No, this wasn't self-defense

 

I note the ongoing argument over whether a Michigan resident was defending himself, or acting recklessly, when he fired at intruders.

Sivan Wilson, 17, was with six other mainly teenagers when the group broke into Dayton Knapton’s garage in White Lake shortly after 1 a.m. July 8, authorities said.

Knapton, 24, got an alert from his home security system, grabbed a .9mm gun, ran outside and fired two shots into the garage through a windowless door, striking Wilson, according to prosecutors and cops.

As the group fled, Knapton fired five more shots before going back into his house, reloading his gun and returning outside, according to a statement by the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office.

Another teenager in the group also was shot in the leg.

. . .

“This defendant crossed the line by firing outside his home at fleeing persons,” prosecutor Karen McDonald said of Knapton. “His actions not only took a life but potentially endangered the surrounding community by firing his weapon into the night.”

There's more at the link.

Laws differ in the 50 States, but legally there's one principle that generally has to be clearly visible before a shooting can be ruled self-defense:  namely, that there has to be a clear, imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious injury to the person defending himself.  In this case, it's immediately obvious that this did not exist, because:

1. The shooter could not actually see the people at whom he was shooting.  He fired through a closed door without any windows.  He could not have known whether his targets were armed, or whether they intended to pose any physical threat to him at all.
2. The shooter went on to fire at fleeing people - their backs to him, running away as fast as they could, presumably with their hands clearly visible.  They could not have posed a threat to him under those circumstances.

Mr. Knapton may have been angry at having been repeatedly burgled in the past, and may have been afraid or upset at finding it happening again:  but there's no evidence at all that he was actually threatened, or faced any real danger of assault, injury or death.  Under the circumstances, I don't see how a claim of self-defense can be made to stick.

Some states (for example, Texas) allow one to use lethal force in defense of one's property, not just one's life, under certain circumstances.  However, one has to be very careful not to take that as a carte blanche to do whatever one wishes with intruders, whether they're accidental or deliberate.  If there is no physical threat, one has every chance of being indicted for using more force than necessary to remove them.  Frankly, I think that's the way it should be.  Our response should be proportionate to the threat.  Tragedies occur every year when a homeowner's response is not proportionate, such as this case in Indiana or this one in Texas.  One has to draw a line, and in most cases our laws do just that.  We can't use a firearm when our lives are not in danger (for example, to stop a fleeing thief who's not a threat, and is only trying to get away).

Those of us who espouse the right to self-defense, and the right to keep and bear arms, need to think about this often.  Our actions and reactions may provide ammunition to those wanting to take away those rights.

Peter