I am writing in response to an article in Monday's issue titled "Aiming at the Enemy," by Arts and Life Editor Dan Mecca:
Last week a man shot and killed a home intruder in Dallas, Texas. Some people, like Dan Mecca expressed on Monday, think that this was too harsh an action to take on an unarmed man "harboring no weapon or intent to harm." Ironically, last weekend a more interesting story was published in the Gainesville Sun: "Blind Man Shoots Intruder."
It would be hard to prosecute a blind Arthur Williams who used a .32-caliber revolver to defend himself and his home against a man who knocked down his door. Obviously Mr. Williams had no way of knowing whether the intruder was armed, nor his intentions. But does anyone really know?
The only difference between the two cases is that the blind man was lucky. There is absolutely no way anyone can know the intentions of a home intruder, or whether or not he is armed. The Dallas man was just as blind as Mr. Williams in this respect. If a guy broke into my house, I will not wait until he starts waiving his gun around to take action. I will not ask him about his intentions. You must assume, like any rational person, that he is not showing up to fix your leaking basement (especially at 3 a.m., which was the approximate time of both shootings). It may be true that some home invaders have no intent to harm, but fortunately homeowners don't have to make that guess.


