Halt! Who goes there, friend or foe?

A friend from Germany sent the following news item, and it is produced verbatim:

“From WTTC News in Dallas, we get this heartwarming tale of a long-time criminal, 33, named DeyfonPipkins, who tried to climb in a window of a home.

The elderly owner inside saw him and fired one shot, ending Deyfon's criminal career.

 As the police do, they came by, gathered the corpse, then went to notify Deyfon's family of his timely demise. It seems that the family was upset though, because they showed up at the scene.

 "He could have used a warning," Lakesha Thompson, Pipkins' sister-in-law, said. "He could have let him know that he did have a gun on his property and he would use it in self-defense."

Moneylife readers will recall a similar article in the August 8, 2013 issue. It was about a boy being shot, in America, by a booby-trapped rifle, when he entered the store without permission. The owner of the store was held liable, since he had not put up a notice about the trap. So now, in the case of Deyfon, what would you have to say?

YOU BE THE JUDGE.

America is a true federation of states and, unlike India, each state has its own laws; some even their own “Supreme” court! The state of Texas is where Dallas is. In all US states, carrying a licensed gun, or possessing one, is no crime. In fact, the very second amendment to the US Constitution says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”The first amendment allowed free speech, religious freedom. The second gave freedom to shoot!

‘Keep and bear arms’ is a euphemism for using weapons, often indiscriminately. Factor in the fact that Texas was a late entrant into the Union, seceded in 1861 and rejoined in 1870, and its wild-west image. Then decide if the home-owner was right in shooting and killing the intruder.

In this case, force was maximum. Is the home owner guilty of manslaughter, if not murder?

In normal circumstances, the question would be if the killing was necessary. Some may say it was not. Others would say, it was the only way out for an old man. Still others would ask if the owner had shown due restraint, or was he just trigger-happy?

What would you do if you were asked to judge?

In Texas, you would acquit the home owner. Texas takes the Doctrine of the “Castle” very seriously; literally so. One often hears that every man’s home is his castle. It is a British doctrine that was introduced to protect people’s privacy and not lay them open to the vagaries and the tender mercies of the law enforcers. Police cannot barge into homes without proper constitutional authority, usually called a search warrant. Therefore the safety of a “Castle”; something to be defended, come what may.

More “refined” countries would call for restraint. They ask that force must be proportional to the threat perceived.  While most readers would wonder where one draws the line, and if one has the time to consider the options, our laws do try to prevent ‘shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later’ situations. That is as it should be.

Yet, where the law is not so well defined, as in Texas, using a gun on an intruder, with fatal consequences, is a valid form of defence. Would a Texas judge ask whether a warning was placed outside the home? One thinks not, because the law allows going to any lengths to protect one’s property. And the law expects burglars to know that. In fact, in the cowboy days, when the horse was one’s greatest asset, horse thieves were executed; if a lynch mob did not do the job earlier.

May DeyfonPipkins rest in peace.

Courtesy: Moneylife