I was reading the Self-Defense Gun Use Blog yesterday and was struck by how close it was to our home invasion scenario at Front Sight. It also brings up ethical issues that we discussed.
Here we have people complaining because an unarmed person was shot. The Front Sight people talked to us about the fact people are going to have a different standard when they look back at the situation. All they are going to see is an unarmed person shot by an armed one. They will assume that is wrong until you prove otherwise.
This is a classic case of a determined attacker. A determined attacker isn’t the norm, and they aren’t rational.
A rational criminal will skip over someone who seems to be a problem. They are in it for the easy money. If someone seems to be aware of them and not an easy victim, they skip them because they know an easy one will be along later.
A determined attacker is out to kill you or do you serious harm. In those cases you have to act to defend yourself and stop the attack. You also have to be prepared for them to continue to try and kill you even if you shoot them.
In this case the homeowner/father did everything right. He called the cops. He waited for the guy to come to him. He warned the guy he was armed. And still the guy broke the door down and came after him.
They told us you needed to be able to honestly say “He forced me to shoot him in order to stop him from harming me or my family.” Not he was a scumbag or a goblin that deserved it. Not I thought he might hurt me.