If someone is in my house, I will kill them on the spot. Period. End of story. Making any moves after she warned him is the icing on the cake. Entering someone’s house is intent enough in my opinion. That she is a single mother? Possibly irrelevant from a moral standpoint, but adds legitimacy even moreso in my eyes. You have no way of knowing what someone in your house is there for and capable of.
Even if Jodie had shot the guy a time or two while he was on the ground, I am inclined to cut her some slack. In a pants-wetting situation like the OP, I would be highly likely to fire until the gun was empty, especially if I missed with the first shot.
I am not talking about shooting him, then walking over and shooting him in the head execution-style. I mean firing six or eight or ten or however many bullets I have in the weapon in hopes of hitting him at least once. And I don’t think I would be able to think fast enough to stop shooting if he started to fall. Once I start shooting, I am likely to keep going until I hear click-click instead of bang-bang.
Fortunately people don’t fall down instantly when shot like in the movies, so I suspect even if my first was a fatal shot, I would have time to empty the clip into the front of my uninvited guest before he made it clear by falling down that he was no longer a threat to me or my family.
Someone asked above if Jodi should move the knife into Mr. Dairyman’s hand. No - no need, and since she didn’t recognize the knife he is going to be the only one with his fingerprints on it. More evidence of his bad intentions, and with no need to embellish.
Of course all of this is thought up and posted from the safety of my PC, and I would have little-to-no chance of actually responding with any kind of coolness or sense.
Regards,
Shodan
That was me, and the suggestion was a dark joke. Touching the knife is a really, really bad idea. If her fingerprints are on it, it makes everything else she has said suspect.
If you have a sniper rifle from 1-200yds away and plenty of time, then sure- you can shoot to disable. From 10’ or less? You shoot to kill- all the time. Anything else is silly.
So, once polling is closed, does the OP tell us the rest of the story?
And, justified. But I’m waiting for the other shoe to fall where he just saved her daughter from a fire or something. Then it’s justified but tragic. I hate tragic.
Ah ha! So he was up to no good!
When you buy a gun, if you’re a responsible person you think about it and decide if you’re prepared to use it if the situation warrants it. I know I did. I wouldn’t have let my dad give me a gun if I didn’t feel like I should, could, and would use it in a circumstance much like this one (although what I pictured was being in bed at night and hearing somebody break in.)
There’s a kinda-sorta-but-not-really joke in Texas that the “he needed killin’” defense is still legally viable.
Unknown man goes into locked home at night where a child is present, does not instantly respond to orders from an armed, female homeowner who is also parent of said child, tries to talk her around, and glances at a weapon in arm’s reach?
Yeah, he needed killin’, and not a jury in the state would do anything but acquit her with the post script “and she was just the gal to do it.”
This.
I agree. ↑↑↑
I’m male, and Jodie was definitely morally justified. Have to be an idiot to think otherwise.
Needed an option without this red second sentence IMO.
The man was a stranger in her home. She gave him a chance to surrender and he didn’t take it. I say she was morally justified in shooting him in self-defense.
Totally justified in shooting.
To clarify some of the points made above: the goal of a defensive shooting is to nullify the threat. This means firing into the center of mass, which is likely to be fatal, but that is not the goal.
A shot to the head is more likely to be fatal, but the head is a smaller target and can be moving faster and less predictably than COM.
As for multiple shots, a woman is likely to be firing a mild recoiling calibre and-or load which will be less likely to stop a threat with one shot. Entry wounds are small, and depending on clothing it may not be obvious which shots are hitting, and the shooter needs to be focused on making sure the next shot hits, not whether the previous one did. She needed to keep firing until the bad guy was no longer vertical, or the gun stops making loud noises.
One good reason to stop firing after the bad guy falls is the possibility that the intruder has an accomplice. Another might be legal problems with shots to the back or head at close range.
I’m a liberal-we-need-fewer-guns-more-gun-laws kinda guy.
I would have shot him. Totally justified.
If I’m the guy drinking the milk, soaking wet…and I’m there for some non-nefarious reason which is not immediately imaginable…what would I do?
I would put my hands on top of freaking head and wait for the cops.
She was justified from the moment she saw him. She was doubleplus-justified by his failure to comply with her instructions. His reaction was that of a creepy weirdo who might have had guns indecisively pointed at him in the past. Creepy weirdo like that needs his sternum blown out through his spine, QED.
Mozambique, please.
If she had seen him before entering the kitchen and fired without warning from the dark living room, it probably still would be justified, based on what she saw. Except, then there would be milk all over the floor.
In Australia she wouldn’t have the gun legally in the first place. However, the question is about morally justified and I said absolutely it was.
My logic is as follows:
Her actions can only be based on the information she has at the time, which is the same information we have in the OP. Based on the information she has right there and then:
There is a stranger in her kitchen who seems to have broken in through a window.
There is a knife on the table that she doesn’t own
The stranger is significantly bigger than her
The stranger has refused several requests to put his hands on his head and let her call the police
The stranger has moved toward her.
Morally at least she has the right to defend herself. In a split second situation trying to aim to disable is (imho) ridiculous, 99% of people would aim at the body mass and pull the trigger. Police here are trained to aim at the body mass. They don’t shoot to kill they shoot to stop. Killing may be an incidental side effect. Pulling it more than once in rapid succession is more (again, IMHO) more of a reflex than a deliberate action. Now, if she put one bullet in each eye and drew a smiley face on his forehead with the rest then I could revisit that bit.
Now, it may turn out that it was all a misunderstanding and the bloke was innocent. In that case, if he’s dead he qualifies for a Darwin Award because surely walking toward a wound up person who’s pointing a gun at you after being told to put your hands up is as clever as practicing tap dancing in a mine field.
Hey, I just voted and the poll only let me choose one answer! C’mon Skald, You said I could choose all that apply!
I really like sandwiches and pie. Ice cream would be good. Vanella, with butterscotch syrup, please.
As far as the shooting, all I can say is good shooting Tex!
GusNSpot has it right;
"I’m male, and Jodie was definitely morally justified. Have to be an idiot to think otherwise.
Needed an option without this red second sentence IMO."
She would also be justified in bludgeoning him to death - or any other means of defense available regardless if they result in death. If she had a broadsword and cleaved him in two that would be fine too for example.
I voted “morally justified” because I’m assuming Jodie is just A-OK with using violence, and by those standards, she’s in the clear.
Although you didn’t mention if she wears a hat. Or why the guy is soaking wet when it hasn’t rained for six days.
I love that song, BTW, it’s one of my all-time favourites (original, I mean, although the Tori Amos cover’s nice, too)