13 July 03

Victims as Heroes?

Statistically, the most dangerous occupation in the world today is that of being a farmer in South Africa. Three of every one thousand will be murdered this year. Most victims will first surrender meekly to their home's invaders. They will then be tied up and tortured unmercifully before ultimately being shot or slashed to death. It is "ethnic cleansing," of course, but it is currently being ignored by the rest of the world. Crocodile tears are (at least in public) shed by officials, but nothing is being done to address the "problem." The entire Jewish population of Nazi Germany in the 1930s went through something similar. No one cared about them either.

In our cowardly unwillingness to face such historical events squarely, we, as a civilization, have waxed delusional. Instead of reminding every citizen that he or she must take reasonable precautions to avoid criminal victimization, we have, instead, elevated the moral standing of victims to that of sainthood!

We are, for example, assured by grass-eating bureaucrats, even police chiefs, that the female victim who was first beaten bloody then suffocated and strangled to death with her own underwear is somehow morally superior to the woman who sits in the police station and calmly explains to officers why she found it necessary to shoot to death a rape/burglary suspect in her own kitchen.

In the former case, the (dead) victim is lauded as a "role model." Taking no precautions and then meekly surrendering to criminal violence, while doing nothing to protect yourself, is today touted as one's ultimate civic duty.

In the latter case, the woman is mercilessly rebuked for "taking the law in to your her hands," and "trying to do our job." Newspaper editors and media anchors predictably join the feeding frenzy. Of course, when the police arrive too late, the mayor meekly explains that, "Police can't be everywhere now, can they?" Therefore, the only way she can gain their approval is by being a "good victim."

Ultimately, self deception, even when encouraged by "mainstream" society, is still delusional. As warriors, we must always look down upon our enemy with disdain, never up at him in fear. We must never doubt our own magnificence and thus our right to defend ourselves (by any means necessary) even when that notion is disparaged by the weakling majority. We must not cut our conscience to fit this year's fashion! A man more right than ten of his neighbors makes a "majority of one."

/John

13 July 03

Response:

"Six years ago a friend and his wife were having dinner with a local police officer and another couple. They didn't know the officer well, but were hap py to join him at his table when he invited them to do so. Dinner involved muc h wine drinking by all parties. Abruptly, the police officer pulled out a pistol (from concealment) and placed its muzzle to the head of the other mal e diner and held it there, as he continued to talk as if nothing had happened.

Everyone froze, except for the police officer, who continued talking. After a minute or two, he put the pistol away, and the four other diners all made expedient excuses and left the table, quickly exiting the restaurant as soon as they could. Everyone went home, and nothing ever came of the incident, legally or otherwise.

Sitting at dinner last night (six years later), after hearing the forgoing for the first time, I asked my friend (who has since become a lawyer and is currently the Public Defender for our county) if he wishes he would have don e anything differently that night. I volunteered that a forcible disarm might have been in order, since I assume that, if someone pulls a gun and puts it to someone's head, that he intends to use it.

In true lawyerly fashion, my friend went on, ad nauseam, about how he could not possibly know this person's intent and that his actions, though threatening, were probably just his way of 'crying out for help.'

I begged the question and then asked him: 'If I had been the one thr eatened with a gun, and I had violently disarmed the perpetrator and subsequently sh ot him dead in order to end the threat and preserve my life and the lives of th e other innocent people there, would you defend my actions in court?' His response was, once again, wavering. He said he didn't think defensive deadl y force was ever really justified, that violent crime is not really a matter of personal choice on the part of the criminal, and that all crime, no matter h ow barbarous or cruel, is a direct result of 'chemical imbalances.'

With these people, there is always some cockeyed rationale for behavior that is unacceptable. The criminal always gets a pass. Decent people, who don't commit crimes, are always blamed. They are so paralyzed by evil that their only response is to deny its existence."

Comment: We tell our students to make decisions based on suspect capabilities, not suspect intent. People who try to guess at a threatening p erson's "intent" are already most of the way toward victimization.

A friend, who is an assistant district attorney, was recently in court prosecuting a defendant on a criminal charge. The judge asked if the Public Defender was ready to proceed, looking in the direction of the defendant's table.

My friend jumped up and said, "Excuse me, your honor, the attorney at the other table is not the 'Public Defender.' He is the 'Court-Appointed Representative of Indigent Defendants!' " There was a long pause. He continu ed, "I, sir, am the 'Public Defender!' "

Amen!

/John