What Would You Do If These Were Your Children?

You would think in this day and age, nothing would surprise you, but I continue to be horrified by some of the things I read in the newspaper everyday. It should come as no surprise, from a theological perspective, since those of us who have read Scripture know that people are innately evil and sinful and while the manifestations of this sometimes are kept in check...in 2009, society seems to value individual freedoms over societal responsibility. In other words, pretty much anything goes, and there are no controls and worthwhile deterrents towards certain behaviours. You see it all the time in how young people nowadays spit in the face of authority, whether it be the police, teachers, or their parents. And life seemingly has little value, given how some people will willfully abort children or kill someone over something as trivial as a pack of cigarettes or for looking at them the wrong way.

I cringed as I read a very sad report of a gang rape that occurred in Richmond, California, last weekend. During a homecoming dance, a 15-year-old girl was waiting to meet up with her dad, when she got lured into a secluded area where she was offered alcohol, became intoxicated, and ended up being viciously gang-raped by a number of boys/men, all the while up to 20 people were watching and filming it. It was only through someone who overheard this incident happening several blocks away, when police were finally notified and they found the victim unconscious and barely clinging on to life.

Two people (if I can use that term loosely) have been arrested, one a 15-year-old, whose name cannot be mentioned for some reason, and a 19-year-old, Manuel Ortega, who was caught running from the scene. If Ortega is in fact guilty, I hope that he gets put into a nice prison full of folks who are itching to show this bastard what a real gang rape is like. Honestly, I really don't understand (I really, really don't) why anyone would attack a girl like this, and moreover, why so many people would just look on, laugh about it, tell their friends, and in some cases, participate. My first question is, what kind of parents did these kids have?

Now, there have been more details about the environment - Richmond is apparently a rougher neighbourhood and has a high concentration of hispanics. That may partially explain some of the behaviour - I know it's not PC to say this, but if you look at any ghetto area in the state of California, it's not Whites and it's not Asians who are perpetrating rapes, drive-by shootings, and gang murders. Sadly, these other segments of society (Blacks and Hispanics), while overwhelmingly liberal in their political views, have a higher rate of absentee fathers, a healthy respect for girls and women, and a solid family structure. That kind of environment will foster these types of dregs in society, who believe that they are entitled to sexually take advantage of a young girl who made a bad choice to become inebriated in the presence of teenaged boys. Who knows what will happen to this poor girl - obviously her life has changed and she may end up not being able to cope with such a sad, sad tragedy.

Unfortunately, California is one of the most liberal States in the U.S., and with the ACLU in full force and rape not being a capital crime, that 15-year-old will probably be out in a few years, while Ortega may be out in a few more after that. Let's just hope there is some dispensing of prison justice for these guys as well as the others who will eventually get caught.

I also hope for a speedy physical recovery and for the best outcome possible, emotionally, for this young girl, who, regardless of any bad choices that she may have made that night, did not deserve to be raped in any way, shape or form.

The second story that I read today involves a married father of a three-year-old toddler in Florida. Now, here's a hispanic hero if there ever was one. He had some European guy stay over at his house as an overnight guest. In the morning, after he left, his three-year-old son reported to him that the house guest had molested him in the middle of the night. So what did this upstanding and responsible father do? Did he do what society prescribes and call the cops and let them be frustrated at not being able to make an arrest due to some bureaucratic challenge or the inability to conjure up enough evidence? You know, my son is almost seven and never once has he mentioned to me that anyone has molested him. If he ever does, I know to take it seriously. So for a three-year-old to report to his father that he was molested, any father should take seriously. Kids don't just make this crap up, you know! Anyway, this heroic father did the sensible thing and did not waste the police's time. Instead, he grabbed one of his neighbours (a heroic Black guy, also to be commended to help his friend), and tracked down this pedophile and gave him some home-cooked justice. The cops found the perv bleeding profusely from the head. And sure enough, rather than commending a father for doing his JOB and taking his perental RESPONSIBILITY seriously, what do the cops do? They arrest the father and he's now in jail. The poor boy's mother was interviewed and she, in tears, said she doesn't understand why the father, who was just protecting his son, is now behind bars. Every single neighbour, who was interviewed, said they would have done the same thing, had it been their kid who was molested.

Rather than arrest him, they should have given Mr. Manuel Vega a medal. Same for the Black neighbour, Krish Carter. Good job guys, and I hope that there is enough backlash towards the authorities that they let these guys go and drop the charges. People may complain about "vigilante justice" and such, but remember, if people had total faith in justice system and know that it would fairly prosecute criminals, rather than letting them loose via a plethora of technicalities, stuff like this would never happen. As such, this is what happens the the justice system, and by extension, the government, fails its citizens.

Vince Li - Lock Him Up For Life and Give Tim McLean Some Justice

There's not a whole else that burns me as much as our Canadian dysfunctional so-called justice system. For years, many people have indicated that the criminal justice system is like a revolving door in Canada. Criminals roam free, excused for their actions by any variety of bleeding heart liberal justifications for their behaviour. If you've ever watched the movie Primal Fear, it raises the issue that mental competency (or lack thereof) can easily be feigned. Plus, with a good enough (read: sleazy) lawyer, the blame for anyone's criminal actions can be easily shifted elsewhere, resulting in the bad guy getting a lesser sentence, despite damning evidence. Paul Bernardo is one of these pieces of sh-- (I'll just abbreviate it to POS from hereon in), who, while convicted on clear unrefutable evidence that he savagely raped and killed two teenage girls as well as his teenage sister-in-law, due to Canada not having a death penalty, this scum bag how has his living expenses, meals and lodging (albeit in a prison) covered by the Canadian taxpayer. In the U.S., depending on the state, he would have been six feet under by now.

Enter Vince Li, another POS who savagely killed and gruesomely mutiliated a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus last year in Manitoba. Tim McLean did not provoke the attack, nor did anything that warranted such an awful death at such a young age. Police say that Li not only savagely killed him with a knife, but started to eat his body parts, putting some parts in his pocket or scattering them throughout the bus. Thankfully, passengers locked him in the bus while authorities arrived, so he was apprehended by the police.

At the recent conclusion of his trial, it was deemed that he was found not criminally responsible due to mental illness so rather than locking him up in prison for the rest of his life, he is now going to be "treated" at a psychiatric hospital of some sort. Li claims that "God made him do it.". Oh brother.

Now, I know I am going to get flamed by people who say that I am devoid of compassion and understanding. Perhaps I am, but you know, Mr. McLean's family is right - whatever the cause of his actions, he still acted. I don't buy the argument that psychologists and psychiatrists like to maintain, that there are times where one does not have even a semblance of control over their actions. The overwhelming vast majority of the population does not go around murdering people, much less doing it in such a way that is, I think it's safe to say, universally considered grotesque and all out wrong. We're not talking self-defence here. We're not talking mob killings here where it may be argued that the target deserves what he/she gets. We're talking about an innocent person here, who was minding his own business when out of nowhere, some looney bin starts to stab him repeatedly. People should not have to fear riding buses (though I have not taken public transit for years due to the increasing depravity of some public transit riders).

The fact is, a guy like Li, even if I would concede has mental problems, should be locked up in a prison for the rest of his life. Canada does not offer the death penalty, so the most severe punishment is life in prison (which in Canada means 25 years without parole, I believe). He can get treated in jail, if the system wants to work on his issues. But he should not be released to a mental hospital where security is not as tight, and where, given the right behavioural stimuli and playing his good behaviour cards right, "experts" may deem him fit for release to the general public at a future date.

Now, for those who think it's better to rehabiliate than to lock up a murderer (which is what this guy is, no matter what the courts say), let me ask you - would you be willing to let him be released in your residential area? Would you be OK with him as a neighbour, knowing he butchered an innocent person on a bus? Anyone who does this to another human being without provocation has forfeited his / her right to peaceful existence amongst the general populace.

I have talked about this before, and will mention it again. It is easy to claim to be a friend of the behavioural sciences and afford grace to those who are mentally unstable, but until you have an experience where you see the fallacy of the system, you will continue to dream idealistically that everyone, regardless of their societal threat levels, should be given a second chance. If you read this blog for a while, you'll know a few years back, a lady showed up at my door on a warm Saturday night in August. Neither my wife and I knew who she was, but she started to knock on my door, and that gravitated to trying to kick down my door. When this happens to you, the fear in your heart is tremendous. I made several mistakes that night, the first of which was confronting her. My initial assessment of her was that she was drunk, but there was no alcohol on her breath. She claimed that we kidnapped her child and that she wants into the house. I stood in the doorway and refused entry, while my wife called the police. All this happened, while my 2-year-old was sleeping upstairs.

Once I refused her entry, I can see that she started to seethe. She started cursing me, hurling racial epithets at me, saying stuff like "You f***ing Chinese people come to this country and kidnap our children" and worse, and started to move close to me (I was neither armed nor knew what to do in that case at the time). I just stood my ground and prayed quickly to God that He would protect me. Thankfully she backed away once my wife said that the cops were coming. Now, the cops later revealed that she had a mental condition and was obviously off her medication. My question to the officer was, "well, what the hell was she doing roaming the streets, driving a car?" Apparently officers check in on her "periodically". But in my view, that's not good enough. Vince Li could be that woman in a number of years...one event can trigger him to do the unthinkable. It's foolish to expect people like this to take their meds and hope that they do, without any form of consistent supervision. I mean, if that woman was armed and killed me or my wife, what would the socialists say then? Sorry, I'm not offering my life for some social experiment. Next time a crazy comes to my door, I will be fully armed with my Remington 870 stoked with 00 buckshot and regardless of their mental disposition, if they try to attack me, I will hit back and chances are, they will not get back up. You see, I am an equal opportunity defender, when it comes to my home and my family.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. Mr. McLean's family now has to attend annual reviews for Li to ensure that he remains in custody. It's bad enough they lost a son to this killer; now, the system puts the onus on them to ensure that they participate in his annual reviews to ensure he continues to be institutionalized. It is conceivable (especially given the Canadian system of judicial dispensation) that down the line, this guy can be released, and without a criminal record, he can go where he wants, live where he wants, and do what he wants. Dare I say it, for people like this, these events are not a one-time occurrence. I found out later that the lady who was at my door who claimed that we kidnapped her children trashed a donut shop previously. Again, I ask, why is she allowed to roam amongst the general community? I would ask the same of Vince Li, who obviously by his actions demonstrated that he is a threat to the general public. As a result, he should be locked up indefinitely, not given another chance due to the justice system shifting the blame.

Have You Considered Your Home Defence Options?

Well, my son is still battling a fever tonight, and I've been up several times, so there is not much use in trying to go back to sleep (I'm sure you know the feeling - you get into deep sleep for 30 minutes or so and then get woken up, only to feel more gross than you would feel had you simply stayed up - that's sort of where I am right now). Besides, with new daughter in tow, I've been meaning to write about a topic that I've been thinking about for several years now.

Back in the summer of 2005 or 2006 (thankfully, it was long enough ago that I am starting to forget the incident), we had a rather scary situation where a agitated woman showed up on our doorstep (literally) at around 10:30AM on a Saturday night and tried to kick our front door down. My son was considerably younger back then, so we originally thought that it was him crying, but it turns out it was a lady in her 20s who was extremely irritated. She was shouting at the top of our lungs for us to open the door and started to kick at our door. She sounded like she was in great anguish, and an error my wife and I made that night was to open the front door to investigate.

Turns out that she had thought that someone in our household had kidnapped a child of hers, or at least the child in a photo that she was carrying in her wallet. So here I was in the doorway of the house, with my wife behind me (and my son soundly sleeping upstairs), and this lady is demanding to get into my house. Realizing that she wasn't kidding, I had to be firm in insisting that there was no way that she would get by me, since we do not know here nor did we kidnap that child. I suspected that she was inebriated or on some sort of illegal narcotics, but regardless, it was the first time I actually felt a bit frightened in my house. Now, this lady wouldn't relent and I thought I was about to get into a fistfight with her (something I didn't really want to do, since it's been 20+ years since I got into a physical confrontation with someone and I'd rather it stay that long). My wife wisely decided to call the cops, which we should have done once we realized she was trying to kick the door down. In the meantime, several neighbours had gathered outside our house, and were witnessing the whole thing. The lady (and I use that term loosely), upon realizing that I was not about to afford her entry, then started a profanity-filled, racially-charged barrage of racial epithets, most of which I have not heard in many years. I tell you, I was tempted to slug her one, but that is hardly a good example to my family, since I didn't exactly fear for my life by her name-calling. Anyhow, once I told her that we called the cops, she immediately rolled into her minivan and backed out of our driveway, but not before we recorded her licence plate number and before she crashed into lamp post in front of our house, causing all manner of external car parts to be strewn at the end of our driveway.

Cops showed up - this big, big dude named Police Constable Nigel showed up - I was admiring his muscles throughout our conversation, but I am glad my tax dollars pay for beefy cops like him. He ran her plates and proceeded to tell us that she was a known schitzophrenic who happened to have trashed a Tim Horton's the night before. He indicated that she was likely off her medication and was driving around aimlessly and happened upon our house, which was fairly visible on the street. He said that chances are, by the next day she would not even remember the incident, but they'd pay her a visit anyway to check up on her. They would be sending one of their cops who she thinks she is married to...I wasn't interested in hearing more of the soap opera, so I thanked him for looking into it and his assurances that it was probably a bad coincidence that she showed up at our door. We haven't heard from her since and have not had any such incident since, of which we were aware.

Now, some advice from the officer, and this was well received. It is not paranoia-based chain-mail B.S. that you get in your inbox that you are to circulate to all your friends. This came from the mouth of a police officer with whom I spoke. The first thing he said was that we made several tactical errors that night in assessing the situation. I don't disagree with him. The first was that we didn't call the police right away when we determined someone was kicking at our door. The second was that we opened our door. And the third, while the officer did not necessarily suggest this - when I suggested whether it would have been good if I was somehow armed with something at the door (and I don't mean a firearm, but anything that can more or less be used in self-defence like a baseball bat, a knife, or whatever) - he said that it wouldn't hurt, but obviously much care is needed, since citizens have been known to be disarmed of baseball bats and other forms of self-defence objects by perpetrators, and worse, these objects have been turned on the homeowners. I doubt that the police are at liberty to suggest homeowners arm themselves, like they seem to do more of in the States than in Canada, but it was interesting that he did not dismiss the option.

All that being said, I have had at least a couple of years (I believe it was 2005, so I had a few years) to think about what happened, and I can tell you that it is worthwhile for every homeowner to at least have a game plan in place in the event something as distressing as this happens. Now, I realize we're not in the wild-west mentality of the U.S., but let's face it - suberbs like where I live are not immune to crime. In fact, just down the street from me a few years back, a Marijuana grow-up was busted. About 5 minutes north of me, there was a major methanphetamine lab that was broken up - the cops who did that case reported in the news that they were surprised that the residence did not explode, due to the amount of volatile chemicals found in the house. And that was in a house that was valued at $525,000 Cdn., so it wasn't like we are talking in the housing projects here. About 15 minutes northeast of me, a double-murder took place in a home very close to where our good friends live. And despite our area's generally low crime rate, home invasions do happen - our youth pastor witnessed a police take-down of carjackers, which resulted in police drawing and using their weapons - this was less than five minutes away from where I live, and it only happened late last year. My former colleague at work, who has four kids of his own, has told me of problem neighbours that he has had that forced him to build his own home security camera system which feeds video into his computer.

OK, maybe these are all isolated incidents, but can you really afford to dismiss them as something that will never happen to you? I've learned only in the past few years never to assume that something will not happen to you. Anything can happen to anyone, so I feel it is prudent for the homeowner to at least consider what they would do (it may turn out to be nothing, but at least think about it) if they were a victim of a home invasion. As for me, I have a plan in place, which I don't advertise, and I have actually ran through the plan several times to test timing, etc. That being said, I still make tactical errors, which I have been correcting over time (ie. most recently, the house alarm was set off by a loose window and I bolted downstairs to turn off the alarm without carrying adequate protection with me (by protection I mean a home defence object, not a condom). Now, maybe it's because we just got home from the hospital with our newborn and I didn't want the kids awakened by a rather shrill and very boisterous sounding house alarm in the middle of the night. But still, in the heat of the moment, I should have assessed things properly and at least carried something with me downstairs, analyzing the situation in the process. One thing I have been thinking of doing for these sitautions is to put a corresponding alarm panel upstairs, so that I can arm the house from upstairs or contact the police/fire department from upstairs, rather than rely on the panel downstairs near the front door. At the very least, I can accurately assess what triggered the alarm and whether it was legit or false. In this case, I would have known it was a false alarm as we were in the room where the window's inside sensors had moved (we have older windows that shift a bit after a windy night). Installing a supplementary panel upstairs, while it would involve extra costs, is still something that is considered more of a passive option than an active one.

Now, if you are considering active options of defending your home (which is your right since it's your property), you should think through the consequences. Very easy for someone to carry a baseball bat or golf club or a kitchen knife to confront a burglar or a home invader, but the question you need to ask yourself is...are you prepared to use it? I am willing most people don't even know where to properly strike an attacker with a knife or bat to neutralize the threat, if they are even willing to do so in the first place. If you have a firearm, you need to consider that you may be using lethal force to stop someone, and there are certainly moral and legal issues that will arise as a result. Personally, I would never consider killing someone over theft of property - as long as our family is not threatened, they can have what they want for all I care. If you threaten my family, then all bets are off and you just authorized me to use lethal means if necessary. However, even then you need to think things through - a court of law would not look favourably on a person who shoots and attacker in the back or fires on a fleeing suspect. And of course, you have no doubt heard about the warped courts who find in favour of the felon or perpetrator who managed to successfully sue the homeowner for damages or injury. That being said, I still don't believe that we should develop the "shoot to kill" mentality. Lawyers will eat you for breakfast, painting you as a cold-blooded pre-meditated killing machine, even if you killed in self-defence. Most of the home defence experts will suggest that your mentality should be "shooting to stop"; that is, stop the attack on yourself or your loved ones. And while I am not entirely comfortable subscribing to the mindset that it's probably better to make sure that you kill the attacker so that they don't get a chance to finnegle the legal system to sue you later, I still place enough value on life to suggest that lethal force should always be the final option, unless your life is being immediately threatened at the time. Again, I know it's hard to hypothetically go through scenario after scenario, but the thought process is good to work through what you may do (and even then, I accept that people may do something totally different when confronted with that situation).

So, let's look at home defence options. Again, I am not going to reveal what my plan or options are, but I can tell you that in researching this topic, like everything else, different things work for different people. But one thing I can say for sure - forget the TV-and-movie based approach where people grab baseball bats and tennis racquets or fireplace prodding sticks or other such things. Unless you have training in hand-to-hand or close quarters combat, this is a complete waste of your time and the likelihood of a stronger attacker disarming you is very high. Not to mention, if it is an armed home invasion or an armed rape or kidnapping attempt (for the women who live by themselves or whose husbands are not home), taking out a tennis racquet will, I am sure, not neutralize the threat. A kitchen knife is a waste of time and even if you had a cold weapon like a hunting knife, Buck knife or a fillet knife - are you prepared to stab someone with it should the need arise? Do you know where to stab to stop the attack? Inflicting a superficial wound would no doubt piss off the attacker and you will likely have the object turned on you.

Now, I will address something quickly that I have heard people mention to me, who are avid airgun or air pistol shooting enthusiasts. I don't care what anyone says, airguns and air pistols (even PAL rated firearms-grade ones) do not have enough stopping power to put down an attacker. While it has not be conclusively proven, sub-500FPS velocity airguns are within legal limits for a reason - I have heard that any sub 500 FPS airgun projectile - whether the standard .177 or .22, will not break skin and the only way you can use it to protect your life is to shoot the perpetrator in the eye. In the dark, and in distress, I doubt many can make such a good shot. The firearms-grade airguns are mostly single shots and even then, are mostly .177, which is fine on a squirrel, but stopping a two-legged predator requires significantly more stopping power. So let's end that discussion right now. Air guns are used for target shooting and casual plinking, nothing more (OK, the occasional small game hunting or pest control).

There are some who argue that firearms are the answer. This is partially true. But even here, there are some issues. One is that, unless you live in a rural area, the chance of you having neighbours is very high. In many suberbs, the houses are built fairly close together. The last thing you want is using a firearm that shoots through walls and kills an innocent bystander on the street, in another room or even in another house. As such, I am not in favour of using centerfire or high powered handguns for home invasion. Again, in both cases in the dark and being a bit drowsy likely at night, what are the chances of you hitting your target? Handguns are also easily disarmable, especially if the owner does not know how to use it. I am not a fan of handguns at all, so that would not be an option. Centerfire weapons increase the risk of collateral injury/death, and are not really an option in the city. Another option is rimfire - .22 caliber - but studies and police reports have shown that it may not necessarily disarm your attacker - no one wants to get shot with a rimfire rifle, but there have been reports of bad guys who are strung out on drugs who simply ignore the small caliber bullet wounds. Of course if you get a large capacity mag and fire like crazy, you may get somewhere, but that doesn't look good in a court of law. If you must use firearms, then I would strongly recommend a shotgun - good for short range, and you really don't need to aim it per se - since the shot covers a wide area. Even then, the shotgun is only as good as the shotshells you use - I have read that using a shotgun with birdshot is a very poor choice - it will leave a grievous wound on the attacker, but it may not stop them on the spot. What I'd recommend is using 00 or 000 buckshot, but even then that may be overkill. I read that #3 or #4 buck is sufficent. A 20-gauge is probably preferrable to a 12-gauge, due to recoil issues (remember, you're sleepy at night), as well as the less likelihood of collateral damage. From what I read, if shotguns are used for home defence, there are really only two models to consider - the Remington 870 and the Mossberg 500 - they're essentially the two big models competing against one another. If you ask me my opinion, I'd go with the Remington, since cops use the 870, so what's that tell ya? The Remington comes in various models, and has lots of mods (like interchageable short barrels, which is a must for a home defence gun). I've handled both and the Remington has a much more solid feel to it. There's nothing like the sound of racking the 870 to cause your bad guy to think twice. That being said, the chance of inflicting a lethal wound with a shotgun with buckshot is tremendously great, and if you use this method, you really will need to explain your actions in a court of law, not to mention deal with the mental consequences of taking another life. In this regard, someone once remarked, "better to be tried by twelve, than to be carried by six."

I can't speak on whether a 28-gauge or a .410 caliber shotgun would be effective or not (the .410 probably not, though some have argued otherwise - my guess is that it's probably as effective as a .22 rimfire) - I don't know enough about either to make a definitive statement. Stick with the 20 gauge - it's a great all purpose gun - you can use it to hunt, shoot skeet/clays/trap, and of course, for home defence. I also believe Stoeger makes a short-barreled coach gun (it's pretty ugly but I read that it can be suited for home defence). But there are still also other options...

A crossbow is pretty intimidating and as I've seen people use it to take down rather large animals, it is an option, though I suspect with a two-legged pest, its stopping power may be negligible. You'd have to fire many arrows in succession, or coat the razor-sharp arrowheads with some sort of incapacitant in order to stop the intruder in his/her tracks. Of course, you better be able to load the arrow quick and aim well. Tasers and stun guns are both wonderful short-to-medium range options which allow you to incapacitate an intruder, albeit doing it without resorting to lethal force. This would be on my recommended list, but last I heard, tasers and stun guns are illegal in Canada. Besides, you have likely heard of some very public incidents of tasering by security or law enforcement folks, which have gone horribly wrong, in some cases causing death. A downside to the taser and stun guns, aside from their illegality, is the fact that you still have to more or less aim it and in a tense situation where your hands are likely shaking and you're crapping your pants, your aiming technique may not be at its best. As a result, I'd have to apply the same logic to using stuff like bear spray or pepper spray - of course, both of these also carry much higher risks of being turned on you if you are not careful.

One option that is a generally good one is learning close-combat self-defence techniques - it could be martial arts or something like krav maga, which I am signing up for this summer. This training, however, should only be used to complement an existing home defence strategy - I don't recommend it to be used standalone and the reasons are obvious (if the attacker has a gun or something, unless you can confidently disarm him, you're up the creek).

Of course, no home defence discussion is complete unless the topic of guard dogs is brought up. This is an extremely attractive option for people, as dogs are alerted to the slightest noise, generally their bark scares the crap out of potential burglars, and assuming that the dog is a fairly large dog, it can pounce on an attacker like white on rice, and render the intruder useless until the owner or the cops decide otherwise. However, a knock against dogs is that they're only good if the intruder does not come armed. For me, dogs are not an option, since I am not fond of them (anything that sniffs and licks its ass and then proceeds to try to lick my face...no thanks - I've never understood people who enjoy playfully French-kissing their dogs, knowing where the dog's mouth has been - freaking gross, if you ask me). I also don't like the smell of dogs (or cats or hamsters) Also, I couldn't be bothered with all the maintenance that goes with a dog. I also have young kids, and while they may like dogs, I can't guarantee that the dog will always like them. But I can see the advantage of having a guard dog - the result of a dog attack is generally less lethal than having a firearm fired on you within close range. But just the presence of a guard dog is likely enough incentive for would-be home intruders to select another residence.

Finally, I want to discuss the option of passivity and non-resistance. I know a lot of people who would likely resort to this option and it's not a wrong choice, by any means. It certainly has its place, and it is part of my plan depending on the scenario (ie. it's probably not a first option in the case of sexual assault, though I have read of women who employ this in order to stay alive). However, if you are doing it because you believe in a Biblical ethic that teaches to "turn the other cheek" and not retaliate, I suggest you re-look your Bible and study the passages in question contextually. I don't believe the Bible preaches passivity and pacifism. The turning the other cheek and non-retaliatory ethic is understood in the spirit of not succumbing to one's pride - ie. you wrong me - out of spite or having my pride hurt, I lash back at you - that is sinful. Self-defence is not. I really resent how these liberal pacifists have turned the Bible into their reasoning behind just letting someone beat the crap out of you. Sure, people cite Jesus not striking back when he had was flogged and had to carry the cross with people spitting, kicking and throwing all manner of stuff at him - but remember, Jesus had a wider purpose in mind in accepting the fact that He will be dying for humanity and the abuse came with it. I can understand that people may read into this , with their "What Would Jesus Do" mentality and say that one should just sit back and not fend off attackers. How many of you (men) who advocate this position, would sit idly by while someone came into your house and helped themselves to your wife? Would you argue it is Biblical to simply let an intruder rape your wife while you watched and cited Bible verses at them? What about if they broke into your house and started attacking you with a knife? Would you simply sit back and let them stab you? Why or why not?

There is a place for non-resistance. There is a place for negotiation and mediation. And I agree, material things are not worth killing over. But when your life is threatened, I can't think of too many people who I know will stand idly by and let their life or their loved ones' lives be taken from them, without a fight.

There Is A Place For Vigilante Justice

I've probably held the view for a good 20 years now, that the current justice system in Canada is flawed. And it's not only because of the fact that Canada does not have the death penalty (that is another topic for another time, though I have touched on it in one of my earlier postings - but with the state of New Jersey outlawing capital punishment recently, it's worth another look...later). Much of my beef with the justice system has to do with the amount of legal loopholes criminals and their associated lawyers can conjure up to minimize the charge, or get it thrown out, on a mere technicality. Only in Canada does life in prison mean no parole for 25 years (which means that theoretically, you may be able to get out at some point after 25 years). While the U.S. justice system has its fair share of flaws, at the very least they generally mean business in having some relatively "strict" laws. Now, I know, the big criticism is often cast at California's "three strikes" law where you are locked up for life whether you commit three very minor felonies, or commit three increasingly heinous crimes that involve murder and such. Now, it is not my intention to debate the equity or fairness of that kind of system; I only mention it as an example of why I believe that the U.S. takes crime and punishment more seriously than Canada does. I am sure you heard of the recent sentencing of Robert Pickton, the pig farmer who was found guilty of killing many women and performing some heinous acts on them. Now, my freaking tax dollars will now be used to house, clothe and feed this sub-human, just like my tax dollars fund keeping convicted serial pedophilic murderer Paul Bernardo alive.

A long, long time ago, I used to be affiliated with the Guardian Angels street patrol group. They are not vigilantes, as much as the media would like to tar them with that brush. They have, and always will, continue to work with current law enforcement, aiding officers on the street. Fact of the matter is, troubled communities welcome the Guardian Angels, since the police can't be everywhere at once. The Angels have been documented and reported as preventing a number of street crimes all over the world. I am all for citizen patrols and community policing.

But as much as I try my best to put on the happy face and assume that the courts and justice system will do their job, the fact of the matter is, they aren't always successful. As a result, criminals get away with lesser (or no sentences). It is my firm belief that in such cases, where there is irrefutable, compelling evidence that is, without a shadow of a doubt damning on the charged individual, but they get off on a technicality or slick legal representation, that there is a place for vigilante justice. What I mean by this is that I believe there is an opportunity to ensure that the perpetrator does not get back onto the street and recommit a crime. It is a statistical fact that violent criminals have an exceptionally high risk to re-offend. The solution that I'd support is a simple one and is very natural. Victims' families need not live in fear, that the scumbag that hurt their family member is now on the street, released by the court, or tried unsuccessfully by the justice system. I read of a case recently where the police had all sorts of damning evidence against a perpetrator, but because they managed to procure this DNA evidence without a warrant, none of it could be used, even though the evidence leaves no doubt that he raped several women. As a result of the inadmissible critical evidence, the perpetrator was let loose, and guess what he did again? They caught him the second time and now he's behind bars. But not before some other woman was a victim of rape.

Given all this, if you were the family member of the initial victims, or the first victim herself, what would you have done? Clearly the courts are more concerned with following bureaucratic processes rather than discerning the truth. I generally am not a subscriber of the "ends justify the means" argument, but when it comes to collecting evidence, I don't look at it any other way. So in these cases, a lot of trouble (and hurt) could have been saved, if some responsible citizens decided to pay the perpetrator a visit and "strongly encourage" him against doing anything else that may get him in trouble again.