news-record.com

OPINION

Editorial: Defending your home can come with limits

Tuesday, September 1, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

 

The difference between protecting your home and taking the law into your own hands can be slight.

Ideally, citizens should let law enforcement and courts handle lawbreakers, but for some crime victims that may seem too little, too late.

Two recent incidents, one here, the other in Charlotte, underscore a troubling gray area.

On Aug. 22, four teens, one armed with a gun, burst into the home of an elderly Charlotte couple, terrorized them and made off with money, jewelry and another gun.

The 76-year-old man broke free, had his wife call 911, jumped into his truck and headed off in the direction he thought his assailants had gone -- ostensibly to provide police with information.

But the scene turned ugly several blocks away when he confronted them. The man told investigators one of the suspects turned toward him. Fearing he had a gun, the man fired his, killing the unarmed 15-year-old.

Last Wednesday afternoon in Greensboro, a Munster Avenue resident fired three rounds into the air outside his home after coming face-to-face with would-be burglars fleeing the scene. One suspect was arrested nearby and the shooter was charged with discharging a firearm in the city.

Was it protecting the homeplace or vigilante justice? In North Carolina, it's legal to kill someone in defense of yourself or someone else. The law also protects homeowners who shoot to defend their property.

Responding with force on your own land is much easier to condone than tracking a suspect blocks away. But in either situation, collateral damage is possible -- even from shooting into the air. The bullet has to land somewhere.

Victims, of course, have a right to feel violated. One minute, the Charlotte couple was eating ice cream in the safety of their basement. The next, they were staring down the muzzle of a criminal's gun.

In all likelihood, police would have arrived too late to nab these burglars. Even so, letting police do their job alone would have been far wiser than the victim getting involved by pursing and confronting his tormenters.

A 15-year-old is dead and an elderly man might face serious charges, depending on the district attorney's investigation. A jury could decide whether his response was worth it.

Despite falling crime rates, many people still live in fear. Even with community watches and home security systems, there remains a pervasive feeling of vulnerability. Drastic measures can look very inviting.

A man's home might well be his castle, but laws, common sense and public safety should dictate how far he goes to protect it if threatened.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Panacea

September 1, 2009 - 8:16 am EDT

The source problems behind crime are complex. As a society, we don't want people taking the law into their own hands. But at the same time, when violent offenders slip in and out of the system, and the law makes it difficult if not impossible for people to defend themselves, it is not surprising that there is some blowback. That 76 year old man probably felt pretty sure those kids would get away with their crime, so he chased them down. Did he do the right thing? Hard to say--we don't know if that kid is one of the four involved in the crime.

Concealed carry gun laws work in Texas. Why can't we have them here? If criminals knew their victims were armed and ready to defend themselves, crime would go down.

JParker

September 7, 2009 - 8:24 pm EDT

We DO have concealed carry in NC.

Get A Clue

September 1, 2009 - 8:30 am EDT

Liberal with a capital L here. One who supports the entire Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, and who thinks the NRA's leadership are wackos.
And one who has always though that the moment you cross my property line with obvious evil intent regarding my family or my property that you have signed away all your rights. I will shoot first and maybe ask questions later. And I will chase you down, if possible, and make sure you never again have the opportunity to inflict harm on my family or my property. We will not live in fear of your return.
I'm not really interested in your unfortunate childhood or your need for expression or whether or not life's given you a bum deal once you've made the decision to take my property or threaten my family. Every choice we make has consequences. For instance, I never drink (even 1 beer) before I take the wheel, because it's not the alcohol's fault should I have an accident. It's mine. I knew what could happen before I started drinking. Likewise, you know what could happen before you enter my home and start making threats or waving a gun in my face. I recall a phrase from my youth; I'll edit it for these pages. Your mouth shouldn't write checks that your posterior can't cash.

Crimedog

September 1, 2009 - 11:13 am EDT

This reminds me of 2 particular cases I had as a young police officer in South Florida in the early 1970's.
1. A man in his house spotted a male looking through his bedroom window at his wife. He got his pistal, went outside the back door, went around to the window and shot the pervert to death. He then dragged the low-life's dead body to his front door and placed it in the living room. He called police and I was dispatched over there. He stated that he shot the guy coming through the door. I saw right away what really happened and within a few minutes, I arrested the home owner for murder. The investigating detectives concurred with me as to the actual evidence on scene. The home owner pled out to a manslaughter charge and I think he ended up with a 3 year prison sentence.
2. A home owner came home enter through his garage door to find his house ransacked and spotted the burglar fleeing through the front door carrying his new 32" remote control color television. He grabbed his pistal and charged out the front door after the scumbag burglar. On the sidewalk, he aimed at the slower running criminal loaded down with a heavy TV, and fired 2 shots with a .357 mag. Both rounds hit the criminal in the back and came out through the TV. I was dispatched to the scene. The dead guy was laying across the shot-up TV, face down, knees on the sidewalk. The home owner was bragging to some of the neighbors that had gathered around. I had the homicide investigators to come out. After a lenthy investigation, and finding both bullets enter another home and were lodged in a wall, the home owner was arrested for several criminal charges. Murder was one of them. Reckless endangering was another. I know the home owner later did some prison time, but I'm not sure how much.
Lesson learned here is - PROPERTY IS ALWAYS WORTH LESS THAN HUMAN LIFE!!! I can understand the emotion of feeling raped and violated when a slimeball criminal enters and whips up on your sanctity. The urge to kill has to be surpressed unless you can show that your life or another life is truly endangered. And, this is a hard choice which must be made in a slit second. If you shoot the criminal in the back, you may have a legal problem. If you shoot the criminal in the front, just maybe you can prove self defense. I'm not giving legal advise here, just throwing out some common sense. The Dog's outa here!
Crimedog

Loyaltee

September 1, 2009 - 2:52 pm EDT

I am still having a real problem with the Gboro man who shot at the 2 guys after they peered through his window. In the video it shows them LEAVING his property. He nor his belongings were in danger, definitely NOT his life. Let's be clear...if you come into my house and place me or my family in the position that killing you is the only way for us to survive...well then you'll meet your maker before I do. But those 2 guys were leaving, and he shot at them while their back was turned. To me that's cowardly.

Get A Clue

September 2, 2009 - 1:24 pm EDT

Cowardly, to me, is choosing to terrorize decent, law-abiding people. Cowardly is choosing a lifestyle of immediate gratification and violence over education and employment. Cowardice is taking what I or my family have earned for yourself through violence or threats. Cowardice is to verbally, sexually or violently hurt another person by choosing to violate their personal space or property. Cowardice is to then say, "It's not personal," or to blame your past or society for your choices.
Stupidity is believing after you have done this to me or my family that once you turn your back to me you're safe. I am a Liberal, but I do not have my priorities concerning my family's life and liberties screwed up. Attack us and the only 'bleeding heart' will be yours.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search