Last September, I wrote about a local news item about the fellow who broke into a house in the middle of the night and was headed toward the children's bedroom while the dad was shouting at him to stop, to get out of the house. After sufficient warning, the home-owner shot the intruder, not to kill, but to stop him from advancing toward the children's bedrooms. The DA investigated for a couple of days and determined that no charges would be filed against the shooter/home-owner.
The intruder later decided to file civil suit against the home-owner. I've been wondering how the case turned out. A recent news article tells about the criminal case against the intruder. He was found guilty this week and will be sentenced several weeks hence. He is currently in prison for having violated parole. A snippet near the end of the article mentions that the civil suit (in Milwaukee county) against the home-owner was withdrawn and would be re-filed elsewhere.
So far so good. Hooray for the armed victim who protected his family. And hooray for a sensible court system which protected the real victim instead of the intruder who now walks with a limp.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I myself believe that guns are okay in the home as long as they are locked up and unloaded. People in the home also need to have respect and know that they are not toys (children in particular). It is not the gun that kills it is the person behind it. If you look at Texas were they are aloud to carry side arms the crime rated went down.
ReplyDeleteDead men don't litigate.
ReplyDeleteIntentionally shooting someone and trying not to kill them means you don't REALLY believe in shooting him. If he was worth shooting, he was worth deading. That's going to be a huge point in the civil trial.
That guys like this criminal can even file a civil suit is ridiculous, but they can, and the defensive shooter needs to think about these things before he gets into a stressful situation.
As for guns in the home, an empty gun is worth as much as a rock and less than a bat or golf club. In my opinion, locking them up tighter than tight makes them mysterious and taboo. Instead of doing that, I have a loaded firearm on my person almost 24/7. All but my 1.5 year old have seen, heard and fired at least one of them. They are taught from the beginning about these tools and how to safely handle them, how to clean them, how to store them. To the kids, the guns are similar to kitchen knives or scissors; Useful tools that have dangerous aspects if not handled properly.
I hope the jury on the civil case is made up of sensible people, not inner-city entitlement minded petty criminals.
Sorry to hijack your blog, Susan!
Hey, Scott, if you're gonna say things like that, hijack away. Ya want the keys to the plane?
ReplyDeleteI like Kirken's last point too. I wish our governor would've cared about that and signed the concealed-carry laws our legislature sent him.
I grew up in home with guns. My Gramps is a gunsmith and my uncle is a taxadermist. My Gramps went to the PanAm games for pistol shooting (he won a bronze), my aunt went to the Paralymic games twice (and won metals), and most of the family has competed myself included and most of us hunt as well. We were all taught how to respect guns and what they can do and that they are not toys. Here in Canada they have now made it that you have to register them all and certain ones are now illegal to own. As a past gun owner I think this law is a joke. The old Liberal Government wants my name in a data base because of ownership of a gun but yet sex offenders have do not have to have their names in a data base if they committed the crime before the data base was created because it goes against the right of privacy. Do you see a problem there?! Because of soon peoples lack of smarts those that are law abiding are the ones getting punished. Is a person that is going to cause a crime with a gun actually going to use one that is registered? I think not.
ReplyDeleteLOL. Kirken, I'm with ya, 100%.
ReplyDeleteWe're going to be fighting for our lives down here, especially if Hillary gets elected.
I often wonder what will be "enough."
That is a scary thought even here in Canada. I'm so happy that we finally have a Conservative Gov. but there might be an election again here soon if some have their way. Then I will be busy again putting up signs, etc. As my husband puts it, "We bleed blue for the Right." ;-) Funny thing is that before I got home tonight the boys and I were looking at pics of my grandma and gramps and uncles hunting and showing off their deer, etc. and even gutting them. Great memories!
ReplyDeleteScott, I forgot to mention, you want to see some hunting pictures you thought that you never thought you would ever see go to my October 24 blog entry and check it out.
ReplyDeleteScott, check out my October 24 blog entry for a hunting site you never thought you would see.
ReplyDeleteI'm definitely all for having guns in the home and on your person other places. It is clear that crime is less where people defend themselves, and I got my lesson in gun safety before I was allowed to fire Mr. S's semiautomatic however many years ago that was.
ReplyDeleteFrom a forward I got:
"KNOW YOUR STATE MOTTO...
"New York - You Have The Right To Remain Silent, You Have The Right To An Attorney... And No Right To Self Defense!
"District of Columbia - The Work-Free Drug Place!"