Why are you comparing JHP to FMJ? I don’t know how it’s always been, but most/all police departments today ban FMJ for various reasons (stopping and not having bullets travel through walls, etc.) and carry JHP. Or at least a softer nose. Your 39.9 is compared to .38spl 158gr LWC at… 39.7. And .357 at the same diameter is 48.5. Wasn’t carrying capacity the main consideration, solved as “automatics” became more reliable?
The “revolvers are way more powerful” thing is an official trope.
See, I thought you meant “shoot first” as in “Shoot as her first response to the situation” , which is not what she did. If you actually meant that to be morally justified, she would have had to wait until he started shooting at her, then your argument is completely crazy.
And again - she gave him a chance to explain. He refused to take it, and just continued acting in a threatening manner.
Because that’s how you get shot. Justifiably. His innocence has nothing to do with things at that point. Backing away when asked to by a person with a gun is really the only reasonable action to defuse the situation.
It’s down to what a reasonable person can assume in that situation. In your own house, with your daughter upstairs, and an uncooperative unknown person in your kitchen a reasonable person can suspect the worst and act accordingly.
He had plenty of opportunity to say what his reasons were. “OhshitohshitI’minthewronghousedon’tkillmehere’sthemilkmyhandsareonmyheadilivenextdoordon’tkillmecallthecopspleasedon’tkillme”
Refusing to present the reason is pretty much the same as having no reason.
He had the chance to explain. He didn’t. He had the chance to comply. He didn’t. I’m not seeing a lot of reason to give him the benefit of the doubt, considering the stakes.
Because you handed everybody reason to state “he was moving towards her so he could have been attacking” which made it an easy choice.
Take the same scenario, with the same danger, the same open window, the same doubt, the same glance at the knife and the same shrug of the shoulders, the same everything but without that step forward, should she still shoot?
This.
If you are there with an innocent purpose, when someone points a gun at you, you immediately give the innocent purpose. You don’t equivocate or say stupid stuff like “This isn’t what it seems - I can explain”. You repeat in a low soothing voice “I am the father of your daughter’s locker partner! I sell cutlery for a living! She invited me over to pick out a present for Mother’s Day! Don’t shoot me!” All the while moving politely into the corner with your hands up and facing away.
And if you don’t do all those things, you have to expect to get shot sooner or later. It’s a pity, in a way, but what can be done?
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, and burglars also wear those little masks, and striped white and black shirts. Clearly this man was not a burglar!
In a less sarcastic way, can I ask what factual sources you draw on for “burglars bring their own lights?”
Maybe international jewel thieves do. Most burglars are junkies, looking for cash or items that they can quickly sell. They don’t bring their own anything. They often raid the fridge for something to eat or drink.
I don’t think self-defense would apply if you were an intruder in someone else’s house, though.
I wonder if we’re having difficultly communicating because we’re separated by a common language. Here in the United States when someone uses the phrase “to shoot first before asking questions” it’s usually a metaphor for taking a drastic action without assessing the situation. In the example provided in the opening post our heroine Jodi assessed the situation based on the available data, offered the man an opportunity to surrender, and only fired when he took a step toward her. You keep characterizing this as a situation where she shot first before asking questions but that simply isn’t the case.
Whoosh!
Respectfully, I must disagree. Love her covers, but the originals of Rattlesnakes (and Strange Little Girl )are perfect. And “perfect” is always going to be the best possible version.
That comment is so … so DEMENTED that I can only assume that you’ve been hit on the head. I’ll send over a comfortbot to help you.
I think you have it exactly backward. If the intruder had not been moving forward when the shots were fired, Jodie would almost certainly have been morally unjustified in pulling the trigger. If he’d been moving backward, or putting his hands on his heads, “almost certainly unjustified” becomes “entirely unjustified.”
To my mind? Nope (though it’s possible that in certain jurisdictions she would be legally entitled to; I don’t know that for certain). That’s why I wrote the OP as I did. Unless the intruder is moving toward Jodie and the knife, there’s no question. It would be like trying to debate “On a cloudless day, is the midday sky blue or orange?”
Based on this information, yes she is morally justified. She has reason to fear for her safety and the safety of others.
Wait, what? If you come home, and you see someone you don’t recognize, you will kill them immediately? Couldn’t they be:
-a friend of one of your family members who you happen to have never met before
-a good samaritan who noticed that a fire had started in your kitchen and had broken in to put it out
-a harmless drunk person who wandered into the wrong house
-some teenagers exhibiting very poor judgment but who don’t deserve to die
Or a variety of other things?
There’s a huge difference between “I will pull a gun and demand they explain themselves immediately” and “I will kill them on the spot”.
You do the wisecracks, sir. We do the logical or illogical comments. Says so in the FAQ.
One of the biggest problems with having a weapon is that you must protect it and keep the other person from using it against you.
I knew a kid in high school who got into an altercation with another guy. The kid grabbed his baseball bat and went after the guy who promptly took it away from him and used it against him.
One of the criticisms you see about the police is there are times when they are too aggressive about closing in with someone who has a knife, which then forces them to use deadly force.
In this situation, there is an armed intruder in her kitchen who is ignoring repeated requests to demonstrate that he is not a threat, and is instead escalating the situation. Absolutely nuts.
There is always the outside possibility that there is an innocent explanation, but by increasing the real threat, the guy has forced the situation to where she must shoot.
Justified.
I love all the comments on the shoot to disable theory. Like someone can actually have the presence of mind to do that with all the adrenaline running in your system, and the much bigger man is 1 leap away.
Has anyone who feels this way actually been in a situation such as this ? Just curious on that. Would love to hear their thoughts.
TokyoBayer makes a good point.
In my teen years, I was attacked by another teen. He had a switchblade and was ready to use it. I was a little faster, and scooped up a half brick and got in the first hit. I took the switchblade from him as righteous spoils of combat. While I did not then use the switchblade on my attacker, I still have it. It is on my desk as I type, now being used as a letter opener.
Back to the OP:
My wife is a pistol shooter. My adult daughter who lives with us is not. Both of them carefully read the OP and agreed that Jodie was both morally and legally correct in her actions.
Haven’t read enough of the thread yet to know, but did we get to the twist where Jodie was tired and entered the wrong house and now shot a man standing in his own kitchen yet?
In any case, I vote not justified. The man hasn’t done anything threatening yet. Plus Jodie was stupid for announcing her presence while that close to him. Also, if it was her house and he was some sort of homicidal maniac who was going to kill her, Jodie deserved that fate for giving her kid such a stupid name.