the rest of the posters in this thread have abstained from personally disparaging remarks.
If you will kindly point out to me any disparaging remarks directed at any specific individual, I will not only retract them but apologize posthaste. The generic 'you' and 'your' are intended thusly- as generic references to unspecified individuals. If my choice of words obliterated my intent in that regard, I apologize for that and assure you that was not what was intended.
In my original statement, I said "Should we assume 'a duty to warn' as part of our plan for handling an event of this nature?" My question was meant to address that definition of 'assume' that indicates a willingness "to take to or upon oneself" (
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assume ). The emphasis in my mind was and is on the advantages of the assumption of the opportunity to avoid the exercise
any level of force, if in fact circumstances would seem to permit that option.
Is there anyone here who would argue that it's better just to shoot, or shoot at, someone who might otherwise be frightened away by a verbal challenge, given that circumstances permit a verbal challenge as a reasonable approach without increasing the risk to the defender and the defended?
Is there anyone here who, upon hearing a noise or noises indicating the definite presence of an unknown person in their house, would immediately take that person under fire at the earliest opportunity without even yelling "Who's there?" That is, of course, given that such a challenge could be issued with no perceptible risk to the challenger?
Is it really so dangerous to yell at an unknown and not yet fully visible apparent would-be intruder before he gains full entry into the home, that we dare not attempt it?
I'd rather not think there's any serious disagreement here on what any reasonable person would do in the sort of event described in the original story. That is, standing shotgun in hand, looking across a room at an exterior door after hearing obviously assaultive activity at that door, seeing an arm reach through a broken window, apparently trying to reach the lock and open the door.
So far the available options seem to be 1) shoot, or 2) yell.
What would 'a person of reasonable firmness,' which is the way the enforcers of my state's statues expect me to behave, do in this situation? Shoot first, or ask questions?
We obviously can't cover every possible home invasion scenario, so for the sake of further discussion here let's limit ourselves to what the individual in the original story says he saw- one apparently empty hand, groping through a broken window, with the other hand and the rest of the individual out of sight outside the door.
lpl
