good one. The old law was always a dead letter among the very class it was designed to restrict — the robbers, assassins and desperate characters. It was never needed as against civil citizens, for these never kill or wound save in self-defense. But the effect of it has been to give the worst men in the country greater advantages over the peaceably disposed than they had before; since the law, which is generally respected by the latter, never was regarded by the desperate and evil disposed. These have carried pistols, knives and slung-shots, just the same as if there were no law against it; and the police, always ready to make a dollar or win a little cheap reputation by arresting quiet citizens found by accident with concealed weapons, are very shy of the desperadoes and careful not to run the risk of their displeasure. The law by these means virtually disarmed the good citizens so that the wicked and outlawed portion have them completely at their mercy. It has become worse than a nuisance, and ought to be repealed without delay.

Which paper finally sees the issue so clearly? The Sacramento Daily Union of December 13, 1869.

I learned about a resource of historical newspapers from Clayton Cramer‘s speech at the NRA Second Amendment Symposium. He jokingly ended his speech with the comment that it only took what – 140 years – for the Supreme Court to catch up with newspaper editorials in California.

Joe has an interesting article on outreach, when he was speaking of a former manager of his who is a foreign national. “Interesting about self defense being the place that I ‘lost him’.” That doesn’t surprise me, having spoken to a few non-American co-workers about the subject. The idea of the individual being responsible for their own security seems to be an American concept. That’s not to say they don’t believe in the morality of an act of self-defense — when you push them on it they accept that if some guy comes at you with a knife, you’re justified in using any means necessary to defend yourself.

What they don’t accept is the preparedness. In my experience there’s a view that security is a community function and not an individual function, so the job of going about prepared to defend oneself is in the view of a non-American an anti-social act. It is the usurpation of something that is supposed to be a community function. That’s a pretty fundamental difference of philosophy, and one that I think it’s hard to get past.

This is about the dumbest app idea I think I’ve ever seen.

… armed citizens work.