A home invader picked the wrong house to burgle when he discovered that every occupant of the house was armed.
It happened in Florida, when 40-year-old Mitchell Large allegedly went onto a residence’s back porch, attempting to gain entry through the back door.
His attempts reportedly awakened the residents, who were asleep at the time.
The family immediately armed themselves, and told the would-be burglar that they would open fire on him if he proceeded to enter the residence.
The head of the household, Luis Pena, fired a warning shot above the back door, but claimed that it had no effect on Large.
According to Winter Haven Police Chief, Gary Hester,
“EVENTUALLY HE [LARGE] DID ENTER THE RESIDENCE, AND ADVANCED TOWARD THE FAMILY MEMBERS.”
That was when the home intruder was shot by multiple family members and was fatally wounded.
Police reports indicate that Large had a long criminal history that include assault and domestic violence.
Social Justice Warriors have raced to social media to claim that the conclusion of the home invasion was simply uncalled for.
As they explain, Large was not armed at the time of the attempted burglary, and in their eyes, there was no call for firearms.
The problem is, as they say, hind-sight is 20/20, and the residents of the dwelling would have had no way of knowing whether the home invader was unarmed, armed with a spatula, armed with a butter knife, or armed with a hand-gun.
It’s the same argument that is made when Black Lives Matter rushes to judgement, and decides that an officer should have known that the laser pointer aimed at them is not attached to a gun, or that the water pistol painted black to look real is not an actual firearm.
Sometimes, there is not enough time to decide whether or not a home invader is unarmed or armed to the teeth, and it is in the best interest of the residents to treat the intruder as the latter.
As Chief Hester put it,
“WHETHER HE WAS ARMED OR NOT ARMED, WHEN HE FAILED TO RETREAT THEY CERTAINLY HAD A RIGHT, IF IT TURNS OUT TO BE THIS WAY, WOULD HAVE A RIGHT – TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.”
What do you think? Did the family over-react, or were they within their rights to defend themselves?