Castle Doctrine Prevails - Granite Grok

Castle Doctrine Prevails

“The Second Amendment does protect the right to people to possess weapons for self-defense in the home. That’s what the Supreme Court said.”   —Laurence Tribe

Castle-Doctrine-Logo2_SMALLERIn the Union Leader today, the headline read, “AG says Manchester man justified in shooting home invader.” In my post on this incident on June 11, “Castle Doctrine, NOT Stand Your Ground”, folks were commenting in the Union Leader citing this as an example of, “stand your ground.”

The Attorney General’s office publicly released its final report. The matter is settled. To summarize what occurred, In the early hours of Saturday June 9, two men kicked in the door of  Ian Peters’ 430 Lake Ave apartment with the intent of harming Peters. The AG report indicates that Peters knew neither of the two men and the incident arose from threatening texts to Peters’ Fiancee.

The couple and 3-year-old son were in bed when they heard footsteps outside the apartment on the porch. The apartment door was kicked in and despite being armed with a handgun the attacker charged Mr. Peters who fired.  The assailant, 24-year-old Larocque was struck in the arm and abdomen and died there.

The AG’s report detailed the events, facts and circumstances finding that Larocque and the other man,  “Went to the Lake Avenue apartment with the intent of harming Ian Peters.” 

Moreover, the Attorney General also concluded that, “It was reasonable for Peters to conclude that Larocque and the other man who forced their way into his apartment “were likely to use any unlawful force against Peters, his fiancee, or her child, during the commission of a burglary or some other felony. Therefore, Ian Peters’ subsequent use of deadly force was legally justified,” under state law. Manchester Police will continue to investigate  that the other assailant will be held accountable.

This is the way the law is supposed to work. A factual finding concluded that Ian Peters was justified in using deadly force and two statutes were cited in the report supporting that conclusion.  Gun Grabbers and anti-gun charlatans always love to  second guess the facts and add “what ifs” and “Why nots.” Arrogant anit-second amendment liberals who fancy themselves smarter than the rest of the “unwashed masses,” love to pontificate and preach to us about not needing guns, calling us, paranoid and gun nuts, just to name a few sweetheart pejoratives they favor.

The comment section of this Union Leader story is noticeably void of the usual liberal name-calling cadre who do not think you nor I should own, possess or use firearms.  This invariably can be attributed to raw facts. The Fact that an average citizen did not need a law degree or other specialized training to know in the first instant that a) (he) was under attack; and, b) If (he) failed to act, harm would follow.

Summarily, Ian Peters utilized the amount of force necessary to terminate the actions of his attacker. Michael Larocque Jr. is dead. He is dead because of his choice to commit a crime suggesting that he would have likely inflicted serious bodily injury on Ian Peters. Michael Larocque Jr. had a choice. He had a choice to not break the law and he failed to weigh the likely outcomes that he could potentially face. Michael Larocque Jr. rolled the dice and lost.