It’s often said, somewhat erroneously, that a good guy with a gun is the surest way to defeat a bad guy with a gun.
It isn’t that there’s anything wrong with this logic, mind you. In fact, it’s more than sound.
The error, instead, is that the statement isn’t inclusive enough: A good guy with a gun is the surest way to defeat a bad guy, full stop.
An object lesson in the difference between these two statements could apparently be found in Knightdale, North Carolina — a suburb of Raleigh — earlier this week.
According to WTVD-TV, an unnamed homeowner told police that an intruder had broken a window to gain access to his house at around 11:20 p.m. Wednesday night.
The alleged intruder was Juan Acevedo, also of Knightdale, who reportedly attempted to enter the house at the 1300 block of Redwood Valley Lane.
WNCN-TV reported that the homeowner told police he gave Acevedo multiple warnings, verbally, to back off before he entered the property. Acevedo, surprise of surprises, didn’t listen.
So, the homeowner let his Second Amendment rights speak in a way that his vocal cords couldn’t.
[embedded content]
Would you warn a home intruder before shooting?
Yes: 100% (1 Votes)
No: 0% (0 Votes)
WRAL-TV reported that Acevedo was subsequently found on the scene with a gunshot wound by police and “transported to WakeMed [hospital] with a non-life-threatening gunshot wound.”
Now, it’s worth noting that there’s no confirmation from authorities, at least as of Saturday morning, that the homeowner’s actions were fully justified under North Carolina law.
All three outlets reported that police are consulting with the Wake County District Attorney’s Office and that, to quote WNCN, “no charges have been filed against the homeowner.”
There’s also no word about what charges Acevedo might face. Granted, given the situation, he’ll most likely face some form of criminal charge, but the language in the reports strongly suggests there’s no summary exculpation of the property owner.
Police are also still asking for residents in the area with video surveillance or other information regarding the incident to step forward, a sign that authorities are still trying to determine the sequence of events that led up to the shooting.
That said, if events occurred the way the homeowner described them to police, this should be dismissed as an example of playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes, all courtesy of the Second Amendment.
Spoiler alert: As a blanket statement, it’s safe to say home intruders do not mean you well.
They aren’t coming in to feed your dogs because you forgot to. They’re not coming in to clean your kitchen. They’re not entering your domicile to leave you a fruitcake for the holidays. (Although in the last instance, is responding with some degree of force really so unjustified? You’ve tasted fruitcake, people. Even gifting it — much less forcing someone to taste it — comes dangerously close to the definition of misdemeanor assault in some jurisdictions.)
No. A person who intrudes on your property and looks to enter your house — particularly at 11:20 p.m. on a Wednesday night — prima facie means to do violence to you and/or your property. And, what’s more, you don’t know what weapons they have on them.
Logically speaking, then, you have every right to defend yourself — and thankfully, the founders had enough insight to insert an amendment into the Constitution which ensured you wouldn’t have to do it with a meat cleaver.
This doesn’t discount the chance that the homeowner’s account is an erroneous one and that there’s more here that meets the eye. If there isn’t, however, this was a man who had every reason to believe he was in grave personal danger — and used his right to self-defense wisely to extricate himself from peril.
And, as for Acevedo, if the account does hold up, he should be thankful his run-in with the Second Amendment ended non-fatally.
