The Daily Caller reported this. What offends me is the way the official answered the reporter about what would have happened if this housewife had shot and killed the masked man (teen, but she didn’t know that) who was armed with machete and shotgun.
Imagine going to your front door in the middle of the night and finding a man with a shotgun, wearing a ski mask, wielding a machete and screaming at you.
The masked gunman toyed with the woman inside the house as she worried about herself and her two children.
When police arrived, they chased the suspect briefly until he threw down his weapon. The suspect claims to be “an ordinance thief,” though police aren’t sure what he meant by that.
Once unmasked, the suspect was revealed to be a 15-year-old male. Police are baffled by the teenager’s actions, and said his motivations are totally unclear.
But one thing is clear, at least to the woman: Her family may have been in mortal peril, had she not been armed.
“I pointed the gun right at him, and he took a few steps back,” she said. “I felt like I was playing a game with him. He would step up closer to the door, I would raise the gun, and then he would take a step back.”
So now consider what we find in the news story at 1:33:
Reporter: “Would this homeowner have been justified in putting a hole in this kid?”
Public servant: “I believe so, if he had gone to the point that he had actually started entering the home.”
So, if this woman—being terrorized by a masked man scratching on her window with a machete and toying with her as she feared for her life—had shot at him when he approached the door, she would have been prosecuted for a wrongful death? A homicide?
Does that make any sense at all?
She was right to hold fire because, as she realized, firing from a handgun might have prompted the attacker to use the shotgun. She had no way of knowing for sure that one shot from her would stop him. I am amazed she held it together and made good decisions under pressure.
But a homeowner should not have to fear trial, incarceration, and lifetime disarmament when a masked man with a shotgun starts toying with him or her, threatening to break in. That’s not how government should treat people.
The news crew expresses appreciation for the police in not “escalating” the situation by opening fire. But the fact is that, if they had shot the kid down—even if they had done so after he threw down their weapons—they would probably face no penalty at all, and certainly nothing comparable to what would have happened to that woman if she had killed the perp outside her house.
We need guns for self-defense. We also need a government not looking for ways to punish us for defending ourselves.
PostScript: If you have a gunman breaking into your house with a shotgun, and all you have is a pistol, do you want the number of rounds in your magazine limited by law?