In Defense of the Home -- II

* a quick interruption in the three part series for Valentines Day, which will return 2-7*

For those of you who don't know it, Colorado has had a law on the books since the latter 1970s, known as the "Make My Day" law. It defends the right of a homeowner to use deadly physical force against an intruder to the home, if the homeowner has reason to fear for the lives of him/herself and family. Proponents were jubilant about passage of the law back then; critics decried that it would spark a wave of gun vigilantism, and a host of senseless shootings.

As usual with the progressive critics, it has done neither in the 30 or so years it's been on the books. If my memory serves me, two persons have been prosecuted for misusing the law. That's two in over 30 years.

At any rate, the law comes up for scrutiny again, in the wake of an incident in Colorado Springs in the late fall of 2008: a 22 year old male, coming from a party and thinking he's home, tries to enter a house. First he bangs on the door, yelling. Then he goes around back, breaks out a window, and tries to reach in to open the door. Inside, a couple has no idea who this person is, or what his intentions are. They only know that someone is trying to break in to their house. One is on the phone to 911; the other is yelling at the stranger to leave, and is armed with a .38 revolver. When the stranger breaks the window and reaches inside to open the door, the homeowner fires thrice, killing the stranger.

As is later learned, the 22 year old man has a blood alcohol content of .26, three times the legal limit of intoxication in Colorado. He drove, stumbling drunk, to the wrong street and the wrong house, and tried to force his way in, despite warnings from the homeowner inside, some of which is captured on the recorded 911 audio tape.

The local DA, after examining all facts of the case, elects to file no charges on the homeowner, and judges his actions as justified under the "Make My Day" law. The family of the dead man is understandably upset, believing that there was no reason for him to die.

And from this, some criminal advocate in Chicago, begins a screechpaign about the unjustness of laws like Colorado's "Make My Day" Law, and wants all such laws overturned. This advocate -- he goes by the last name of Vogel, and probably the first name of something stupid -- doesn't care about the facts of the case. He only cares that a homeowner used deadly physical force to defend his property, and that isn't fair.

Knowing what I know of the case, here's my take:

1) The homeowner had no idea who was trying to break in to his home. He only knew that someone was trying to.

2) That someone was oblivious to the homeowner's warnings to leave.

3) The homeowner was in fear for his life, and that of his girlfriend (who was on the phone to 911).

4) When the intruder -- ignoring the homeowner's shouts to leave -- broke through the window to open the door, the homeowner fired, believing he was defending himself against a criminal with unknown intentions, and he -- the homeowner -- wasn't of a mind to play Maury and try to find out what the intentions of the intruder were, once the intruder had gained full entry.

Tragic? Sure. Justified reaction by the homeowner to the circumstances presented? Without having actually been there at the time, I can only say that based on what I've seen, yes. Is someone at fault for the death of a 22 year old man?

Sure. The 22 year old is, if you believe in self-responsibility and self-accountability. He's the one that chose to get stumbling drunk; chose to drive that way -- luckily killing no one else while he was behind the wheel -- wound up at the wrong house, and tried to force his way in, either ignoring warnings shouted from within, or drunkenly oblivious to them.

If fault must be assessed for his death, the fault rests with him. Or at least it should, in a society where self-responsibility, self-accountability, and the rule of law matters, or is supposed to.

Unless you're like this idiot from Chicago, who thinks that homeowners shouldn't have the right to defend themselves in their homes from intruders.

I've already covered how I feel about home defense and the law in Colorado with an earlier blog entry; I'm all for it. It matters not to me that I have only me here, any more than it would matter to me if I had a wife and house full of kids. I have a home-defense weapon, and would use it if facing a similar circumstance. Granted, my training because of my background is different from that of this particular homeowner (so far as I know about the homeowner); I might not have fired before the intruder made it all the way in. Again, not having been there, I can't be critical of the homeowner, based on what I know.

I only know that if faced with a similar circumstance, the intruder has three choices: run, obey, or get shot. I'm not Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry", but I hit where I aim at (discounting the turkey episode of 39 years ago).

I know that doesn't sit well with the panty-laced progressives like this Vogel idiot from Chicago. Then again, I'm not depending on pie-in-the-sky criminal advocates to defend my rights. I'll take responsibility for that, within the guidelines of established and written law. And at least in Colorado -- for now -- I have the legal right to defend myself in my home. Rest assured, I will.