Of course. Armed intruder? Do what you can to avoid harm.
Sailboat’s response puzzles me as well. All I can figure is that his post was not terribly well thought out.
You’d have to ask the son.
But the facts have not been made clear that there was no other option available but to shoot.
Somewhat off-topic: this story mentions that the son was adopted. What are youse people’s thoughts on news organizations including this bit of information in stories like this? Irrelevant? Relevant? Harmful to the adoption world? A fair warning to those thinking about adoption? Or what?
I ask because there was a local case recently where a son broke into his parent’s house, attacked his family, killing his father, and there was some blowback from adoptees and adopters when local media included the fact that the murderer was the “adopted son” of the victim. And now I notice that NBC News is including it in this story as well.
Personally, I would not turn my back on a knife wielding person who is approaching me, unless I’m unarmed.
The police seem to think otherwise. For now, I’ll trust their opinion over Internet speculation.
It was quicker than “Came at him in a threatening manner” and means the same thing. Some will argue the second part, I’m sure.
You mean the prosecutor, not the police. I explained above a possible scenario concerning the decision not to prosecute since there may be a grey area and it was the son involved. You might not agree with it, but it is a possible scenario. Just because they are not prosecuting does not mean the father did the right thing by shooting the son. Don’t you see the difference? Not prosecuting does not mean that it was necessary to fatally shoot.
The fact that it was the son who was fatally shot should rightfully lend many to speculate that things might have been handled differently concerning the fatal gunshot and the fact that it was the son involved might lend many to wonder if firing the gun was indeed the last line of defense.
Listen, I’m no fan of guns, but someone wielding a knife can close even a significant distance in mere seconds, faster than someone can either walk backwards or turn their back on their apparent attacker and try to run.
Fortunately for your judgement, the dad gets to second-guess everything from that decision to how he raised his son, for the rest of his life.
This is stupid, a waste of time, and I am done.
But if you retreat from a knife wielding attacker, you are now risking your life on the assumption that either he will not chase you, or if he does chase you, you are faster than him and will not trip, fall down, become tired etc. Personally, I’m not willing to risk my life on those assumptions.
In general, you’re only required to retreat in lieu of deadly force if you can do so safely. Retreating from someone who is within a few feet of you (which I’m just making up, since it doesn’t say anything in the story about distances) and lunging at you with a knife isn’t a safe option.
When you have a gun, you have a responsibility to fire responsibly. I think retreating from an assailant is a responsible thing to do, and should be done.
It is not clear whether retreat was an option in this case, but as underlined by the fact that it was the son who was shot should cause one to wonder if it indeed was the last course of action.
Yes, I do. Thanks for the correction.
Yes, of course. But for now I’ll trust in their judgement.
I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Are you suggesting that the father shot the son on purpose, knowing it was the son? And that the prosecutor is giving him a pass on that? That doesn’t make much sense, and it doesn’t fit with the story we’ve been given.
I’ll go out on a limb here and speculate that if the father KNEW it was his son he might not have shot him.
I see that you’re being deliberately obtuse and are not worth responding to.
It also says the father had a back injury during the shooting.
Maybe this kid was pulling a stunt he thought was funny and safe but he was doing it while sleepwalking? Sleepwalking people can do some weird shit.
I’m not being deliberately obtuse, I’m genuinely curious as to what you think the real story is.
And you’re being pretty dismissive and rude to people who are not right on board with you.
I’ve read over the thread a few times now. Obtuse where?
ETA: re: tdn.
Retreating is a terrible choice. Either you turn and run, hoping you are faster than your assailant (or that they are merciful/lazy and don’t pursue) or you walk backwards, which puts you at risk of tripping and falling.
What’s the point of even having a gun if you still need to put yourself at an assailant’s mercy or at the limits of your skill in walking backwards in the dark?