imported post
As others have said, it is not hindsight that provides the guideline on your actions, but what you know in the moment.
She had no way to know he wasn't after her or her property. Someone in your garage stealing your power tools may or may not turn violent when caught in the act. Anecdotally, this is why my dad had dentures from a fairly young age: he caught a couple guys breaking into his car, and they smashed him in the face with a pipe he never saw coming.
"Hot" burglaries are uncommon in the United States, but when someone invades your house when you are home, the chances are *very* good that the encounter will turn violent. He is not merely an unwelcome guest, not merely "uninvited", he is an *invader* and it would do you well to be mentally prepared for that.
I will admit there is a psychological step between the garage and the living spaces, just as there is between being in the yard and inside the building. But again, hot burglaries are rare and a high percentage that do occur, involve violence.
On another note, this woman should have STFU about what happened until she was sure there won't be legal repercussions. As responsible gun owners and users, we need to be able to articulate what, where, when, how, and why both to the public at large and to Law Enforcement if necessary. If you don't have a coherent narrative, then keep your mouth shut until you do. Not saying to make up a story or lie, but do not incriminate yourself because you simply didn't think through what you're saying, or give the rest of us a bad name because you seem unstable, poorly trained, or uncertain of yourself.
SWilden says: "I like them (Castle Doctrine laws -ed.) because I realize that making accurate risk assessments in a situation like that is difficult, and I don't want to be armchair quarterbacked by the courts. I'm willing to accept that some criminals may be hurt or killed improperly by poorly-trained or excessively aggressive homeowners rather than risk homeowners who were truly just defending themselves going to prison or losing everything they own. "
I agree with this 100%
Also the fact the he didn't have to force a door or window does not make his criminal activity any less dangerous to you and yours. In this case we find out from the beginning of the story that he was merely hiding and that he was willing to run away.
However, in the actual event, the sequence of events isn't laid out like that. The end result doesn't come first, with the explanation and justificationsneatly tagged on as an afterthought.
In the first person version of the story, a woman hears a bunch of police commotion, checks her house out, and finds an unknown man present in her home. There's already enough bad juju going on in her environment to make her nervous in the first place, and NOW THERE'S A MAN IN HER HOME. She shoots (perhaps foolishly and in a poorly thought-out and untrained manner) to scare him. He runs away. She shoots again in the air because she is hyped to the max on adrenaline, scared, and because chase instincts make her want to do *something*. Read Dave Grossman's book on when most killing occurs on the battlefield, it's not when orderly ranks are looking each other in the eye, it's when one side is routed and triggers an instinct to kill prey.
This does not make it right, but it is something that is best overcome by training and forethought, to predetermine some of those decision branches when cooler heads can prevail.
Better training on when deadly force is justified, both ethically and legally, and better training on safety are what this woman appears to need.
