A Kentucky man was home with his family. Around 4:00 AM, a man that was apparently intoxicated tried to enter his home unlawfully. As the suspect was attempting to enter the home, the homeowner shot him one time in his right knee.
The suspect was taken to a hospital for treatment.
The incident is still being investigated.
Since the report says that the suspect was attempting to enter, that would seem to imply that he hadn’t actually entered the home when he was shot. There was no mention that the homeowner shot him through the door, so did the suspect get the door open but had not yet entered?
Why is that important? It may be because it could go to whether the man was a deadly threat at the moment the homeowner shot him. There could be a tactical advantage to stopping an intruder as soon as possible. Still, there certainly is a legal advantage to not fire on an intruder until it is absolutely necessary.
State laws, of course, differ around the country as to when deadly force is justified defending one’s home, but the real question should always be not when is it legal to shoot but rather when is it necessary to engage an intruder.
In other words, don’t ask if it’s ok to shoot. Rather ask should I shoot?