"What Kelly Slater said! Break into my house, if my dog doesn't get you my .357 will."
Kelly Slater, the 11-time world surfing champion known for his terrific competitive prowess as well as his multi-pronged counterattacks on Instagram, has ignited discussion this weekend with a controversial take on Elon Musk’s X.
Responding to a post posing the question of whether a homeowner should be permitted to blow holes in an unarmed intruder, Slater wrote:
“Anyone dumb enough to break in unarmed also deserves to be shot.”
The remark, posted on Friday, quickly gained traction, reflecting the polarised views on gun rights and whether it’s okay to defend y’self against the fiends who bust into your home.
A sample.
What Kelly said! Break into my house, if my dog doesn’t get you my .357 will.
If someone is unarmed, what threat do they pose? Why does somebody have to die for breaking and entering? Also, most people who break in the houses are looking for guns, drugs, or jewelry. They usually don’t care about the occupants.
Exactly. The homeowner has to assume the worse. Split second thinking.
Right!! What are we gonna do? Ask the honest trespasser if they’re armed??
Slater, whose age is uncertain, with outlets like BeachGrit putting it somewhere between 53 and 64, splits his time between Hawaii and Florida, both states with very robust self-defence statutes.
Slater did not elaborate further, but his statement aligns with a broader cultural and legal debate over when lethal force is justified in the home.
The debate about killing burglars
At the heart of the killin’ burglars debate are “castle doctrine” laws, rooted in the ancient English common-law principle that a person’s home is their castle, enter at thy own risk etc.
In most states, these laws eliminate any duty to retreat inside one’s dwelling, allowing residents to use force, including killing the sons of bitches, if they reasonably believe it necessary to prevent imminent harm.
Nearly all states recognise some form of castle doctrine, often presuming that an unlawful entry creates a reasonable fear of death or serious injury.
In Florida and Texas, this presumption is real strong: homeowners are shielded from prosecution if they shoot an intruder who has forcibly entered. The intruder’s weaponry is often irrelevant; the act of breaking in, particularly at night or in a violent manner, is enough to justify lethal response under the law.
Critics of castle doctrine and the related “stand your ground” laws which extend no-duty-to-retreat principles to public spaces say they encourage escalation and contribute to unnecessary fatalities.
Slater’s latest comment arrives amid heightened national attention to crime rates and Second Amendment rights, with home invasions frequently cited in gun-rights advocacy.
Question for the below-the-liners: Your house ever been broken into while you slept? How was the experience? Did it feel existential? Your ol pal DR slept through one and it was only the roar of his lioness ex-wife that disturbed the intruder.
Hypothetically, therefore, if you had a gun in your paw, and a stranger busts into your joint, would you be prepared to kill?