[wendy1946]

Technically the guy might have been within his rights to shoot. Nonetheless I would not have done it under the circumstances. Somebody too drunk to know where he was or that he was in the wrong house would be pretty hard to view as dangerous.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Yeah, drunk people are never belligerent. They are always peaceful and laughable good fellas; and they always do as they are told.

[William Tell]

wendy1946 said: "Somebody too drunk to know where he was or that he was in the wrong house would be pretty hard to view as dangerous."

And what if the guy was only pretending to be drunk in order to gain entrance to the house for him and his accomplices waiting outside? Just how helpless are you willing to become due to someone else's error when the lives of your loved ones hang in the balance?

Four men in a car arrived at my place one evening. One of the men exited the car and assertively approached me while holding a piece of paper and speaking spanish, of which I understand only a little.

I was concerned enough that I backed up about ten feet into my doorway before the guy finally stopped. The most innocent explanation for what happened is that the men were lost and the approaching man wanted to show me a written address and ask for directions.

An alternative possibility was that the approaching man intended to tackle me and hold me long enough for his partners to overpower me before I could get back into my house and reach a weapon.

I decided that the risk of the latter possibility was great enough that I had to retreat in order to prevent it. Had the approaching man entered without permission I would have been armed and he would have been bleeding all over my carpet.

There are people who die every day because they are stupid, incompetent, or negligent. I don't intend to let them take me with them.

[runninglips]

The guy wasn’t that drunk, he was borderline unable to drive.

[csense]

Somebody too drunk to know where he was or that he was in the wrong house would be pretty hard to view as dangerous.

But you have the advantage of knowing he was intoxicated through a formal investigation, after the fact. The home owner had no such advantage. Keep that in mind while you judge this man...

[peeps36]

If a noise woke me up at 1:30am and I found an intruder coming toward my bedroom, I wouldn't be thinking he's a lost drunk. I would be thinking about protecting my family from a criminal who wanted to do us harm.

[ryderann]

“Somebody too drunk to know where he was or that he was in the wrong house would be pretty hard to view as dangerous.”

My former husband was a mean, violent drunk no matter whose house he was in, somebody was going to catch hell.

[Celtic Conservative]

Somebody too drunk to know where he was or that he was in the wrong house would be pretty hard to view as dangerous.

Not entirely germane. The legal standard is the homeowners "reasonable perception of danger". If the homeowner reasonably believes he is in danger and can articulate that perception to the satisfaction of the court, his actions will constitute lawful killing in self defense. That is what happened in this case. It doesn't matter what you or I think or feel about this case, only the homeowners perceptions and actions.

CC

[Hulka]

You have not dealt with drunks much, especially those that don't “know” what they are doing. They can kill/rape/maime or assault with ease. They do not feel pain, they do not hesitate, they act on their base emotions.

You wish to give some unknown, erratic guy that came into your home uninvited and won't leave the benefit of the doubt, place yourself at risk, and your family, have at it. Your call. I disagree.