REPRINTED
WITH PERMISSION OF GEORGE JONAS
http://www.georgejonas.ca/journalism.cfm
PUBLICATION:
The
Ottawa Citizen
DATE:
2003.12.15
EDITION:
Final
SECTION:
The Editorial Page
PAGE: A14
COLUMN:
George Jonas
BYLINE:
George Jonas
SOURCE:
CanWest News Service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granny's
got a gun, and she also knows how to use it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home
invasions are on the rise. Since I booted up my computer this morning, one
occurred in North Carolina, one in Texas, and another in Pennsylvania. But home
invasions aren't a new crime. Ten years ago Chicago grandmother Bessie Jones,
92, was dozing in her wheelchair when a robber broke into her home. The young
man started wheeling her around, demanding to see her valuables.
Grandma didn't think this was a good idea, so she pulled out a gun and
shot him dead. The U.S. authorities considered the matter, then decided to lay
no charges.
This
example of senior self-defence (reported in the November 9, 1993 issue of the
Chicago SUN-TIMES) wasn't unique. In 1995 THE NEW YORK TIMES told the story of
92-year-old Conrad Schwartzkopf shooting a young burglar in his Long Island
home. Still, Grandma Jones was lucky. First, she was lucky for having a gun with
which to defend herself. Defenceless people are often killed whether they give
up their valuables or not.
Then
she was lucky because for once the authorities behaved sensibly. Many citizens
have been charged under similar circumstances. It's a different matter that
juries usually acquit them. (Not always, though: they didn't acquit Norfolk
farmer Tony Martin in a widely-reported English case in 2000.) But juries often
acquit even when the issue is citizen's arrest rather than self-defence. In the
1980's a U.S. jury acquitted a
citizen who witnessed a shooting in the street. The citizen yelled at the killer
to stop; and when he continued running, he fired his gun.
The
citizen's position was that armed killers shouldn't be allowed to roam the
streets. The prosecution argued that the citizen wasn't a police officer, so he
shouldn't have taken the law into his own hands. The jury rejected the
prosecutor's argument, as juries often do in such cases. The question is, why do
the authorities lay charges in the first place?
Some
say charges should always be laid. An act of violence may not be a crime, but
that's up to the courts. When a citizen commits a violent act, a court should
determine whether or not it was justified. This argument has one flaw. Courts
determine if an act is a crime only after an earlier decision. First the
authorities must decide whether or not to lay a charge and they ought to base
this decision on sound principles.
I
think the authorities tend not to do so when it comes to citizens protecting
themselves. In such cases charges are based on the assumption that an act of
violence committed by a citizen is intrinsically different from an identical act
committed by a police officer. If an officer shoots an armed killer to prevent
his escape, charges are rarely laid. The assumption is that the officer is
justified in stopping a dangerous criminal from being at large. But this is
equally true of a citizen as long as the circumstances are the same.
An
officer can only use deadly force if he's justified in doing so, and he can only
be justified by the same factors as a citizen. A uniform is not a licence to
kill. Neither officials nor plain citizens can use deadly force without a lawful
excuse, which ought to be the same for both. On paper it's nearly the same, but
in practice citizens are usually tested against their justifications in court,
while police officers rarely are. True, juries tend to acquit citizens who use
justifiable force, just as they tend to acquit officers. But, unlike cops,
citizens must go through a period of anguish, not to mention crippling expenses,
to defend themselves.
The
authorities fancy they have a monopoly on defending us.
They seem to think that whenever they can't defend us because they're not
around, we should just let crime happen. The state got into the habit of
charging those citizens it has been unable to protect when they try to protect
themselves.
This,
by the way, is one of the few things on which "red-neck" policemen and
"bleeding-heart" liberals agree. Both hate the idea of citizens
defending their lives or communities. Both mutter about "vigilantism''
whenever the subject comes up. Both say people shouldn't "take the law into
their own hands."
But the law IS in the hands of citizens. It's citizens who delegate enforcement powers to the police, not the other way around. There's nothing uncivilized about lawful self- or community defense. What is uncivilized is a surrender to crime.