Osler's Razor

OMG - this is horrific!

I could understand shoot to injure and let the police take over but the level of violence exhibited by the homeowner was over the top.
 

Questions swirled while reading the intial report of these killings the day after. Within days I was consoling my dear friend Patti (McHale) Rogge when we learned her cousin's (Kevin McHale) daughter Sasha had passed away due to complications from Lupus. Sasha had just turned 23 in late October - a young life the best doctors and specialists were unable to save.

Will the reason these two teenage cousins entered this man's home ever be fully known? How does the fear for one's safety, after repeated break-ins, play in a man's decision to defend himself and (possibly his property) by taking two lives - taking them so violently?

Why the anger? Will the scares of memory be worth the price paid as this man lives out his life? Where will he soon be as he lives out the remainder of his life?

Will grief be expereinced and shared by more than the family and loved ones of the two teenagers? What questions and emotions are the family and loved ones of the man facing today, tomorrow and . . .

How many lives have been taken, affected drastically, been shattered permanently?

Why no words of warning first???

Our voices were given for a reason. . .
 

As with the Trayvon Martin case, we have two distinct questions. One is whether the homeowner acted legally, but I'd argue that's outside our purview; we have professionals to figure out that sort of thing, and none of them is us. The more important question from the public's point of view is, did he act morally? And if he acted legally but not morally, should we change the law so that law and morality should align?

I am broadly in favor of castle doctrine, believing that if somebody is going to be harmed unjustly, it should be the person who is violating the law by breaking and entering, not the person who is following it by simply staying put in their own home. I think here we have an abuse of the concept and an unnecessarily vicious homeowner, but I don't think that his actions negate the principle.

-Silas
 

Was shooting them justified? I think so.

I think you have an absolute right to be safe in your home, so I have little to no sympathy for burglars and housebreakers. Imagine how on edge this man was after experiencing even one break-in. Who wouldn't be scared? If you're at home, someone's breaking in, and you have the means to defend yourself and your home, would you really want to wait around to find out what the intruder's intentions are before using force? I wouldn't. Given the facts in this case, I have no problem with the initial decision to shoot.

I also don't have a problem with the homeowner remaining in the basement and letting the second intruder come downstairs before shooting. From a safety/security and self-defense standpoint, it makes more sense than going upstairs after another intruder.

Was killing them justified, though? Given these facts, I don't think so and agree with the decision to charge with murder. First, the guy didn't notify the police right away. That indicates that he knew (a) he wasn't doing the right thing and (b) he was out of danger after the initial shots to each intruder. If you think you've done the right thing, why hide it? The "I didn't want to bother the police because it's Thanksgiving" excuse is pretty lame.

Second, the homeowner has at least a rifle and pistol and lives in Morrison County, Minnesota. It's not a stretch to say that he is familiar with weapons, is quite likely a hunter, and knows what a rifle is capable of. The initial shots to both intruders were with a rifle at what I'm assuming was very close range. That's enough firepower to stop just about anybody, and the homeowner had to have known that. Therefore, I don't see a need for the killing shots.

Changing gears - here's a question I've been pondering. This is a tragic case all around, to be sure, but let's change some facts. Let's say that the intruders were adults with long felony records instead of teenagers and that the setting is north Minneapolis instead of Little Falls. Does this case get this level of press and outrage? Not to hijack the thread, but just a thought I've had running through my head since the story broke.
 

Very disturbing. The odd part of the story is the girl going down the stairs to the basement several minutes after two shots had been fired from the Mini 14. Bad things happen in basements. I am glad we don't have basements in Waco.

 

RIn many places "shooting to injure" gets you in more trouble with the law than shooting to kill. As to his seeming reluctance to shout a warning, that was a very unwise decision. As someone very much in favor of castle laws, this guy did not practice very good decision making, but neither did these two cousins. I think it shows something about their state of mind when the girl cousin "laughed" after her cousin had been killed and the homeowner's rifle jammed.
 

To quote Campbell: ". The initial shots to both intruders were with a rifle at what I'm assuming was very close range. That's enough firepower to stop just about anybody, and the homeowner had to have known that. Therefore, I don't see a need for the killing shots."

Actually, no. The mini 14 shoots .223 (not the very similar 5.56 NATO). Many states have outlawed the .223 for large game hunting as it is considered inhumane as it lacks sufficient power for one stop kills of large game (such as white tailed deer, which are normally smaller than humans). Why does the military use the .223/5.56 in their rifles you may ask? As part of their doctrine they don't want one shot kills from their service rifles (sniper rifles, yes, but those are different calibers). US Military doctrine wants to wound enemy combatants because a wounded soldier requires more resources than a dead soldier. You have to bring in medics and reinforcements to remove a wounded soldier, which you don't necessarily have to do with a casualty.
 

New Christine - you articulate so well the thoughts that went through my head when I read this blog post.


 

BYLRPhil - Thanks for the info on the Mini-14; it's not a weapon I'm familiar with.

Can you please provide a reference for your statement about military doctrine being shoot-to-wound instead of shoot-to-kill?

I ask because I've never once been trained to shoot to wound. The training I've received has always been "aim for center mass and shoot to kill." Granted, I'm a lawyer, not an infantryman, and I've thankfully never had to fire my weapon outside the qualification range. But I certainly hope the training I've received since I was a first-year cadet hasn't been wrong.
 

Putting aside the first shooting, the fact that the female intruder was shot several times, dragged to a tarp, and then shot, point-blank (execution style), in the head is incredibly disturbing. As I see it, the castle doctrine was never intended to encompass that sort of behavior. When any threat or perceived threat has been eliminated, the right to take lethal action also passes. I believe in the castle doctrine--it is particularly important in rural areas where law enforcement may be 20+ minutes away--but the doctrine rests on reasonable limits. We should defend the just application of the doctrine because it protects homeowners and discourages criminal activity, but we should condemn unjust application of the doctrine because to do otherwise would be to shelter criminal activity. This does not read like a just application of the law.
 

My mistake, I did not type clearly: Its not doctrine to "shoot to wound". You're still trained to shoot center of mass to kill. HOWEVER, the relatively small bullet fired by the Mini 14/M-16/AR-15 often maims rather than kills. As to the .223 being outlawed for hunting large game like deer because its inhumane, the only state I could find for certain that outlaws it is Virginia, but I have heard that several other states do as well.
 

I have to open by saying that I cannot be objective on the subject of guns, as I am one of those weird people who feels the opposite of safe around them. But I have to say that this tragedy is just so surreal and the violence so raw it reads like a medieval tale. The entire sequence of events; the boy being shot twice, the girl walking blindly into a space where shots were fired (knowing that her cousin was not armed and the shots could not have possibly been his doing) her fateful nervous laughter, but above all the sheer violence of the owner…to me, a violence bespeaking psychosis rather than unfettered fear.
Castle indoctrinated, justified or not justified I don't really care...NOBODY in this world owns ANYTHING worth taking a life for!
 

Every training I have received or taught as an instructor is:

Never point a weapon at anything or anyone you don't intend to kill. (except, of course, practice targets!)

If you do fire, shoot to kill and make sure they are dead.

Anyone who breaks into a home or business is fair game. It is impossible to know what they intend.

Taking a life is not something anyone should take lightly, but when in fear of your life, it is justified. Very few people can remain calm enough in such a situation to make clear, reasoned decisions in a split second. Even seasoned military and police have trouble with this under stress.

These two sound like candidates for the Darwin Awards to me.

Lee
 

Lee - you see Darwin Awards and I question why they were breaking into a neighbors home?

So many unanswered questions and now only one side of the story can ever be told.

My heart goes out to all those who have suffered from this incident.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I grew up in a hunting family but I've never been comfortable with guns. What Marta writes rings most true to me and is far more articulate than I have managed to be about this event.

The violence is so raw I simply can't comprehend how it is defensible. In my first year of law school I remember listening to students justify defending a man that shot at another man who was stealing his windshield wipers. What I remember thinking is, it must be nice to have so little experience of death that you think its cost can be covered by used windshield wipers.
 

the man was justified under the castle doctrine in shooting them.
as for the rest of it, particularly his recounting of the "good, clean finishing shot" execution-style, it's savagery... just barbaric.
i favor the castle doctrine, but if people are allowed to hide behind it in instances like this, then my mind would be changed in a hurry.
this situation is sickening.
 

I don't think the killing was justified.
 

Well, they didn't invade your house, now did they?