BrianGarst.com

A Dallas man has been forced by criminals to use deadly force to defend himself and his livelihood on two separate occasions in three weeks.

Dallas business owner kills 2 intruders in 3 weeks

For the second time in three weeks, the owner of a machine shop fatally shot an intruder who had broken into his business, police said.

James Walton fired a shotgun Sunday at a man inside Able Walton Machine & Welding, police said. Walton, who lives upstairs from the shop, was alerted to the intruder’s presence by a motion sensor system.

“He’s got a right to defend his property,” Dallas police Sgt. Gene Reyes said. “What gives a stranger the right to go in and vandalize or burglarize his business? He’s within every legal right to do this.”

. . .Walton also shot and wounded a second man Sunday outside of the shop. Police said the man escaped, but was eventually detained for questioning.

. . .About three weeks ago, Walton shot and killed Raul Laureles when Laureles was climbing through a pried-open window of the business, police said. That incident also was referred to a grand jury.

Let’s hope the grand jury doesn’t do anything stupid. Anyway, since there’s nothing so repugnant to a gun-hating statist as seeing a private citizen engage in self defense (as that negates the need for the state to take power and act on your behalf), a reporter took it upon herself to ambush the 70-year old Walton, asking if he was “trigger happy” and wanted to “shoot to kill.” Being a normal human being who doesn’t want to have to harm people, but will if he must, Walton was reduced to tears. You can see the despicable video here (Edit: Video apparently had to be removed). The reporter gal has been suspended.

Mr. Walton had every right to take the action he did. John Locke explained in his Second Treatise of Government why a man has a right to defend himself with deadly force under these circumstances (emphasis mine):

[It is] lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he please, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can, for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.