After my last post on home defence options, I received three emails that had opposing positions. Two of the respondents questioned whether I was being way too paranoid - after all, we do live in Canada, while the other emailer was nothing short of what I would consider a trigger-happy individual, who seemed to be relishing the opportunity to shoot someone. I certainly hope that that was not the impression my post relayed - it was not my intention, and I think that only the most liberal interpretation of my post would signify that. Anyway, while I could have simply responded to the three commenters by email, I thought it would be more beneficial to address the issues raised by another post. It would also help me to formulate and perhaps cement my own positions on these areas. I won't bother rehashing the previous post found here
but rather, I want to look at some of the resulting opinions.
First, let's look at the paranoia argument, since 2 of the 3 emails said that I was being a bit too paranoid. The two folks who wrote me about this were in essence arguing several things, which I will briefly try to summarize here:
1) this is Canada, supposedly a much more peaceful country and gun culture is not as ingrained here as it is in the U.S., where their Constitution not only assures them, but guarantees them the right to bear arms. The "Castle Doctrine" (essentially a British concept that says that one's home is their castle and as such, if their personal living space is breached, one has the right to defend it, even using lethal force to do so. The Castle Doctrine is highly ingrained in U.S. thinking about personal property and such; not so much in Canada.
OK, I can appreciate this point. However, I would contend that it would be fairly naive for us as Canadians to assume that we are subject to a different degree of crime here; that somehow level and nature of crime does not justify using lethal force. There have been enough cases of heinous crimes in Canada to make me realize that our country is not that much different than our U.S. neighbours. Sure, we don't have the crime-ridden ghettos that they do, but in the big cities in Canada, they are there and home invasions, break-ins, and burglaries are more than commonplace. Even in the suberbs, where supposedly it is "safe" and a false sense of security is established, murders and robberies do happen, and they are increasing in frequency once criminals realize that those living in the burbs are not exactly living on welfare. Plus, my viewpoint has always been that as long as there are humans there, the potential for crime will always be there. Don't think that all the crimes are committed by rough looking gang-bangers. That assumption has led many a person to be shocked to find that their investment banker neighbour who is a father of four is actually a pedophile behind closed doors.
2) Is lethal force really necessary? Can't you just incapacitate the intruder? What about the psychological and legal fallouts?
Is lethal force necessary? You tell me - I don't presume to know your situation. I can tell you that I'd consider it an absolute last resort. In fact, I hope I never come across this situation. But I can say one thing that I've resolved in my own mind. I would not resort to lethal force unless my life or the life of my family was in danger. Some gun nuts have put lethal force as their primary response, and I think there's a real danager in that - for one, it reveals to me a trigger-happy attitude, and a lack of value for life. Also, the typical blase response regarding lethal force being a primary response would indicate that they haven't really thought it through, but rather have been watching too many violent movies. Anyway, if I came home and found dude ransacking my house and taking my meager possessions off my property, I'd call the cops, but in no way would I confront them with legal force. Truth be told, I'm not all that attached to material things. However, a cold burglary is far different than a live home invasion, as I have discovered in researching this topic. Burglaries generally involve one criminal, who will break into your house when you are not there (generally daytime or when they know you are on vacation or away - they are after your stuff and generally have no intention of hurting you). Home invasions, on the other hand, are usually committed by several criminals, who are more than likely armed, and the intent is not so much to steal your possessions as it is to terrorize you in one of many ways. It could involve kidnapping, but in many cases it involves rape, sexual assault, and murder.
Now, that being said, if you advocate a wait and see approach, and I tend to agree in principle, although probably not in practice, what would happen if you assume the best, that it they just want your stuff, but they are intent on breaking in and raping your wife, or your kids? What are you going to do when you are tied by and beaten silly, if not killed, while your family is at the mercy of these animals? And, by the way, you do have your taser or firearm or bear spray, but it's not exactly within reach since you assumed you'll never need it? Not sure if the tradeoff of your life or the life or your loved ones is worth the risk of not being prepared. Something to think about.
Now, consider this. Obviously, no one wants to kill anybody, if they can help it. But let's consider the alternatives here. Incapacitating a criminal is fine...if there is only one of them, and you know how to properly do it. What if, in the case of a home invasion, there are a group of them? Are you seriously planning to give each of them a whack with your baseball bat or golf club? Or taser? Even if you have a knife, you'd have to get in close to do damage - are you trained for that? The odds are against you if it's you against a group. What if they are armed? Your baseball bat will do little. And if you spray your bear spray on one of them and he is down, you can be sure his buddies will be pretty pissed and will pummel you to death if you run out of bear spray (which you will).
The psychological and legal effects. This is a real concern, particularly for those of us who live in Canada, which, for all intents and purposes, is not a gun-friendly country. I recently was corresponding with someone on a forum who experienced a home invasion and he wrote that while he and his brother were able to take down the intruder and hold him for the police to arrive, in the end, both him and his brother were charged with aggravated assault and were treated like criminals, even though it was the home invader who should have received all of the punishment. Unfortunately, that does not surprise me about the lenient and very liberal Canadian justice system. Anyhow, yes, you will have to be prepared to deal with the fallout. As for the psychological effects - I've never been there so I can't say (and hopefully never have to be tehre), but let's face it, when snipers take out a criminal or a soldier takes out an enemy, they receive heavy psychological counselling afterwards. I guess if I were to say anything, it would be that because my sole criteria in using lethal force is if my life or the life of my family was threatened, I can definitively conclude afterwards that I exhausted all my other options.
3) Why not set up an alarm system? Or call the cops? Or get a dog?
This is a multi-part question, which I've happened to condense into one summary question. Getting a dog is one of the options I propose. Now, I know that animal lovers out there may take especial exception with my using a dog for utilitarian purposes; but be that as it may, I don't think pet owners own their pets for no reason. Most want a pet for companionship, others want a pet to keep up with others who also have a pet, others use pets to help them get around (ie. guide dogs for the blind), while others will have a pet (a dog, in particular) to give them a sense of security. I don't have a problem with this, so if you do, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Anyway, a dog is great in terms of both a deterrent and an actual self-defence tool. If you are edgy about potentially shooting someone or whacking them with a baseball bat, a dog is your answer.
The other parts of the question. Alarm systems. They are OK, and generally are a deterrent to a criminal (either the criminal will be discouraged by the alarm system and will hit another house, or will try twice as hard to defeat it, thinking that the alarm is guarding something valuable). However, I have learned to not rely on an alarm system, even though I have one. For one, phone lines can always be cut. That is major downside of phone-line based alerting (unless the alarm company by default sends the cops to your house if the phone line signal is breached - I don't know any who do that). Second, alarm companies make mistakes too. Most times that I have had a false alarm, the cops show up (that's what I pay them separately for, as part of my alarm package). Once or twice, however, the cops do not show up, even though my alarm was wailing for quite a while. The alarm company doesn't even call me. That has been the exception, but you don't want to be in an exception situation during a home invasion and learn the hard way.
The cops. Yes, calling them is fine, assuming they respond quickly (in 2005, when the schitzophrenic lady showed up at my door one evening on a Saturday, it took the cops 5-7 minutes to show up - if she was armed, I would have been dead by then). If guys are about to kick down your door with weapons in hand, you'll be dead by the time the cops show up. And not to mention my previous point about the phone lines being cut. OK, so most people have cell phones. Most, but not all. And even if you do, your cell phone's battery or signal can die at the most inopportune time (trust me, it's happened to me). I guess what I am saying is that while it's nice to have that peripheral service available, it should not be relied upon as the sole first response. It should be in conjuction with an overall home defence plan.
Now, even if the cops show up - then what? What would the intruder get? In Canada, it'd be a slap on the wrist (in Canada, the maximum sentence you can get for cold blooded murder is 25 years, but you can be let out early for good behaviour). With Canada's "catch and release" type of revolving door justice, your home invader will be out in no time, and guess who he will be gunning for first, since you were the one who put him there? You'd be living in fear for the rest of your life, or who have to move to an undisclosed new location?
4) Fear begets fear. You are contributing to a non-trusting society.
That is fine, since I don't trust society anyways. It is way too idealistic to think that nothing bad will happen to you in your lifetime. Even if you are a person who trusts that God will protect you, God has also given you a brain. If you have life insurance or wear a lifejacket when boating, it is not a mistrust in God that allows you to do these things, but it is utilizing the sense or common sense that He gave you, since He did not make you to be a robot. As for fear - it would be rather naive to think that the world has become a better, safer place than it was 50 years ago. I remember my sister telling me 15 years ago or so that she was home from school one day, not feeling that great. So she lay in bed to rest in the afternoon, and was all by herself. She heard the front door knob jiggle. My Mom and Dad were both confirmed to be at work, and my brother and I were both confirmed in school. Any one of our friends would not jiggle our doorknob (they would ring the doorbell). My sister told me that the doorknob was turned and then jiggled and then it sounded like something (a key or perhaps a pick) was inserted into it and jiggled again. She was petrified. If that had been my Mom, she would have been hiding in a corner. I don't forget stuff like that, nor do I forget things like my garage door being ajar or open even though we're not home...and my wife and I didn't open it. I take a lot of precautions now when I get home at night, even though I have a motion sensor alarm in my residence. I sweep the house normally and have my hand on my Buck hunting knife that I conceal on me at all times. As the old saying goes, I'd rather be prepared and never have to use my planned response, than to need to respond appropriately but I am grossly unprepared. People can call me paranoid or whatever, but if it keeps me alive and not at the mercy of some punk intending to cause me harm, so be it.
Now, let's turn our attention to the respondent who I found to be a bit too trigger happy. His/her response disturbs me far greater than the other two who thought I was overthinking these things. I'll now address his/her views in order:
1) Once an invader gets into your home, they have forfeited their right to live.
I don't agree with this in full. Again, I make a distinction in terms of why they are in my house. If they broke in when I wasn't here, and I arrive to find them moving my printer to their van, I'll call the cops but if I had lethal means at my disposal, I won't use it unless they threaten my life. I think it's a shame to automatically assume you'll pull the trigger for anyone unwanted who comes into the door. However, I understand the reasoning behind this, and like I said, in a home invasion, you won't have that luxury of careful deliberation insofar as the motives of the criminals. However, if I think much discretion needs to be taken. I'd much rather call the cops from a neighbour's home and observe the licence plate or details of the robber, rather than confront him/her. If it's a home invasion and my sense is that I will need to grab a firearm, I'd rather shoo them away with it or hold them until the cops show up (but this also introduces further complications, not the least of which is the fact that you may be setting up a return engagement once they get out from behind bars, which inevitably happens in Canada).
2) Shoot to kill, don't shoot to wound.
Again, I disagree in part with this. First, any jury (especially in Canada) who hears you talking about shooting to kill, will no doubt brand you a gun-toting, trigger happy crack-head. I can't say that I would disagree with the assessment. Shooting someone should always be a last resort, and one which is taken after all avenues are exhausted. At the very least, your goal should be to shoot to stop the attacker. If that ends up killing him/her, well, you'll need to deal with that.
I also want to (slightly) revisit the whole wounding vs. killing thing. Most home defence "experts" will say to use ammo which is graded to penetrate into the perpetrator's vital organs. Which is why birdshot and a shotgun is considered ineffective, as its penetration is not as deep (it is used to shoot birds, after all). If nothing else, you'll leave a grievous wound, to which the perp may succumb later...or not. Large buckshot will penetrate organs and likely kill the attacker. Wounding may come back to haunt onself later, if the liberal court system puts that wounded criminal on the stand to talk about his life of suffering. But I think that once you are seriously wounded, you probably will steer away from home invasions in the future. Plus, if the criminal turns his/her life around as a result (which has happened), you'll be glad you didn't kill them. You can always take out their knees or something so at the very least, you'll know you are not taking their life, but they will not be able to perform any more invasions, even after they are released, as they will be.
3) Forget guns - use your whole arsenal against the (expletives) - throw IEDs, grenades, blow them to pieces.
I think a person who thinks like this should lay off the video games and / or the violent TV shows. Sounds to me that someone wants to kill for killing's sake. If this person has a firearms licence, it should be revoked. And maybe they need to be psychiatrically evaluated. It's as if they take great pleasure in seeing a human blown to bits. There's nothing glorifying, heroic or justifiable in that, in my opinon. That's all I'll say to that.
Showing posts with label killing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label killing. Show all posts
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Are YOU Capable of Killing Someone?
My wife and I had a fascinating discussion last night in bed before we retired for the evening. Not sure how the topic came about (probably some current news story), but in the ensuing conversation, she asked me if I was in a similar situation where someone broke into my house and started to visciously attack either her or my son, whether in the passion of self-defence, I would be capable of killing the perpetrator, if need be.
Now, I know what the Christian answer is. Of course not. The Bible maintains a non-retaliation ethic, as is evident in the whole principle of turning the other cheek. The Bible also commands us not to kill. However, the Bible also commands us to do a lot of other things, which we don't do. So let's not prop up Scripture in order to make us feel more self-righteous when in fact we don't necessarily live consistent enough lives to authoritatively say that we can always yield to what God's Word has to say. Shall we strive towards a Biblical ethic of peace and non-retaliation? Absolutely. It is the ideal to which we should seek to live out. However, that is easy to say as you as the reader of my blog and me as the writer of the same. Would we be able to think logically if placed in such a moment where you have seconds (if not less) in order to assess the situation and make a decision?
What was my answer? I told my wife that I believe that anyone is capable of killing anyone else under the right circumstances, so for myself, I would not rule that out; however, without ever being in that situation (and heaven forbid I ever get into that scenario), I can't qualitatively say how I would react. But I did tell her that there are some things that generally cause people to snap mentally, and it is under those conditions that human beings are highly unpredictable. She agreed with me and said that for her, she would probably be capable to killing someone who was knifing me to death or assaulting our son. You see, there are some abhorent things which I think transcent societal and cultural norms. A man attacking a woman is one, and anyone sexually assaulting a child is the other. If you are shocked by my wife's and my reaction on this question, seriously consider yourself in the same scenario with your spouse or child on the receiving end of a violent act, and tell me that you would simply ask them to stop and politely leave, and then call the cops. If you have enough discipline to do that when your loved ones are being victimized, then hey, I applaud your ethic. I suspect, though, that most people will probably go overboard on the self-defence.
Now, I qualified this by telling her that there are some things which under no circumstances should warrant a lethal self-defence position. If someone is robbing your possessions, or calling you names (as hurtful as they may be) or vandalizing your property, I don't believe there is any justification for any acts of violence. I believe that violence, as repugnant as that is in my mind, is borderline permissible when it comes to self-defence only. Now, what constitutes self-defence is about as broad as what constitutes good food. In discussing this with my wife, I think we both agreed that shooting the perpetrator in the back or unloading 5 bullets in the back of his head will likely not have the support of many legal communities. I also added that this is a very slippery slope, since people may claim self-defence after killing someone out of vengeance and then staging a self-defence scenario.
My wife and I further discussed the John Grisham book, "A Time To Kill", which, without giving away any plot lines, was about a gang of white young men who visciously raped a nine to ten year old black girl. Of course, it is set in the American South, at a time where racial tensions were running high (I can probably still maintain that there is still a distinct air of that there, given my conversations with a person who lives in the American south). Anyhow, you have a father who does not have a propensity towards violence try to leave it up to the legal system to mete out justice to the perpetrators. Unfortunately, with the racial climate being what it is, it does not look like justice will be done. So what does he do? He sneaks into the courtroom the night before, hides in a closet, and when the next day comes and the alleged perpetrator is being led to or from the courtroom, out comes the father with a firearm and kills the guy.
Now, my wife asked me what is different between killing that guy in the courtroom and killing him upon stumbling across him sodomizing his daughter in the woods? I told her a lot, and in fact, despite my sympathies towards the father's position, what he did was absolutely reprehensible, since it involved pre-meditation and calculation - which would of course lend itself to being murder. Stumbling across a crime in progress may cause a struggle and in the ensuing grappling, the father may have killed the perpetrator. I don't believe in that B.S. line of not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity; rather, I think that in a crime in the heat of passion, people's mental faculties are not exactly logical and as such, they may do something that they may regret...or they may not, if they need to act in self-defence.
There are some peripheral issues to this discussion that are worth exploring. One is the whole sense of trust that people have in the legal system in general. How many times have you heard of a case where damning evidence was found at a suspect's home (such as a video of a rape or torture or killing clearly committed by them, but it got rendered inadmissible due to the way it was obtained - ie. without proper paperwork or warrant) and the suspect goes free due to lack of evidence. In this case, would people do the right thing and let the system handle the situation, or would they turn into a vigilante and go after the persons themselves. That's a hard one for me to field. I am a great supporter of community policing such as the Guardian Angels (who, by the way, are not vigilantes, since they seek to work in tandem with the legal authorities). As for vigilantes...in my head, I am opposed to people taking the law into their own hands, but at the same time, my heart asks what do you do when the system fails you and a known killer/pedophile goes free on a technicality?
One other issue which my wife, in particular brought up, that was quite fascinating is the whole idea of retalitation and vengeance, and specifically how a Christian would reconcile such a situation that I described above. Well, I think I may have somewhat addressed this one above, but let me take a stab at it here. Retaliating means that you are striking back in order to meet blow for blow, action for action, but it is out of a sense that you are yielding the law, or what you view to be right/wrong and what constitutes justice. I don't think that there is any good defence for retaliation, when it is particularly clear what the Bible says about it. Second, shall we seek vengeance? Again, I believe the Bible is quite clear on this one as well - vengeance is the Lord's. Remember, while worldly systems of justice have their uses, God has an infinitely wider perspective on making sure He metes out justice. It may not be in this lifetime and even if it's not, it's not for us to decide. So I don't believe that there is any justification in retaliatory or vengeance killing. I will even come right now and say that I believe both are wrong.
I should also point out that even if you do not take a neutral position, as my wife and I do, that you still may be surprised by what will happen. Several people I talked with are so confident that they will have no problems "dispatching" the perpetrator, that it almost seems like they wear it like a badge of honour. I suspect if they ever faced that situation, their sense of certainty will be eroded quite a bit - we are not talking about knocking the perpetrator unconscious here - we are talking about taking another's live, and even in self-defence, there is a grave finality to that action which cannot be revoked.
Naturally, I do not wish this scenario on anyone, but as my wife I concurred wholeheartedly, it is certainly something worth thinking about.
Now, I know what the Christian answer is. Of course not. The Bible maintains a non-retaliation ethic, as is evident in the whole principle of turning the other cheek. The Bible also commands us not to kill. However, the Bible also commands us to do a lot of other things, which we don't do. So let's not prop up Scripture in order to make us feel more self-righteous when in fact we don't necessarily live consistent enough lives to authoritatively say that we can always yield to what God's Word has to say. Shall we strive towards a Biblical ethic of peace and non-retaliation? Absolutely. It is the ideal to which we should seek to live out. However, that is easy to say as you as the reader of my blog and me as the writer of the same. Would we be able to think logically if placed in such a moment where you have seconds (if not less) in order to assess the situation and make a decision?
What was my answer? I told my wife that I believe that anyone is capable of killing anyone else under the right circumstances, so for myself, I would not rule that out; however, without ever being in that situation (and heaven forbid I ever get into that scenario), I can't qualitatively say how I would react. But I did tell her that there are some things that generally cause people to snap mentally, and it is under those conditions that human beings are highly unpredictable. She agreed with me and said that for her, she would probably be capable to killing someone who was knifing me to death or assaulting our son. You see, there are some abhorent things which I think transcent societal and cultural norms. A man attacking a woman is one, and anyone sexually assaulting a child is the other. If you are shocked by my wife's and my reaction on this question, seriously consider yourself in the same scenario with your spouse or child on the receiving end of a violent act, and tell me that you would simply ask them to stop and politely leave, and then call the cops. If you have enough discipline to do that when your loved ones are being victimized, then hey, I applaud your ethic. I suspect, though, that most people will probably go overboard on the self-defence.
Now, I qualified this by telling her that there are some things which under no circumstances should warrant a lethal self-defence position. If someone is robbing your possessions, or calling you names (as hurtful as they may be) or vandalizing your property, I don't believe there is any justification for any acts of violence. I believe that violence, as repugnant as that is in my mind, is borderline permissible when it comes to self-defence only. Now, what constitutes self-defence is about as broad as what constitutes good food. In discussing this with my wife, I think we both agreed that shooting the perpetrator in the back or unloading 5 bullets in the back of his head will likely not have the support of many legal communities. I also added that this is a very slippery slope, since people may claim self-defence after killing someone out of vengeance and then staging a self-defence scenario.
My wife and I further discussed the John Grisham book, "A Time To Kill", which, without giving away any plot lines, was about a gang of white young men who visciously raped a nine to ten year old black girl. Of course, it is set in the American South, at a time where racial tensions were running high (I can probably still maintain that there is still a distinct air of that there, given my conversations with a person who lives in the American south). Anyhow, you have a father who does not have a propensity towards violence try to leave it up to the legal system to mete out justice to the perpetrators. Unfortunately, with the racial climate being what it is, it does not look like justice will be done. So what does he do? He sneaks into the courtroom the night before, hides in a closet, and when the next day comes and the alleged perpetrator is being led to or from the courtroom, out comes the father with a firearm and kills the guy.
Now, my wife asked me what is different between killing that guy in the courtroom and killing him upon stumbling across him sodomizing his daughter in the woods? I told her a lot, and in fact, despite my sympathies towards the father's position, what he did was absolutely reprehensible, since it involved pre-meditation and calculation - which would of course lend itself to being murder. Stumbling across a crime in progress may cause a struggle and in the ensuing grappling, the father may have killed the perpetrator. I don't believe in that B.S. line of not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity; rather, I think that in a crime in the heat of passion, people's mental faculties are not exactly logical and as such, they may do something that they may regret...or they may not, if they need to act in self-defence.
There are some peripheral issues to this discussion that are worth exploring. One is the whole sense of trust that people have in the legal system in general. How many times have you heard of a case where damning evidence was found at a suspect's home (such as a video of a rape or torture or killing clearly committed by them, but it got rendered inadmissible due to the way it was obtained - ie. without proper paperwork or warrant) and the suspect goes free due to lack of evidence. In this case, would people do the right thing and let the system handle the situation, or would they turn into a vigilante and go after the persons themselves. That's a hard one for me to field. I am a great supporter of community policing such as the Guardian Angels (who, by the way, are not vigilantes, since they seek to work in tandem with the legal authorities). As for vigilantes...in my head, I am opposed to people taking the law into their own hands, but at the same time, my heart asks what do you do when the system fails you and a known killer/pedophile goes free on a technicality?
One other issue which my wife, in particular brought up, that was quite fascinating is the whole idea of retalitation and vengeance, and specifically how a Christian would reconcile such a situation that I described above. Well, I think I may have somewhat addressed this one above, but let me take a stab at it here. Retaliating means that you are striking back in order to meet blow for blow, action for action, but it is out of a sense that you are yielding the law, or what you view to be right/wrong and what constitutes justice. I don't think that there is any good defence for retaliation, when it is particularly clear what the Bible says about it. Second, shall we seek vengeance? Again, I believe the Bible is quite clear on this one as well - vengeance is the Lord's. Remember, while worldly systems of justice have their uses, God has an infinitely wider perspective on making sure He metes out justice. It may not be in this lifetime and even if it's not, it's not for us to decide. So I don't believe that there is any justification in retaliatory or vengeance killing. I will even come right now and say that I believe both are wrong.
I should also point out that even if you do not take a neutral position, as my wife and I do, that you still may be surprised by what will happen. Several people I talked with are so confident that they will have no problems "dispatching" the perpetrator, that it almost seems like they wear it like a badge of honour. I suspect if they ever faced that situation, their sense of certainty will be eroded quite a bit - we are not talking about knocking the perpetrator unconscious here - we are talking about taking another's live, and even in self-defence, there is a grave finality to that action which cannot be revoked.
Naturally, I do not wish this scenario on anyone, but as my wife I concurred wholeheartedly, it is certainly something worth thinking about.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Why I Believe in Capital Punishment
It's been said that capital punishment or state-sanctioned executions are barbaric and it is a shame that countries like the United States still have provisions in many of its States for the use of executions for crimes such as capital murder. This has cropped up in the last year or so with headlines which talk about lethal injections which have gone awry to other "botched executions". While I'm sure you have your opinions, I certainly have mine, and to summarize, I think that society in general (especially the more liberal-leaning segments as of late) put the wrong focus on things. Unfortunately, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-found-guilty criminals seem to be a social experiment with the softer segment of our society who somehow believe evil can be rehabilitated. Worse are those who choose to use the Bible to tout the fact that everyone should be given a second chance. While spiritually this is true, and I suppose practically it may be true as well, the fact of the matter is, consequences have actions. This is clearly seen in Scripture with those who choose certain paths reap the consequences of those paths. The cause and effect relationship is quite prevalent here. The thief on the cross may have believed in Christ on his death-bed, but he wasn't spared the punishment for his crime. Despite David being a crucial person in the lineage of Christ, David was still human and David sinned with Bathsheba, and there were tragic consequences as a result. Repentance may make things right with God, but God still allows you to face the result of your actions. There are a number of proverbs which deal with cause and effect. And the old adage "you play with fire, you get burned" is quite accurate.
So, this takes us to the issue of those who have been found by a court of law to be guilty of murder, child rape, etc. Yes, I know, I know, it has been shown (especially in Canada) some cases where people were incarcerated for decades, only to be found innocent later. And society does tend to find people guilty when charged, rather than presume their innocence until proven otherwise. But I'd say that there is less on the line in Canada, since it's not someone living or dying that we're talking about - they just lock them up for "life" (and "life" in Canada is considered about 25 years) , unless you're talking about a case like Paul Bernardo (if you haven't heard of him, look him up on the internet - he was found guilty of truly heinous crimes - and there is videotape proof of his crimes, which thankfully has since been destroyed or locked up somewhere). Bernardo has shown a pattern and tendency to be a predator - I don't believe that he will ever change. Someone is not right in his head. Even if it was psychological, does that make it right that we should just lock him up and pay for his food and such? My, what nice treatment he gets, even if he is confined to a 6 x 8 cell for 23.5 out of 24.0 hours per day, in isolation in Kingston Pen. Too bad his victims, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, both teenagers, were not afforded the same courtesy. And his ex-wife's sister (also a teen) was not given the same basic minimum human treatment. I say, let's fry Paul Bernardo's ass now.
I've also heard the argument that "what if someone is executed who is innocent?" Has that happened in the U.S., the current world champion of capital punishment? Not to my knowledge. And...the case that was closest to this occurring (in Virginia, I think)...after the guy was executed (and he swore up and down that he was innocent right up until the point he was lethally injected or electrocuted, or whatever they did to him), forensic DNA researchers confirmed that yes, he was guilty. This was, of course, after tons of left-leaning organizations petitioned for the commuting of his sentence.
How many more convicted criminals (we're talking murders and rapists here) were released after serving time, only to reoffend? I'm telling you, there is no rehabilitation for these people. You can cut their nuts off, chop their arms off, yank out their legs by their feet, but their hearts will still be wicked, and they'll think of some other way to hurt someone. Now, I know what you will tell me - Jesus can save these people. Absolutely he can. But just like the reckless person who was promiscuous before accepting Christ, and had previously contracted HIV, faith in Christ will not change what consequences you bring forth. The Bible says you sow what you reap. How true is that? Years ago, shortly before I was married, I followed a case on the news of a lady in Texas (I think) - Tanya Faye Tucker, or something like that - she was a convicted murderer, and she gave her life to Christ. While I don't know her heart, I have seen her in interviews and there is something about her which I believe shows a genuine conversion and newfound faith in the Lord. But guess what - they executed her anyway, and in talking with my Christian friends at the time, they were horrified that I thought that the State made the right decision. Recently, there was a guy in Tennessee, I think, who killed a cop back in the early 80s when he was young and stupid. He also became saved, and his life was changed and lots of people attested to this (this was the guy who for his last meal, wanted pizzas delivered to other inmates in other jails). He also was executed. I support that execution, since, as a believer, he is not beyond the laws of the land.
The only executions that I would support is for criminals found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in cases of murder or child rape. I would not support, for instance, what Saudi Arabia has as its criteria for executions, or recently in Iran, where you can be put to death for possession of pornography. I think essentially, for me, it comes down to the old eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth scenario, so my philosophy is life for a life. You murder someone in cold blood - off to the gallows with you - I don't care how you try to justify it. The vast majority of people in this world do not commit murder in their lifetime. You victimize a child sexually - off to the gas chamber with you - I don't care how abused you were as a child or how you cannot control yourself. You, my friend, are, as they say, SOL.
Cruel and unusual punishment during executions - botched executions, etc: Well, this is a tougher one. I agree with humane executions - at one point, I favoured letting a death row inmate incur the wrath of the family of the victim (so if they choose to shoot you like you shot their family member, that was fine with me...or strangulation or whatever else). But that just breeds a sense of vengeance, and vengeance is probably not a good reason for the state to execute someone. Executions should be done simply because it is just, and that there are dire consequences for crimes like first degree murder. Still, does it matter if they can't find the vein or if the prisoner suffers somewhat? They'll be dead in a short time anyway, so who cares? Again, they didn't afford any courtesy to their victims, so there ya go.
Other stuff: For those who make the deterrent argument, that it is not a deterrent. I haven't drawn firm conclusions to this point as of yet, but I will say that I believe the "executions are not a deterrent argument" to be a red herring, since I suspect that those who argue against capital punishment would still do so if there was conclusive proof that it was a deterrent, and that more lives can be spared. Similarly, the same people that play the race card, saying that there is a disproportionate amount of crime committed by poor black men is, are, I suspect, putting on a smokescreen, since they would still be against the death penalty if it was 100% white men on death row. Anyway, I am not sure whether there are any deterrent effects in capital punishment, but it doesn't play into my arguments anyway. I am undecided on this point only because I know from experience that severe fines and so forth do have a deterrent effect (ie. speeding tickets, etc.); however, the U.S. has had capital punishment for a while now, and they seem to be as homicidal of a country as ever - but then again, they have a much larger populace than most countries and also have a large number of poor people. But again, deterrence has never been part of my argument, so there's no point in working out my thoughts here on the subject.
This argument can go on forever...but there's my 2 cents.
So, this takes us to the issue of those who have been found by a court of law to be guilty of murder, child rape, etc. Yes, I know, I know, it has been shown (especially in Canada) some cases where people were incarcerated for decades, only to be found innocent later. And society does tend to find people guilty when charged, rather than presume their innocence until proven otherwise. But I'd say that there is less on the line in Canada, since it's not someone living or dying that we're talking about - they just lock them up for "life" (and "life" in Canada is considered about 25 years) , unless you're talking about a case like Paul Bernardo (if you haven't heard of him, look him up on the internet - he was found guilty of truly heinous crimes - and there is videotape proof of his crimes, which thankfully has since been destroyed or locked up somewhere). Bernardo has shown a pattern and tendency to be a predator - I don't believe that he will ever change. Someone is not right in his head. Even if it was psychological, does that make it right that we should just lock him up and pay for his food and such? My, what nice treatment he gets, even if he is confined to a 6 x 8 cell for 23.5 out of 24.0 hours per day, in isolation in Kingston Pen. Too bad his victims, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, both teenagers, were not afforded the same courtesy. And his ex-wife's sister (also a teen) was not given the same basic minimum human treatment. I say, let's fry Paul Bernardo's ass now.
I've also heard the argument that "what if someone is executed who is innocent?" Has that happened in the U.S., the current world champion of capital punishment? Not to my knowledge. And...the case that was closest to this occurring (in Virginia, I think)...after the guy was executed (and he swore up and down that he was innocent right up until the point he was lethally injected or electrocuted, or whatever they did to him), forensic DNA researchers confirmed that yes, he was guilty. This was, of course, after tons of left-leaning organizations petitioned for the commuting of his sentence.
How many more convicted criminals (we're talking murders and rapists here) were released after serving time, only to reoffend? I'm telling you, there is no rehabilitation for these people. You can cut their nuts off, chop their arms off, yank out their legs by their feet, but their hearts will still be wicked, and they'll think of some other way to hurt someone. Now, I know what you will tell me - Jesus can save these people. Absolutely he can. But just like the reckless person who was promiscuous before accepting Christ, and had previously contracted HIV, faith in Christ will not change what consequences you bring forth. The Bible says you sow what you reap. How true is that? Years ago, shortly before I was married, I followed a case on the news of a lady in Texas (I think) - Tanya Faye Tucker, or something like that - she was a convicted murderer, and she gave her life to Christ. While I don't know her heart, I have seen her in interviews and there is something about her which I believe shows a genuine conversion and newfound faith in the Lord. But guess what - they executed her anyway, and in talking with my Christian friends at the time, they were horrified that I thought that the State made the right decision. Recently, there was a guy in Tennessee, I think, who killed a cop back in the early 80s when he was young and stupid. He also became saved, and his life was changed and lots of people attested to this (this was the guy who for his last meal, wanted pizzas delivered to other inmates in other jails). He also was executed. I support that execution, since, as a believer, he is not beyond the laws of the land.
The only executions that I would support is for criminals found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in cases of murder or child rape. I would not support, for instance, what Saudi Arabia has as its criteria for executions, or recently in Iran, where you can be put to death for possession of pornography. I think essentially, for me, it comes down to the old eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth scenario, so my philosophy is life for a life. You murder someone in cold blood - off to the gallows with you - I don't care how you try to justify it. The vast majority of people in this world do not commit murder in their lifetime. You victimize a child sexually - off to the gas chamber with you - I don't care how abused you were as a child or how you cannot control yourself. You, my friend, are, as they say, SOL.
Cruel and unusual punishment during executions - botched executions, etc: Well, this is a tougher one. I agree with humane executions - at one point, I favoured letting a death row inmate incur the wrath of the family of the victim (so if they choose to shoot you like you shot their family member, that was fine with me...or strangulation or whatever else). But that just breeds a sense of vengeance, and vengeance is probably not a good reason for the state to execute someone. Executions should be done simply because it is just, and that there are dire consequences for crimes like first degree murder. Still, does it matter if they can't find the vein or if the prisoner suffers somewhat? They'll be dead in a short time anyway, so who cares? Again, they didn't afford any courtesy to their victims, so there ya go.
Other stuff: For those who make the deterrent argument, that it is not a deterrent. I haven't drawn firm conclusions to this point as of yet, but I will say that I believe the "executions are not a deterrent argument" to be a red herring, since I suspect that those who argue against capital punishment would still do so if there was conclusive proof that it was a deterrent, and that more lives can be spared. Similarly, the same people that play the race card, saying that there is a disproportionate amount of crime committed by poor black men is, are, I suspect, putting on a smokescreen, since they would still be against the death penalty if it was 100% white men on death row. Anyway, I am not sure whether there are any deterrent effects in capital punishment, but it doesn't play into my arguments anyway. I am undecided on this point only because I know from experience that severe fines and so forth do have a deterrent effect (ie. speeding tickets, etc.); however, the U.S. has had capital punishment for a while now, and they seem to be as homicidal of a country as ever - but then again, they have a much larger populace than most countries and also have a large number of poor people. But again, deterrence has never been part of my argument, so there's no point in working out my thoughts here on the subject.
This argument can go on forever...but there's my 2 cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)