Mark Steyn: IN THE ABSENCE OF GUNS -

The Spectator - UK - SteynOnline ^ | June, 2003 | Mark Steyn

[RogueIsland]

This was posted on TheHighRoad a little while back. I never posted it here because it didn't have a source, but I'll add it to this thread for your consideration:

Wheelchair bound Brit arrested for self defense

I acted in self-defence says disabled robbery victim

A DISABLED man who used CS spray to fight off a robber is now facing the threat of legal action.

Wheelchair-bound Nicholas Ashworth, aged 22, sprayed his alleged attacker in the face with the CS spray.

He then climbed out of his wheelchair and limped across the road as the man screamed in pain. A passing police patrol spotted him in distress and stopped at the scene. Officers then arrested both men.

Today after being released on police bail pending further inquiries -- which could result in police prosecution -- Mr

Ashworth defended his use of the CS spray. He said he bought it to protect himself after being attacked in Bridgeman Street three weeks ago. On that occasion his attacker hit him in the face before pinning him back in his chair. The man then rifled through his pockets and stole £100.

Mr Ashworth, of Fletcher Street, Bolton -- who can walk just a short distance without his wheelchair -- said the incident left him feeling vulnerable.

Only days later he used it when a would-be robber confronted him as Mr Ashworth made his way to a nearby supermarket.

Mr Ashworth said the attacker held a knife at his throat and threatened to stab him. When he refused to hand over his money the man pushed him across the road and into bushes on the other side of the carriageway.

He said when he was threatened again he grabbed the CS canister and sprayed the man in the face.

He said: "I knew it was wrong and against the law but in my view I was acting in self defence. I thought the man was going to kill me.

"It is a sad state of affairs that disabled people like me have to carry such things like CS sprays for protection."

A police spokesman said that they were investigating the illegal use and possession of CS spray. He also revealed that a man was on police bail pending further inquiries into the attempted robbery of Mr Ashworth.

[FreedomPoster]

>Wish I could write like that.
>>Don't we all!

I'd settle for 1/10th as well.

[FreedomPoster]

House clearing is a dangerous operation at all times even for a team of individuals. (I know unless one has lots of fragmentation grenades but those also hacve risks.)

That would be a tough one to explain to your property insurance adjuster. ;-)

[Amelia]

Conversely, up here in the New Hampshire second Congressional district, there are few laser security systems and lots of guns. Our murder rate is much lower than Britain’s and our property crime is virtually insignificant. Anyone want to make a connection? Villains are expert calculators of risk, and the likelihood of walking away uninjured with an $80 TV is too remote. In New Hampshire, a citizen’s right to defend himself deters crime; in Britain, the state-inflicted impotence of the homeowner actively encourages it.

Great article by Steyn - thanks for posting it!

[oyez]

bfl

[katana]

In a word, Socialism. To the true believers property is inherently evil and the thieves are simply "redistributing the wealth". If the property owner is hurt, well, he or she probably resisted when they should have just smiled and told the robbers, "Oh, you missed my CD collection. Don't leave without that."

Also, Steyn's point about the difference between the British and American conceptions of where power and authority derive is absolutely correct. In Britain the crown and state hold the reins. In America (at least in concept and belief) power derives from John Q and is to be ladled out to the state.

I don't mind this re-post (it was clearly marked as a 2000 article in the header) as the points he made do need repeating over and over. Also, even an old Mark Steyn article is a better read than 99% of what you'll find out there today.

[harpseal]

Since I do not have a supply of fragmentation grenades I do not have to worry about explaining to the adjuster or the police department.

[FreedomPoster]

Sad that we feel the need to state that explicitly, that "someone" wouldn't "get it", that it was in jest.

Me either. Mr. Glock serves, and that's good enough.

[Abe Froman]

I don't understand the mentality of "shoot to kill". I thought the idea is "shoot to stop". If they happen to die as a result of shooting them to stop them in their tracks, then so be it, but I don't ever feel that I have a right to become judge and jury. If they're down, writing on the floor, are you going to walk over and deliver the coup 'de gras to their head?

[wardaddy]

It was an apartment. It didn't take long for the administrators to determine I was not dorm suitable.

I'm glad I didn't kill the old fool. Lifelong old drunk man who might have weighed 100 lbs wet.....you know how it is when you're a kid, you're just more brave because you haven't been hurt enough yet or seen enough bad things happen....and you don't have to worry about folks who depend on ya.

Like I said...I quiver quicker nowadays.

Good point on Romeo....I don't know how I'll handle that if it happens...hell I was "Romeo" once. I think I'd put the fear of G-d in him.....it might simply boil down to her age and if I liked him outside of me catching him "sneaking Sally thru the alley".

Glad you got the "one-eyed gila" joke ....it was a bit understated but I figured if anyone would grasp that...that you were da man!

[Squantos]

Older I get, the slower I get.......cept with a 1911 of course ...:o)

Stay Safe !

[UnklGene]

C'mon Cruse! Look at the post date. June, 2000 - Spectator! It was on SteynOnline.com classics....still a good read. ...ask old Tony Martin. He's still in the "slammer." His conviction was reduced to "manslaughter," but they don't want to let him out because he won't show "remorse."
Gene

[Gritty]

If they're down, writing on the floor, are you going to walk over and deliver the coup 'de gras to their head?

... only if he is reaching for his weapon or you still consider him a threat to life and limb. Badly wounded men can still easily kill you. ;^)

[SirAllen]

A lot of states allow you to shoot if someone has broken into your house.

Strangely, here in NC you have the right to use deadly force if the bad guy is *in the process* of breaking in. Once they're in, you have to resort to the normal standard of only being allowed to use deadly force if you are in immanent danger of severe bodily injury or death.

I’d prefer to be allowed in both situations, but hey - I’ll just be sure and get 'em before they bust through the door ;)

[patton]

Here in VA, one is allowed to shoot if they have left your house, and are in the process of running away.

Which surprised even me.

[SirAllen]

I don't understand the mentality of "shoot to kill".

A wise man once said a dead man don't tell lies and can't sue you. While that's no reason to keep shooting an injured person that no longer poses you any threat, it's not very smart to only go for the "legs" or "arms" in order to try and not kill them while shooting.

If it ever comes to a life and death situation, I will shoot to kill. If the perp lives, then so be it. When I went through my CCW they specifically talked about the liablility of a person living and the lawsuits that could follow.

[dljordan]

Good grief man! A little restraint here! We're in an Urban setting remember? .308 is too much for suburbia. You'll go right through the perp and take out the yuppie next door. Think 12Ga. number 4 buck.

[Jason_b]

The FBI's 7 yard threat rule stands, off property. However, anyone on property 30 minutes after sundown is fair game. Pursuant to established law, one can assume the trespassing perp is armed and a mortal threat or thief of valuable property.

Do you have any links or book titles? This is something I'd like to know more about.

[freedumb2003]

"not just the right, but the responsibility, as a free-born citizen, to uphold the integrity of your property."

...the taking of life over property (even stuff you work for) isn't worth it to me

Sorry, your analysis doesn't pass muster. Your retreat into "life over property" may feel good, but it establishes a bad precedent. It emboldens criminals, who think "hey, they don't care if I come in no matter what."

One MUST assume anyone invading your private residence intends harm, either as a motive or a result of getting away with burglary. The state already protects live over property by not allowing lethal booby traps.

Your perspective does your community a dissrevice as it invites criminals into not only YOUR home, but into any in the community.

[PatrioticAmerican]

" I'm not saying I would let them go"

Handcuffs? How are you going to get them on a bad guy? What force do you plan to use if the bad guy has a weapon or is way better than you at hand to hand and would you really want to take that risk?

I'm not saying shoot the bastard immediately, but a gun can work wonders in getting those handcuffs on him.