Of Home Invasions and Death to those Who do Invade
I might have lost the last post I wrote in the comment section of a Deseret News story about the shooting and killing of a home burglar in West Jordan. If the comment is published, I will be able to retrieve it, but it might not be approved for publication. The article was about a lady shot and killed for breaking into a home in West Jordan. She evidently got the garage opener out of a vehicle parked in front of the home, entered through the garage, and got as far as the next room when she was shot. The police spokesperson said he did not know if she was armed. Reading the whole of the story, though, I am guessing she was not. Reading the whole of the story, one comes to think she was there to rob it in order to pay for her drug addiction. The online comments are quick to point out that if you break into a home, you have to be ready to pay the consequences. I post the following:
"Don't think I see a comment in this thread suggesting the shooting might have been wrongful. We are taught to shoot and kill house invaders. We even have a stand-your-ground law that says if you feel your life is endangered, you can kill the other person. When the police come investigating the next morning, all you have to do is say you felt threatened, and you are off the hook.
I guess I'm not so convinced as the rest of you that we are going about this the right way. Life is precious. Just because a person is in your home in the middle of the night does not, in and of itself, give you the right to kill them. We, as a society, are responsible for this type of death. We should change our law and quit teaching each other to kill anyone who enters our homes."
Comes an answer from another poster, one titled, "at long last," noting ours is a society where, "actions have consequences. In this case the burglar got killed. I know of few people who have a problem with this. In case you don't realize it, John, this is a felonious act she committed - an egregious invasion of a person's home. Chances are quite good she won't ever do this again."

Another poster, DN Subscriber, responds that, "Society can and should be teaching criminals that breaking and entering into other people's houses in the middle of the night is illegal, and that homeowners have the right to use deadly force. Any injury or death of the intruder is their own fault, not that of the homeowner." 
I post the following: "Bless you all for your opinion. You feel the killing was justified, that crime has consequence. I do agree that crime should have consequence, but feel that when possible, the retribution should be dispensed by a court of law, not by the victim in vigilante style. No, we have not set up a good system of justice when we set it up so the victim is allowed to exact whatever level of vengeance he -- in his anger, -- wants, even to the taking of the life of the other person. Then, we set back in our chairs, observing what has gone on, and call it justice? Burglary is a crime. It is wrong. Taking from others to pay for a drug addiction is wrong. But death to all burglars? Is the crime worthy of the punishment? No mercy, no charity? The hands of justice may be heavy, but they cease to be the hands of justice when they are this heavy."