My remarks were in response to the folks in this thread who seem to take an attitude of "ZOMG if anyone is in my daughter's room without my permission I'm going for slide lock!!!" That attitude amuses me. In a situation like that, with a teenage daughter and boyfriend getting cuddly vs a trigger happy Rambo parent threatening to kill people, who's behaving more maturely?
If there's a boy naked in your teenage daughter's room, there are long odds that it isn't an attack of any sort. It is far, far, far more likely that he's naked there because your daughter wants him that way.
The "he's in my house and he's naked so I'm gonna waste him" attitude is wrong. It may be legal to use lethal force in such a circumstance, but it seems like unjustified murder to me. The boy would end up dead for no reason other than that the irrational father couldn't cope with his daughter becoming a normal adult woman.
Ok, I'm game. Who really said the "slide lock" bit?
The fact is, the father in this story happened upon an ininvited guest, hovering over his daughter buck-assed naked. He had no idea that his little princess was engaged in subterfuge, and the law understood that fact by acquitting him. Honestly, it could've been his wife, it could've been his son, there was a stranger in his home and he wasn't the Tooth Fairy putting quarters under pillows. We just had an incident in Madison where somebody was found naked and uninvited in somebody's home. The dude went belligerent, then totally bonkers on the family member who found him there, but luckily the incident resulted in no injuries. Like it or not, Castle Doctrine protects the homeowner when situations like the original scenario happen, whether he's defending himself and his family from weirdos who get their jollies by sexually molesting folks, or whether they intend to finish the job with the typical murder. The law recognizes that, and allows a "reasonable man" defense. There's any number of sexual predators who've entered homes with bad intentions, one can simply Google it. That's exactly what happened here, it was reasonable to conclude that the homeowner didn't know anything about the princess, her consort, and their goings-on, and to prevent what he would have thought was an impending rape, he rung the little bastard's bell a good one.
Now, who said here "slide lock?" Really, I'll wait.
As folks who've been around know, I'm one of the first on this forum to eschew deadly force when not warranted. I have a very vivid memory of a severely mentally handicapped neighbor kid who broke into my Florida home very late one evening, scared, tired, and on the verge of one of his frequent grand mal seizures. I recognized him and got him calmed down, then contacted his parents. It took me all of a split second to identify the intruder and bring the 870 MkI down to low ready. He was an intruder, but not a target.
I would, however, draw down on an uninvited person in my home if they were hovering naked over my wife, daughter, or son. They had better come up with a quick explanation, be it an ongoing affair, he likes the kid's purty mouth, or whatever. Then he would be escorted to the front porch, sans clothing, to await the police. My wife wants to have an affair, she can do it somewhere else, and then she can scream "rape", like the UPS driver scenario last year.
In the meantime, this particular scenario played out exactly as it should have, voyeuristic protests notwithstanding. There was an unknown naked person in the home hovering over princess, the father had no clue who he was, and he prevented what was reasonable to assume was a rape or worse in progress. The law acquitted him, as it should have. Princess will now think twice before inviting Mr. Happy over to spend the night in Daddy's house, or Daddy will tell the little tart that she's out the door come 18 years of age. The End.
I now return you to the previous straw man arguments and general weeping and gnashing of teeth.
