Showing posts with label self defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self defense. Show all posts

Saturday, October 17, 2020

On the Reasonable Use of Force

 

Duty to Retreat

In contrast to the Wild West, crowded East Coast cities discouraged the possession and use of weapons in self-defense, especially among the often-immigrant proletariat. In the book “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn”, set in 1910’s New York, a father who shoots a child predator is congratulated by his neighbors and the responding police officer, but was ultimately fined for having an unregistered handgun.

The Baltimore Catechism notably favored state power in the form of just war and capital punishment, over the individual action of self-defense. This statist logic was followed by Congress through the 1990’s, when a decade-long Assault Weapon ban and effective death penalty statues were both put into law to combat crime. On taking a life in self-defense, the Baltimore Catechism (1891) stated: “When we are unjustly attacked and have no other means of saving our own lives”.

 

Castle Doctrine

In the midst of late-1960’s protests, Law-and-Order politicians told anxious voters that “your home is your castle”. Rising crime rates, overtaxed police, and inner-city blight made it more plausible than ever that citizens would need to exercise lethal force to protect their homes and businesses.

Bernie Goetz had had enough in 1984 when he was robbed in a New York City subway car. He fired off his handgun, injuring the four muggers. A New York jury affirmed Bernie Goetz’s right to self-defense, and he was only charged with illegal handgun possession. He earned the title of “Subway Vigilante”. Gary Fadden of Virginia, meanwhile, had the run-through by a prosecutor. Chased down on the country road by two armed drunks, he keyed into his workplace for refuge. Instead, the armed drunks had barged through the gate, and Fadden was forced to take a last stand. As part of his job with the firearm manufacturer, he had a machine gun in his possession, and fired it. “F--- you and your high-powered weapon”, one assailant shouted. Empty bullet casings were found near the assailant’s seat. Fadden was cornered in his workplace. Even so, the prosecutor chose to take Gary Fadden to court. The jury sided with Fadden; this was a clear-cut case of self-defense. While vindicated, Fadden was left with over $30,000 in court costs and legal fees; and ultimately lost his job.

 

Stand-Your-Ground

On the eve of passing its stand-your-ground law, Georgia had to reckon with a ghost in its closet. Lena Baker, a Black woman, was sent to the electric chair in 1945 for using deadly force against a White attacker, who happened to be her employer as a maid. She was posthumously pardoned in 2005, and Georgia’s stand-your-ground law took effect in 2006. Then as now, the benefits of stand-your-ground laws are seen as subject to the whims and prejudices of the jury.

 

What was Kyle Rittenhouse thinking?

Kyle Rittenhouse, age 17, the alleged shooter in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was neither owner, employee, neighbor, nor a duly registered security guard protecting an auto dealership across state lines from his Illinois home. Teen access to firearms has been a contentious issue this past decade. Most recently, the Virginia legislature affirmed the right of a 14-year old to use a firearm in home defense. (The premise of the new law is that firearms must now be secured from children under 14).

 Most likely, Rittenhouse was a teenager caught in the tenor of the times. In 1976, 17-year old Joseph Rakes jabbed a man with the American flag in protest of Boston school integration. He was later convicted of assault. Rittenhouse, of course, carried a deadly weapon. A Wisconsin jury will decide if the state should lock him up and throw away the key.

Friday, March 20, 2020

Three Biggies: Self-Defense, War and Death Penalty


Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, acknowledged in General Principles that “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”. Even between catechisms, there are differing opinions on these two issues.
Pope John Paul II promulgated the now-famous Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992. In contrast to previous teaching on the issue, capital punishment was legitimized (however narrowly) under self-defense doctrine. This, according to scholars Feser and Bessette, contrasted to historical treatment of the issue as a matter of asset forfeiture: losing one’s most precious asset, human life, in expiation for a crime. Pope Pius XII in 1952 noted that a convicted murderer "has dispossessed himself of the right to live".

Cardinal Bernadin put forth the Seamless Garment in 1983, following Eileen Egan’s 1970’s teachings on the consistent ethic of life. This ethic opposes willful abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and, note the qualification, unjust war. This concept spread through the American seminaries, and no one was surprised when Cardinal Sean O’Malley criticized the issuance of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentence for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing. The former noted, in line with the John Paul II Catechism, that the threat had already been “neutralized” by Tsarnaev’s imprisonment before trial.  Indeed, Tsarnaev claimed his death sentence was an injustice- after killing 3, maiming 16, and terrorizing a nation. Pope Francis’ recent revision of the 1992 Catechism declares capital punishment “inadmissible”, commenting that previous teachings on the subject were more legalistic than pastoral in nature.

Lesson 33 of The Baltimore Catechism, the American Bishops’ official catechism until last decade, identifies three circumstances when human life may be lawfully taken:

1.       In self-defense
2.       In a just war
3.       By the lawful execution of a criminal.

In practice, public enthusiasm to carry out just rewards- to be “tough on crime” or to “Bomb Agrabah” is tempered by involved parties with respect for human life and recognition of moral culpability. These involved parties are police officers, homeowners, military officers, and trial judges, who direct and carry out the lawful taking of life. For example, no serious politician or official wants to legislate Genesis 9:6 into law. As seen in public discourse, the highest value of human life is assigned to those accused of a capital offense, where one wrongful execution is a moral outrage; and lowest for innocents in a war zone, in which a thousand foreign casualties does not churn the stomach. As an example of this ethic, then-Governor Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign-stop execution of mentally-incompetent Ricky Ray Rector in Arkansas is still discussed today. If this was not a lawful execution per-se, then was it willful murder committed by a future president? (3) Historical statistics likewise demonstrate that the perceived moral hazard of taking an innocent life is greatest with capital punishment, and lowest in war.

·         Self-Defense: 149 unarmed Americans died during an encounter with law enforcement in 2017 alone. (1). This figure does not include accidental deaths under Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws.

·         Just War: According to the National Geographic, 500,000 Iraqi civilians have died in conflict since 2003.

·         Forfeiture: Since the 1970’s, 1 possible execution of an innocent person in America. This case was Cameron Willingham, found guilty of arson and executed in 2004. Governor Rick Perry of Texas was informed that trial evidence used outdated fire science, but he chose not to issue clemency to Mr. Willingham. (2)

In matters of human dignity, all these innocent lives should be weighed equally. In practice, they are most certainly not. Our nation spends millions on a single capital appeals, and not enough to provide clean drinking water in Flint, Michigan. There is no absolute truth or fallacy when commeasuring these issues: self-defense, just war and capital punishment. Personally, I feel that the ultimate punishment should be reserved for exceptional cases like Tsarnaev's. The key takeaway is to stay informed.

                 (2) Identified by Edward Feser and Jospeh Bessette in By Man His Blood Be Shed
                Agrabah is a fictional Middle-Eastern city created by the Walt Disney Company.