baldeagle wrote:I'm just curious. How do you know that the door was closed and locked? How do you know the man wasn't an immediate threat? I didn't see anything in the article that indicated either of those two facts.VoiceofReason wrote:He should not have fired through the door. He should have called 911, yelled at them that he had called the police and taken cover behind a couch, another doorway, or whatever and waited. If they tried to force the door, as soon as it started to come open, unload on them.
No excuse for firing through a door that is closed and locked. He killed a man that was not an immediate threat to him.
Bad situation.
ISTM we are far too quick to judge without knowing all the facts. We make assumptions based upon our own biases of how we would handle a similar situation without knowing the details that could well change our minds.
I agree AND I don't trust the media, who often slant a story to make self-defense sound unreasonable. Here's what the article actually says:
"The groom and his brother tried to enter the home by kicking and beating on the door."
It doesn't say they knocked on the door, it says they tried to enter by kicking and beating on the door. And while firing through the door may usually be unreasonable I can think of one situation where it is not: someone is forcing the door open while you're trying to hold it shut against them --in which case shooting through the door might be your only alternative. As you say, the article doesn't give us all the facts. Maybe this guy opened the door with the chain or latch still on and that's when they tried to enter, kicking and beating on the door --we don't know.