I Stand By My Actions”: Man Defends Threatening Intruders with a Gun
A 27-year-old man, the original poster (OP), describes a terrifying story of intruders trying to break into his home, where he was attending to his disabled mother. OP took his gun and got in front of the door and said that he would kill them if they kicked the door open. When the intruders left, OPs girlfriend (who was with him during everything) berated him for his behavior, claiming that there is never a cause for actual violence. OP justified this by saying he had to be able to defend his mom, himself, and his girlfriend against potential violence.
So this story delves into all the factors — the issues of personal safety alongside Michigan’s self-defense laws alongside the cultural differences between East and West. OP was thinking my friend, but girlfriend was living in a separate universe and has a totally different philosophy about how to handle conflicts.
After one fateful night, a man and his GF found out they had differing views about protecting their home from intruders
As their conflict continued, the guy sought opinions online on whether he handled the attempted home invasion badly
Self-Defense, Legal Context, and Cultural Perspectives
The Right to Self-Defense
Self-defense laws differ greatly from the jurisdiction, but most areas base their law on the fact that a person has a right to defend themselves/property against an imminent threat. Castle doctrine laws originate from the unquestionable right of a person to protect their home against any kind of intruder, including intruders inside the home, who have been found carrying out behavior that would justify the use of force, up to lethal force in some cases, to defend the home. When it takes place at the home, they have a right to do that — this right even extends past the home in a handful of states that have “stand your ground” provisions, which lift the duty to retreat when threatened. But the reaction should be proportionate to the threat, and avoiding unnecessary force can be a mitigating factor at trial.
However, none of those standards seemed to apply in OP’s case. These intruders were, in fact, trying to break into his house and, based off all of that, regarding likeliness NOT respecting his verbally given requests to STOP, his house was also his place of work and, further, he had a sickly old mother to protect from whom may want to do harm to him. His calm response—warning them before getting ready to fire—is described as perfectly proportional.
Cultural Differences in Perceptions of Violence
Part of the reason OP’s girlfriend would probably take issue with OP’s actions is that they were raised differently and have a different view of the world. OP probably grew up in the inner-city, and was taught to be aware of safety concerns, and to just be practical about when to fight and when to run. On the other hand, OPs girlfriend — who had a more suburban upbringing — may not have been confronted by on-the-spot danger or violent crime and therefore has a natural perspective that violence should always be avoided.
Research in sociology indicates that people from high-crime neighborhoods are also much more likely to think that defensive measures, including guns, are a matter of life or death. In contrast, residents of low-crime areas are less likely to perceive violence as essential, favoring de-escalation and law enforcement response. It could be these differences that are leading to the conflict between OP and his girlfriend.
Moral and Ethical Considerations
In philosophy, a debate ensues about whether violence can be justified. Violence, according to pacifist ideologies, is a transhistorical perpetuer of violence and the consequent societal instability. But just war theory and other ethical frameworks also acknowledge that sometimes the use of force is necessary to prevent worse violence. In OP’s scenario, given that he was about to be assaulted by a band of criminals who just broke in—both the presence of an imminent threat and the presence of a dependent who may not be able to escape quickly (an elderly woman with a disability)—the ethics of stopping intruders by literally any means necessary seem sound.
De-Escalation vs. Immediate Action
OP went with the nonviolence that his girlfriend suggested, but this is not always possible because of things like the presence of a weapon or threat to life. But law enforcement agencies say they recommend verbal warnings, clear communication — again, as OP did — and readiness to act if safety is threatened. OP issued warnings prior to their preparation for fire, so their actions are a healthy mixture of de-escalation and appropriate assertiveness.
Many people sided with the man: “I would take a very long look at my girlfriend”
Really, OP acted the only way that was both legal and ethical, in response to a potentially dangerous situation. Hey maybe his girlfriend’s idea of pacifism is valid in some contexts? But not when the situation is literally that the OP and his girlfriend were being attacked and in a threatening, life or death scenario? This incident is a reminder of how communication and an understanding of each other are important in relationships when cultural and experiential differences shape opposite perspectives on safety and self-defense.
OP and his girlfriend will need to find common ground in recognizing both perspectives, as well as a common approach to conflict and protection.