The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-14

~ not newly derived rule but recent event
gives 1t new emphasis, and in view OF the
fate OF Mr.. Shute every citizen has direct
personal interest in knowing his legal rela-
tlons to the midnight intruder with whom he
may find himself face to face in o death
struggle any night, and especially in knowing
how far this fact that the burglar and the
assassin are essentially one, is recognized by
the law.
Every man frames in his own fancy, and
almost instlnctively, some line of conduct
that he believes he would act upon if he
should awake some night and find himself in
the position in which this resolute citizen of
Brooklyn came by the wounds which now SO
seriously endanger his ife and most men in
view of such case are very apt to conclude
that they would be beforehand with the in
truder If any one is to be seriously hurt
There are several reasons against too pre-
cipitate course in such circumstances Onlya
few weeks ago man killed o near relative
by too rash defence against O supposed
burglar. 1t happens in this city and Brooklyn
that men become intruders unconsciously
almost, in consequence of the habit of build
ing rows of houses so much alike as to be
indistinguishable one from the other, and
having contract locks on the whole number,
so that key for one will open all. No man
would fancy the notion of perforating with
pistol bullets an innocent neighbor whose
only crime was that he started for home
few drinks too late and miscounted the stoops
from the corner down.
But if the citizen is sure of the case; if walked
in the night he is satisfied there is burglar
in bis apartment if he thereupon with the
revolver-thar it seems he should always have
within reach-shoots and kills the intruder
how does he then stand in the view of the
authorities charged with the administration of
justice? Is there any doubt whatever that his
act is covered in the fullest conceivable degree
by the theory that ii is an act of self-defenee
With the results of the Shute case before US
we see just how far that burglar was prepared
to go, and recognize obviously that any course
that might have been taken with him would
have been justified But must man wait to
receive q fatal shot in order to know that
he is in the presence Of such danger as
will justify any extremity? Must he warn
the intruder before he fires in the great I'M
certainty whether the warning will be acted
upon for escape or whether it will not give
the burglar himself information where to
fire2
As it is the notion that his own life is in
danger which is behind whatever immunity
the citizen may have in killing on intruder,
there is a limit to the discretion he may exer-
else; but how shall he go far enough to know
that his life is in danger and not endanger it?
Perhaps he had better shoot anyway, and
take his chances with our juries, proverbially
Indifferent to human life. But If they should
have just then one of those paroxysms of
goodness that come over them occasionally
the counsel on the other side might make it
very uncomfortable. Altogether the dilemma
is an unpleasant one for persons disposed to
quiet lives and easy consciences. 1t seems to
us that if there is any doubt whatever of the
position of the citizen before the law in such
q case as we have supposed the least that can
be done Is to remove that doubt by legislation,
and to give to the citizen the same plenary
and absolute right over the life of midnight
intruder that he would have naturally If the
intruder were o rabid cur. As the authorities
and the police afford 50 little protection to
citizens in any of the emergencies OF crime
fullest conceivable right to protect himself