Killed in Accordance with the Societal Values of Our Time   

   Makayla Yeaman, age 23, shot and killed when she invaded a home in West Jordan. No, we do not know all the details. But, it seems unlikely she was an actual threat to someones life. Yes, she was a drug addict. Yes, she was a burglar.
   But, did her life need to be taken?
   She was shot and killed in accordance with societal values of our time and in accordance with the laws of our land. She was shot and killed because this is what we teach: We teach that if someone enters your home, you shoot and kill them.
   Really? And, with no exceptions?
   It seems we have the attitude that there is no other choice: If someone invades our home, there is nothing else to be done. Anything short of shooting them is to be derelict in the protection of your home, your castle, and your family.
   I beg much to differ. Life is precious. Taking another person's life is a serious thing -- or should be. Yes, there will be times when you need to kill someone in self defense. But, no, we should not shoot and kill every home invader.
   And, we certainly shouldn't have a law that makes it legal. 
  Makayla Yeaman? I read the news story. It didn't suggest there will be so much as an investigation as to whether the shooting was justified. I'm sorry, but anytime someones life is taken, there should be an investigation. And, more than a perfunctory one. In the case of Makayla Yeaman, however, we are left to suppose the shooter said he feared for his life, or the life of his family, and that was the end of it. There will be no need for further inquiry. You were just protecting your home, and no one on this green earth is going to fault you for protecting your home.
  Oh, forgive, but despite all this -- despite all our concern for the homeowner -- can't we see we have opened a door where people might be killed unnecessarily? Can't we see that anytime there is a home invasion, the homeowner is going to be able to say he feared for his life. We won't be able to question it. But, not every time a person enters a home will there be an actually need to kill them. These two things don't match: He's always going to be able to get off the hook, but he's not always going to be deserving of getting off the hook.
  Often, it will be just the homeowner and the intruder. If the homeowner kills the intruder, there will be no witness to testify against him, no one to even suggest the killing was unjustified.
   He's off the hook, whether the killing was actually justified or not.
   Our laws have not always been this unjust. You have always had the right to defend yourself, and to kill rather than be killed. (It is wonderful that we've always respected this right.) But, you have not always been allowed to be your own judge and jury. The law has not always been worded so that your word was all that was needed to get you off the hook for murder.
   But, things have changed. In today's society, you just say you felt your life was endangered, and that is the end of it. The law can have no hand on you. 
   Yes, we should fix this law. Yes, it is a loophole for murder.