The fact that he did the wrong thing is part of why Jodie was justified in the shooting. He need not have acted rationally, but he did not react as someone who was afraid. This makes his motives suspicious.
At the point when he moved towards the shooter and the knife, Jodi’s life was on the line. She no longer had the opportunity to wait and see if he might have a legitimate explanation. If he really was going for the knife and at her, he could attack her before she had another chance to respond.
The only thing that gave me pause was the number of shots. But people clearly explained that this was because those were all the shots that were in the gun, and explained how long it can take to know if you’ve disabled your attacker. So it’s 100% justified.
And, frankly, I think it’s pretty much impossible the guy had a good reason for being there, or he would have given it. The only possible way he could be innocent is if he’s high or mentally ill. It’s not a matter of rationality here.
And, finally, yes, if your instinct when someone points a gun at you is to attack them, then you definitely are exactly the type of threat that allows you to be shot. Legitimate reason for being there or not, your actions put the shooter in mortal danger.
Maybe not, but you’re also not going to have a nice lucid conversation with the homeowner, e.g. “This isn’t what it looks like,” etc.
About a decade ago, I was home in our apartment on Halloween night when a drunken asshole crashed through our front door and stumbled back down the hallway towards where our bedroom was. My husband confronted him, turned him back around, and propelled him back out the door again - as it turns out, we were the third or fourth people he’d done this to, so the cops were waiting in the parking lot. He had left a friend’s Halloween party, decided he was too drunk to drive home (good call) and then couldn’t find the friend’s apartment again.
My point is, when he stumbled in, after the initial couple-second shock of “holy crap, intruder in the apartment,” it was very, very clear that this was just a catastrophically drunk guy whose only weapon was a clown costume. (Okay, and a fire extinguisher, which he’d apparently rescued from the hallway for reasons unknown.)
Very glad we didn’t shoot him, although I suppose we’d have been within our rights to. That guy was lucky that night.
Okay, he was definitely asking for it. I’m surprised this guy hasn’t been killed already (if this is real) and I think you couldn’t find an unbiased jury if that did go to trial.
SFW but I think deserves 2 click rule because I’m not a sadist:
I’m not a moral absolutist, but I would have shot him without saying a word to him, and I’m a dude. I think one of my first thoughts would have been, ‘How many are there?’ Blam! ‘Got one, now go to Amy while looking for others.’ Calling 911 would come after I’d secured my daughter’s safety.
He, and others in this thread, are riffing on the lyrics of a song called, “Rattlesnakes,” originally by Lloyd Cole and Neil Clark and first recorded by Lloyd Cole and the Commotions in the mid-1980s. The song was covered by Tori Amos, and there is some good-natured back-and-forth earlier in the thread about which version is superior. (Answer: Lloyd Cole).
The song’s lyrics begin:
Those lyrics are obviously evocative of the hypothetical, in that both involve a woman named Jodie and a gun. And the first and third footnotes in the hypothetical explicitly refer to other lines in the song.
My point is that his actual motivations or justification thereof are not relevant. All that matters is whether or not “Jodi” is reasonable in being afraid for her life or her daughter’s life, and can reasonably decide that firing the gun is the only reasonable option.
It’s also irrelevant, I must point out, as to why Jodi was carrying a gun, or even if it was legally carried (or if it’s wise to have a gun in a purse; it’s not.) In Canada you can’t carry handguns around in your purse, and Jodi would possibly be charged with illegal possession of a restricted weapon - but NOT with murder, since using deadly force to defend oneself is a valid defense against murder if the force is reasonable. The Criminal Code specifically allows for proportional and reasonable force, and is specifically strong with regard to defending oneself in one’s own home (Or “dwelling house,” as the Code charmingly calls it.) Most of the specifics are in case law, rather than being specifically codified, but there’s no doubt in my mind Jodi’s actions are not an illegal homicide in Canada. So it’s not just an American thing.
I would furthermore add that the OP asks an even different question from this, which is whether or not the killing was morally justified, a distinct thing from legally justified. IMHO it was both.
jtur88 is 100% correct that Jodie should have shot to disable. He is, however, a bit unclear on just what this means. The problem is that, with a gun, killing is a lot easier than disabling. If Jodie’s goal were merely to kill the man, then she would have fired one shot, anywhere on his body, and stopped. That’s usually enough to kill someone. But if she had done so, the man could have still lunged for the knife, killed her, and maybe even have crawled upstairs and killed Éimi too. That’s not an acceptable outcome for Jodie. What she needs is for the man to stop moving, to be disabled… And the most reliable way to accomplish that is to aim for his center of mass and keep firing until she runs out of bullets.
Nope. Dibble read the footnotes and realized I named Jodie after a character in a song. “Jodie wears a hat even though it hasn’t rained for six days…” etc.
Exactly. He can explain himself after he’s dropped the milk, put his hands on his head, and backed into the corner.
It’s the repeated attempts to bullshit Jodi to keep from having to do so that seal the deal, AFAIAC. She’d have been legally but not (IMHO) morally justified to shoot him on sight, but she’s given him three chances to act in a manner that will allow her to be safe while he explains himself, and he’s rejected them. At this point, she has every reason to believe that only one of them is going to leave that kitchen alive.
I’m all for gun control, but I’ve never been against people defending themselves with guns against intruders in their own homes. Of course she’s justified.
That is the sort of thing someone who has watched too much TV would say. If you are going to shoot someone you shoot for the largest part of the body (gut shot) and it will probably kill . Don’t aim a gun at someone unless you can shoot to kill.
I have no idea. Even apart from the fact that I wrote the OP in a single draft while listening to STRANGE LITTLE GIRLS, I wrote it entirely from Jodie’s point of view. I only know what she knows.
And more detail is irrelevant anyway. Only Jodie’s knowledge at the moment of the shooting can determine whether she was morally justified in pulling the trigger.
In other news: what the bleep is wrong with you people? WHY IS NO ONE WEIGHING IN ON THE SANDWICH OPTIONS?
The story has a lot of unrelated or emotionally-charged comments, and I’m somewhat disturbed that the poll is trying to determine if gender changes the perception here. Regardless, the shooting is justified.
The only important detail: an unknown trespasser challenged a gun-toting homeowner. Frankly, the biggest injustice here is that the shooter’s justification is up for debate.
Talk about “shooting to disable” or “too many shots” sounds comical. This isn’t a movie or a video game, where people always magically fall down after a single bullet or the shooter knows exactly how to strike an unknown person in order to safely incapacitate.
