Worthington Shooting Was Irresponsible and Illegal

By Dean Rieck

Anti-gun activists will undoubtedly pounce on the tragic shooting in Worthington, Ohio, and claim that it is proof that no one can be trusted with a gun. This is to be expected since such incidents are so rare and anti-gun arguments so flimsy. They have to latch onto anything and everything.

But most people will recognize this tragedy for what it is: simply an irresponsible person committing a crime.

The incident began innocently enough as a prank. According to media reports, five high-school girls drove to 141 Sharon Springs Drive, a supposedly “haunted” house beside a cemetery. It was sometime around 10 p.m. on August 22. Three of the girls got out of the car and approached the house through a tangle of weeds and bushes.

One of the girls in the car honked the horn, scaring the three girls on foot. The three ran back to the car while they heard what sounded like firecrackers, but which were actually gun shots. The girls drove around the block, passing the house again. It was then that a 17-year-old high school girl was shot twice, in the upper body and head. She is in critical condition.

Click on 'Read More' to continue reading.

The man doing the shooting was Allen S. Davis, a 40-year-old self-employed writer living with his mother. Police report that Davis said he shot at the girls with a .22 rifle from his bedroom window even though he admitted that the girls did not threaten him. After months of enduring kids banging on doors and windows and causing a ruckus, he wanted to teach the kids a lesson and stop what he considered to be harassment.

Davis has been charged with five counts of felonious assault.

It is every person’s natural right to protect himself. So if Davis had actually been in danger, he would have had a right to use deadly force. The trouble is, if the newspaper reports are accurate, he wasn’t in danger. So he had absolutely no right to shoot.

The standard for using deadly force for self-defense consists of very specific elements. The attacker must have the Intent, Opportunity, and Ability to cause death or serious bodily harm. None of these elements existed in this case.

Kids had been bothering Davis for months. And his statements show that he knew those on his property were just mere kids, not intruders with deadly intent. And these particular kids didn’t even get near his house, so there was no opportunity or even ability to cause him harm, especially since they were running away the first time he shot and simply driving past his house the second time he shot.

Had there been a 200 pound crack head breaking down Davis’ door swinging a knife, Davis would have been in the right to shoot in self-defense. And I for one would be defending his actions as both legal and reasonable. But since there were only little girls whose only “crime” was teenage mischief, or at worst trespassing, Davis was clearly in the wrong.

Those of us who support the right of self defense also support the rule of law. Using a gun is a right. But that right carries responsibilities and requires the exercise of common sense. We can only hope that the girl recovers and that Davis is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.