Home invaders attack child, assault women, kills dog and…

… one of them is killed by the homeowner. Swift justice. There are many politicians who have a serious issue with using firearms for self-defense in the home. What it comes down to is this. If many anti-gunners out there had their way, this family of four would be dead and they would be fine with that.

Yup, I said it. Sure, they would want to prosecute these criminals to the full extent possible, but there is no way in hell these guys went through a background check to get their gun. They did not legally acquire the firearm. No way… they wouldn’t qualify since I’m willing to bet they have a criminal history. But for some unknown reason, many think background checks and limiting magazine capacity is the answer?

From CarolinaLive.com.

A burglary in Mechanicsville has left one suspect dead and several victims injured, according to Sheriff Wayne Byrd with the Darlington County Sheriff’s Office.

Byrd said two men broke into the home and physically assaulted two women and struck an 11-year-old boy in the head with a gun.

Why is this being only referred to as a burglary? This seems to have been a brutal assault, and the family dog was killed by the intruders. From WMBF News, the local NBC affiliate.

The suspect shot and killed the family dog.

Should the family have just complied with the two intruders and give them what they want?

A female victim and child was struck in the head and face with a gun.

The other suspect, armed with a gun, was holding another female victim at gun point, and struck her in the head with the gun.

I’d say the family was lucky the owner of the house woke up and took on the intruders. I have a couple of questions for the “more gun regulation” crowd…

At what point is “the fight for your life” on? Luckily, these women and the child were not severely injured, but at what point is lethal force justified? Second question… If you’re OK with this person using a firearm for self-defense in the home, explain to me why – once you are in public – you should not have the same right to protect yourself and your family? Why should your right to protect yourself and family change because you walk out of your home or cross an invisible state line?

Back to the article, with my emphasis.

“[The homeowner] was at the back of the residence, came out fired several shots at the intruders, and they fled the scene. And upon our officers arriving, they found one of the suspects dead in a field about 75 yards from the house,” said Sheriff Byrd.

Seventy-five yards. That intruder got 75 yards before he dropped and no longer was a threat. Keep that in mind when people question how many shots it takes to stop a threat.

Criminal History

Let’s take a look at what seems to be the criminal history of Brandon Lunn, also know as Brandon Jade Lunn. (Names as provided in news reports)

  • Arrested January 2008 – Pled Guilty, NO Jail Time
    0080-Burglary / Burglary (Non-Violent) – Second degree.
  • Arrested September 2008 – Pled Guilty, NO Jail Time
    0478-Larceny / Grand Larceny, value more than $1,000 but less than $5,000, 0080-Burglary / Burglary (Non-Violent) – Second degree, 0480-Larceny / Petit or Simple Larceny (Dismissed).
  • Arrested June 2009 – Pled Guilty, Gets 5 Years Concurrent and No Time for the Larceny Charge
    0427-Burglary / Burglary (After June 20, 1985) – Third degree – 1st offense, 0480-Larceny / Petit or Simple Larceny.

So it looks like he got out of prison in two months ago (if he served all of his five years) and went right back to a life of crime. Hopefully, he’ll be put away for life at this point.

I’m not able to find a criminal history for 25-year-old Marquis Benjamin, but somehow I don’t think he went through a background check to get the gun the criminals used in Darlington County four days ago.

8 replies
  1. bien-pensant
    bien-pensant says:

    No one should have to endure having their home invaded, not by anyone. To be pistol-whipped and have your dog killed is not just a burglary.
    To write that this is a burglary (what was taken?) is to downplay what actually took place, a violent attack by wanton criminals. Is this liberal anti-gun bias at work here?
    My sympathies are entirely with the family. Ideally, the criminals should be toes-up in the morgue, not waiting for a lenient judge to release them to, yet again, terrorize the populace.

    • bien-pensant
      bien-pensant says:

      Update: “Darlington County Coroner Todd Hardee has identified the person who died as Marquis Benjamin, 25, of Darlington.” (He is the person who got 75-yards away.)
      “Deputies arrested the second suspect, Brandon Lunn, hours after the early Friday morning burglary.

      Lunn is charged with Criminal Conspiracy, Burglary First Degree, and three counts of Assault and Battery Second Degree… additional charges are pending.”
      The homeowner will not be charged as it was self-defense.
      http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=1086795#.U_3SL7ReKJU

  2. SeeingRed
    SeeingRed says:

    I wonder what the authorities would have charged the homeowner with if this exact incident, complete with the capping of the bad guy, occurred in CT?

    • Steve McGough
      Steve McGough says:

      The “Castle Doctrine” is incorporated into Connecticut law. The homeowner – using the same example as referred to in this post assuming all information in the new reports is correct – would not be charged.

      CGS ? 53a-20 – “Use of physical force in defense of premises. A person in possession or control of premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be in or upon such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only (1) in defense of a person as prescribed in section 53a-19, or (2) when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any crime of violence, or (3) to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his dwelling as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work, and for the sole purpose of such prevention or termination.”

  3. Steve McGough
    Steve McGough says:

    Also…

    Sec. 53a-19. “Use of physical force in defense of person. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.”

    Pistol whipping multiple people during a home invasion would qualify, I assume.

  4. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    Thanks for the info, I think you’ve been hanging with SOS a lot. Of course I can’t think of anyone sweeter or smarter than her

Comments are closed.