These posts are based on our Good Guy with a Gun calendar. Today’s post is essentially the same as the calendar version.
A homeowner woke up to his doorbell. He and his family had been asleep, so he grabbed his gun, then went and looked out the front window to see who was at his door. No one was there.
A noise from the backyard drew his attention. At the back door, he found a stranger. The trespasser refused to leave when told to. Instead, he came toward the homeowner.
The homeowner fired a single shot to the perpetrator’s chest. Police arrived and the wounded man was taken to the hospital in critical condition.
It doesn’t look like there was any follow-up to this incident, which indicates that the DA didn’t press charges. When I read this story, I saw that the homeowner was trying to ascertain what was going on when he found the trespasser, and then the trespasser kept coming at him — and to me, that means it’s a DGU.
John Boch makes a very persuasive argument at The Truth About Guns that the man should have stayed in his house, called the cops, and kept an eye on his surroundings. I don’t think we know enough about the situation to be sure of that. He says:
Or, such as this case, the homeowner fires at an apparently otherwise unarmed backyard prowler. The Supreme Court has weighed in that you shouldn’t use deadly force over property crimes.
There’s no indication to me that the homeowner used deadly force just because of a property crime, and there’s no indication that the homeowner knew that the trespasser was unarmed.
On the other hand, I don’t think we know enough to be certain that he’s wrong, either. Consider:
Opening the back door creates an opportunity for things to go poorly by exposing the homeowner to danger, up to and including getting shot and killed. After all, what if the prowler pulls a gun? Suddenly you’ve found yourself in a gun battle which you might not win. Is it worth risking a colostomy bag or other debilitating injury from a gunshot wound to confront a criminal in your back yard? The wise and prudent man says that’s a hard no. Let the cops do that.
The shooting may have been justified, but the homeowner opening the door carries an inherent risk that he didn’t need to take on.
If you have a third hand, you can hold in it the fact that someone prowling in your back yard could leave to a neighbor’s house, and the people inside it might be less aware and more vulnerable.
We could go back and forth like this all night. The point is that using a gun demands real judgement. If you haven’t thought about how you’d handle situations like this, maybe this is a good moment to do it.
Sources
Buckeye police investigate shooting (City of Buckeye Police Department)
News
Homeowner shoots man allegedly trespassing on property overnight in Buckeye (ABC15 Arizona)
Suspect shot after trespassing into Buckeye homeowner’s backyard, police say (FOX 10 Phoenix)
Buckeye homeowner shoots suspected trespasser, police say (Arizona’s Family)
Buckeye shooting leaves 1 man in critical condition, police say (KTAR.com)
Buckeye Homeowner Shoots Stranger Allegedly Entering His Home Early Sunday Morning (Arizona Daily Independent; a near-verbatim reprint of the police release)
Sunday morning shooting at Buckeye home leaves man in critical condition (The Daily Independent)
Buckeye homeowner shoots man in backyard, police say (12News)
2A / Specialist Media
Buckeye, AZ Homeowner Shoots Backyard Prowler; Risks a Lot For His Lawnmower (The Truth About Guns; John Boch)
Gun-toting homeowner says he ordered after-midnight backyard intruder to leave, but intruder walked toward him instead. Oops. (The Blaze; Dave Urbanski; quotes reaction from the department’s Facebook post)
Too little information to make a judgment on this one. Finding the prowler at the back door might mean he was trying to get in the back door. The prowler might have been holding something that looked like a weapon in the dark, or been acting bizarrely. The wife could have called police while the husband checked on things (though I suppose she didn't have enough information to be sure anyone was still there) -- but they still might not have arrived in time to stop the prowler. And, as you say, he may have gone on to another house with more vulnerable inhabitants. I think the "property crimes" is not clearly the problem here; if the prowler was _at_ the door, it seems he might well have been trying to enter, not just destroy something in the yard. It's really easy to be an armchair ref when you are no danger yourself.