Here’s something you don’t see every day, at least not in the pages of the Washington Post. The Post published an opinion piece by a former staff writer describing a night last year when a complete stranger entered his home in Washington, DC in the middle of the night. Not sure what was happening, author Frederick Kunkle unlocked his legally owned gun and confronted the intruder.
“Hey!” I yelled. “What the hell are you doing!”…
I called 911. While a dispatcher assured me police were on their way, I heard the guy rummaging in the kitchen — whether to find an exit or arm himself with a knife, I had no idea…
So I decided to get my gun.
By law, guns in the district have to be kept unloaded with a trigger lock in place. After several moments of fumbling with the lock, Kunkle had to turn on the lights so he could unlock and load his Smith & Wesson revolver. He then went downstairs to see if the intruder had left or was still in the house. He kept the revolver at his side, facing the floor and used a flashlight to search the house. As soon as he came down the stairs he spotted the man in his living room.
I aimed the flashlight at his face and started yelling. “I told you to get the f— out of here!” I shouted, again as loud and as threatening as I could.
He crossed the living room, sat on the sofa and started mouthing off again, saying, “What’s with you, man?”
The guy seemed confused, possibly high on drugs but didn’t seem aggressive. Kunkle never pointed or showed the man his weapon. He remembers thinking that so long as the guy left he didn’t want to escalate the situation. But he also knew that if the guy suddenly charged him, armed or not, he was going to shoot him dead.
And then the guy just walked out the front door. Police arrived moments later. They found the intruder wandering around not far from the house. Kunkle was driven down the street and was able to ID the guy. But he had no criminal record at all. Kunkle was convinced he wasn’t a criminal, probably just a confused addict. He decided not to press charges.
Even after deciding the intruder hadn’t been there to rob or harm him, Kunkle still had a hard time getting back to sleep that night. The next day when he got home he armed himself again and went through the entire house, afraid someone else might have gotten in while he was out. But the house was empty. The experience had just left him feeling jumpy and unsafe.
All of this happened just a few days after two cases that made national news last April. One involved an 84-year-old man who shot a black teen who mistakenly came to his door. The other involved a 20-year-old women who was shot and killed by a homeowner after she and her friends drove up the wrong driveway by accident. These stories were big news at the time and Kunkle felt glad that the break-in he experienced didn’t involve him shooting the suspect.
What really struck me was the conclusion of the piece. After noting that not long ago it was very difficult to legally own a gun in DC, Kunkle says he’s glad he didn’t shoot anyone but also glad he wasn’t left at the mercy of the intruder. This just isn’t something you seen in the Washington Post very often.
Here’s the thing: I keep coming back to that moment when I stood less than six feet from that man, holding the loaded revolver at my side, not knowing what he might do. I was struck by how much I did not want to use my firearm that night unless there was no other choice. But I’m glad I had a choice.
Naturally, this being the Post, there are hundreds of comments suggesting he’s wrong.
Seems like the gun was really not a factor in this whole episode. The victim yelled at him and he left. Both parties are very lucky in that no one was hurt. The victim could have been killed while fumbling around with his weapon and the perpetrator could have had another firearm for the street arsenal. I’m calling it dumb luck. As for the victims false sense of security for having a weapon available to her/ him…maybe he or she should rethink that.
And this person is outraged that the homeowner even confronted the intruder.
He was not attacking you. You were pursuing him, ready to kill him though he was not going after you? Did you have a few diamond rings or a bowl full of money? How would you have slept if you killed the man because he was trying to steal your money, or even your car? Maybe I’m crazy. Things are things. Shooting a person for things which he has stolen is just as bad as killing a person to get things. I have lived in Metropolitan, New York, New York City, or 70 years. I have never felt the need to arm myself
There are also a surprising number of people chastising him for not pressing charges:
Wouldn’t press charges? Wonderful 🙄, what if the guy was a rapist, and he goes out and rapes somebody else because you wouldn’t do your civic duty? I actually hate people like this. He’s willing to shoot somebody in his house, but only if that somebody, who has already broken in or perhaps entered an open door– and thus invaded his house– does something particularly egregious, otherwise he’s too worried about legal consequences. Or maybe the home invader’s life means a lot to this scared homeowner. Why?
Personally, I think the author got it right. It’s smart to own a weapon in case the worst happens. That doesn’t mean you should be eager to start shooting someone if they don’t appear to be armed/posing an obvious threat. I might have made a different decision about pressing charges. If nothing else, it might lead this likely addict to be forced into some kind of diversion program where he could potentially get help.
Read the full article here
