This weekend, Caleb Gordley, 16, was shot and killed in a home that he mistook for his own after sneaking out for a party. The homeowner confronted Gordley on the stairs inside the home and said that the teenager ignored a warning shot. The shooting occurred after the failure of a “Castle Doctrine” law in Virginia’s General Assembly — a law that we have discussed previously on this blog that gives homeowners protections in the use of lethal force with anyone illegally entering their domicile. Ironically, the bill was shot down by gun groups that felt that the common law offered more protection.
Caleb was told that he could not go to the party because his room was not cleaned up. He decided to sneak out and his friends helped him get back in through a window. He had mistaken a similarly constructed home for his own. He had been drinking. The home is owned by Donald West Wilder II.
The scene is all too familiar to critics of Castle Doctrine laws. We have seen a long line of mistaken shootings of neighbors and others who go into the wrong house in developments with similarly constructed homes. There are also cases of standard home and workplace disputes that lead to fatal shootings.
In this case, there is the questioning of whether the first shot was a warning shot or a miss. However, in these circumstances, there is no alternative account to rebut the homeowner and police are left only with the trajectory of the bullet to confirm the account. The strongest case would be a round in the ceiling where there was clearly no attempt to aim at the suspect. When you add that the teen was drunk, the homeowner is unlikely to be charge presuming the forensics do not conflict with his account.
The Castle Doctrine law proposed in Virginia failed due to opposition from gun groups which did not like the requirement of an “overt act” by the intruder to justify a shooting. The gun groups felt that such a requirement is more restrictive than the common act and opposed the requirement that the intruder show aggression or threatening behavior.
Source: Washington Post
And I’m glad that this conversation has veered toward sanity. It was touch-and-go there, for a while.
Bob,
I have had many conversations with my daughter about this issue. She has said several times that she does not know if she could bring herself to use deadly force if put in that situation.
I tell her the same thing I tell others. Strangely enough, for the average officer, it is easier to use deadly force if your buddy or vulnerable civilian were being threatened than yourself. Of course, there are some who almost look forward to being able to use deadly force, but thankfully, those are in the minority. One of her co-workers posted this picture on her Facebook page a few weeks ago.
http://i617.photobucket.com/albums/tt256/otteraylens/TrueBlueBrothers_zps2e3c4a7a-1_zpscd6c49cc.jpg
Bob K.,
You’re welcome. That restraint comes from martial arts training. Hurting someone, let alone killing them, is serious business. I’d rather not do either, but I’m fully prepared to do either if and when required. Required being the operative word. It’s not to be done lightly or hastily. I’ve even let someone hit me uncontested before to win a fight. Sure, I got a bloody nose from it (which is no big deal, I get a bloody nose if you look at me wrong), but he went to jail because he was both insanely belligerent and unaware of his environment while I remained calm and alert fully realizing that a local PD and a Deputy Sheriff had come up behind us. They had cuffs on him before he could get in a second swing. And that is what MA training does for you in addition to teaching technique: it teaches calm in stressful confrontational situations and situational awareness. Anger clouds judgement just like fear can and both can blind you to what is going on around you. I firmly believe that the world would be much better place if all kids took martial arts from a respectable instructor who didn’t just teach technique, but consequences combined with the philosophy of self-defense first/attack last. You’d see a lot fewer kids coming home saying “there was a fight at school today” and a lot more saying “there was a heated exchange of words at school today but nobody got hurt”.
Gene H.,
Thank you for using restraint, and not killing someone. Thank yourself, also. You don’t want to be second-guessing yourself, years later.
My issue is with males who salivate at the prospect of killing some nameless, faceless opponent. “All I need is an excuse to fire my manhood. Walk into my house, and you’re dead.” What in the world is their problem? Can’t say “hello,” first?
Fantasizing about killing is for adolescents. The kind that should never have access to firearms. Killing someone or something should be done with great regret, as a last resort. Not as a glorious Klingon rite of ascension. Not as a way of evening the score against an unfair world. We don’t live in John Wayne’s, or Clint Eastwood’s world. John Wayne didn’t live in John Wayne’s world. It’s just an act, but a whole bunch of us seem to be stuck there.
Regrettable.
The Post didn’t mention that the kid was Black. His family had lived in the neighborhood for a year, but apparently the two neighbors didn’t know each other well. the Post has a lousy history on race issues–not racist, per se, as simply clueless and this seems to be yet another example.
Yes, I’ve read Madison’s number 46, every word. He simply does NOT say what was the purpose of writing the second amendment. If you read the entire thing, he’s using the existence of the a well-regulated militia to qualm fears about government tyranny. He starts out saying that “this could never possibly happen in a republic, but…” Number 46, like the rest of the Papers, is an argument to persuade naysayers to adopt the Constitution. Nowhere in it, is the original purpose of the second amendment stated.
Iconoclast has it correct. The idea of a standing army was anathema. The only remaining possibility is a “well regulated militia.” The “well regulated militia” did play a significant, but small, part in the Revolutionary War. It has not since. It’s now been replaced by the National Guard, police, sheriff, Marshals, on and on. We have a standing army, which, by the way, would roll over an armed citizenry, without noticing it. Biggest defense budget in the world, remember?
As I said, if you want to join the National Guard, be my guest. You can bear all sorts of war-weapons. But you have to put them back in the armory, for safe-keeping, not take them home to kill drunk kids and family members.
randyjet,
No, if the court said something that stupid, and everyone knows where it is, just tell me, instead of avoiding the subject.
You might have a point about Madison, but wasn’t that Franklin quote said in reference to the thousands of colonials who just didn’t want to be involved in any conflict on any side? He was contemptuous of them because they tried to sit on the fence during the revolution.
And Madison’s writing seems to dwell more on the danger of a standing army making it too convenient for government to get us into war. Some of the constitutional scholars who read and comment here may have more recently studied the material.
Wow, this does sound like a horrible pile-up of mistakes. I’d like to see more of what the autopsy shows. It doesn’t sound like a deliberate killing, to me, but it sounds horrible squared. Awful.
When I was young I lived in a development of “cheesebox” houses and one time I did go right in the front door of the wrong house (unlocked and in fact open, summertime and no air conditioning) late at night (had a part-time night job). I stood disoriented for a minute because the credenza was gone. Then I regained my awareness and got very frightened: WHERE THE HELL AM I? I turned, saw the front door (still open, screen different from my house, though) — and it hit me: WRONG HOUSE.
I was actually two houses down from my own house, but in my fatigue I had turned in the driveway seeing a similar porch light in the shadows. Lucky for me those neighbors had no guns.
Well said, anon.
Gene,
There is no other sound in the world like a shell being shucked into a shotgun in the dark.
Madison explains in the Federalist 46 what the meaning of the 2nd was all about. He clearly states that the citizens of the United States need to have the weapons to be able to throw out the Federal Government should Tyranny form. He makes this quite clear in the 46.
The Bill of Rights is pretty much infallible. Time or era does nothing to change it. In fact I would argue that the Bill of Rights as Madison and Jefferson, intended and desired, is more relevant than ever before.
As Madison said…..
‘A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”- James Madison
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”- James Madison
Or finally, as Franklin put it in one of the greatest quotes ever
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”- Ben Franklin
The question is, who among us is for Liberty and who among us wishes to give up that Liberty so they can feel safe?
Well people like Lindsey Graham are telling us they do not feel safe from Terrorists. To that I say, if you do not feel safe, move to another country. I am quite serious. I am very fed up with people wanting to take away or weaken our Bill of Rights so they can sleep easier at night.
Btw the reason our country even experienced Terrorism is because we were sticking our noses where it didnt belong.
Bob K.,
I agree with what you say in principle, but scenarios don’t always play out in a way where exchanging words is either possible or practical as the very action can lead to your death or the death of another. For example, I caught a bunch of kids trying to break into my shed a few months ago. I had advantage and could observe them a bit before I did anything. It didn’t look like any of them were armed, so I slid out my house from the opposite side with a shotgun. The first round was rock salt. The other rounds were not. I got the drop on them and asked in my most threatening voice, “Can I help you boys with something?” except you can replace the question mark with the sound of a shell being chambered. They about crapped themselves. The gun was never pointed at them, just ready if needed. In the end, what they got was a stern lecture and a promise to call the cops on them next time if I didn’t shoot them first and I sent them on their way. Not gangbangers, or professionals, just teenaged neighborhood boys with too much testosterone and time on their hands. One of them was even forced by his father to come down and apologize when the parents overheard the kid talking on the phone to one of his lil’ cohorts.
The counter example doesn’t involve a firearm, but it illustrates the point. I was attacked by someone with a kitchen knife once. I had a gun in the house, but no time to get. No words were exchanged, no verbal threats exchanged. This person was intent on stabbing me, probably to death. Fortunately, they were crazy, untrained, and drunk and I was the exact opposite. The scenario ended with them disarmed and choked out. It might not have ended that way if I had been a fraction of a second later in seeing them coming.
If I’d had a gun on me though? I’d have shot them without compunction. Or much guilt. Wouldn’t have wanted to do it, would have tried to wound instead of kill if possible, but if I had killed them? That is the price they paid by presenting a lethal threat.
I can outline many dozens of ways a scenario unfolds where giving a chance to surrender or stop is simply not an option unless you are willing to risk severe injury or death. Not all threats are equal and not all scenarios present the same options for your personal safety.
A gun for self/home defense is like a bottle of Cipro in the freezer.
It’s better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it and if you don’t know what you are doing with either you can accidentally kill someone – including yourself – with either. The key to winning any confrontation is to do so with as little force as possible. As Sun Tzu said, “[V]ictory over your adversary without battle demonstrates the height of excellence.”
anon,
Well, that’ll leave just me and thee, and I’m not so sure about thee. The meaning of the Bill of Rights is changed at least once a decade, to reflect whatever party hacks are sitting on the Supreme Court.
In regards to the 2nd amendment (1 whole sentence long), if you’d like to join a well-regulated militia, be my guest. No, you can’t take the sentence apart and analyze what every clause means, separately. The sentence wasn’t written like that. Bring James Madison back, and ask him what the hell he meant by it.
It won’t matter, because James Madison lived in an agrarian time that has nothing in common with our urban environment. We, not the slaveholding founders, get to decide how we want to live.
If we say “weapons of mass murder have no place in a decent society,” then we can ban them. We’re living now, not in the 18th century.
randyjet,
I’m very familiar with the Bologna case. I’m not going to scour right-wing conspiracy blogs, looking for a court statement that doesn’t exist. I asked for a source. Where is it?
BK you don’t have to go to rightwing web sites. Try the SF Chronicle or some of the mainstream press.
ps- Take the religious whackos with you too
I am a Liberal.
That said, I am sick and tired of people trying to change the Bill of Rights because it does not suit their personal beliefs. You know what? If you do not like the Bill of Rights, MOVE. Move to another country that does not allow guns. Take Obama and the other anti-2nd clowns with you. But keep your gd hands off of the Bill of Rights which is the very foundation of this country.
Somewhere in the last 30 years the Democratic party went to hell. Taken over by a bunch of Fascist liars, hypocrites and crooks for Wall Street and Corporate America.
Obama is not even close to a Liberal, so spare me that one. He is a flat out lying crook though.
No, Arthur, don’t second guess me from 46 years ago. I’ll give myself your message, if I ever go back there.
We already discussed how willing you think that you are to use firearms. So that means, that if Obama shows up at your door, asking for your guns, you won’t soil yourself and hide under the bed?
Please cite the court statement that it’s not the job of the city to protect you from criminals.
I wish Obama would show up at my front door since I voted and gave a fair amount of money to his campaign. He is more than welcome to ask for my guns, in fact, we could go out back and shoot some skeet since he appears to enjoy that. He can even ask to take my guns away if he is so inclined, but I doubt he would, but he is free to ask. I too am free to decline.
If you wish to see the court statement you can go on line to check out the case of the Bologna family in San Francisco. I am sure you will have NO problem finding it. Here in Houston, the ICE arrested a SF deputy for trying to smuggle out an illegal alien minor against the law. They were escorting him back to El Salvador so that ICE would not have a record of him being here illegally and making it harder for him to return. ICE got the kid anyway, and one has to ask why the taxpayers in SF have to pay such a large amount of money to accomodate such folks.
This 16 year old didn’t know where he lived? Oh, yes. That’s right. He had been to a party and was drinking.
Some commentor above mentioned the notion. But think about what would have happened had homeowner owned a Dog. A loud, snarling, barking dog, of say Rottweiler breed. The kid would not have gotten in the window, or up the stairs and when doggie barked as he opened the window the kid would have known either that his folks had not gotten a dog since he left home or that his own dog was not the dog biting his arm. This is why Dog is Man’s Best Friend and Women’s Best Freund. God created Dog on the Eighth Day to watch over man. Nuff said.
Arthur,
No, i gave him YOUR forwarding address. Has he shown up, yet? Bootleggers…didn’t normally leave forwarding addresses.
Yes, I’m very aware that you fantasize that you would have opened up on him. Doing it, and fantasizing about it, are very different things. I wasn’t scared, so I didn’t do it. He wasn’t aware that I had a gun, down at my side.
We did not call the cops, in those days. The cops and my roommates avoided each other. “YOU CALLED THE COPS?” Enough said about that.
I also never saw the man, since it was pitch-black in the hallway. If his gun wasn’t empty, he could’ve picked me off easily, standing in the doorway, with the room light behind me. But I did not snuff it. Otherwise, I would not be here to tell thee the tale. He was either outta ammo, or he decided his quarrel wasn’t with me. Just as well, I suppose.
Bron,
No big stones, just big stupid. Probably better not to answer the door, if someone’s out there shooting.
“Bang!” “Bang!” “Candygram.” “Land Shark.”
Yes Bob, you DO call the cops in such situations. Sorry to burst your bubble, but when my friends and our headquarters were bombed and shot up by the KKK, we did call the cops. Even though we knew the cops were crooked, and knew who did it, we still forced them to follow the law. That is simple. I never did and never will expect the cops to protect me, my family, or my home. THAT is why I have guns and know how to use them and am very willing to use them.
In fact, the Bologna family in San Francisco had their suit against the ctiy thrown out of court. The father, and two sons were murdered by an illegal alien gang banger who had a long criminal record as a juvenile and as an adult, yet the city protected him from ICE and sheltered him. The result was rather predictable. The court from what I recall stated it is not the job of the city to keep citizens safe from criminals. The fact is that it is YOUR responsibility to keep you safe. period.