Shoot First, Straighten it out Later

Well, the pro- and anti-gun folks are getting their underwear twisted in little, painful knots again. Couple tries to steal man's SUV. Man shoots one of them dead on his property. The other, when caught, gets charged with murder (since someone died during the commission of a felony).

On the gun control side, this is a problem because deadly force was used in the commission of a grand larceny auto. Not a carjacking, just a brazen robbery. And while lethal force could have been an option, the farmer could have let them drive off with his car, called the insurance company, and a woman would still be alive. A criminal, yes. Deserving execution? No.

On the 'no retreat' side, this is an example of the law working correctly. The criminals went onto his private property to commit a crime, confident that they could steal this SUV from this old man. Had they understood that stepping on someone's property and having that person feel endangered might result in them getting aerated, they probably would move on to other, less dangerous activities. But they didn't, and now one's dead and the other's going to jail for a very long time.

So where's the Right in the situation. People have property rights, the right to defend themselves, and also the right to remain alive and not worry that even a small wrongdoing might result in their violent deaths. (Eight shots to stop someone? We call that emptying the magazine where I come from.) How's the right to keep one's SUV greater than the right not to worry about being killed for theft?

The philosophy is for the courts, and this gentle reader, to decide. But consider that while the potential for deadly force might be a deterrent for some, it might also cause criminals to use overwhelming force when committing crimes for which they might otherwise have used none. And every life, crook or victim, is precious.