No Surrender To Crime
No Surrender To Crime
Many Americans are done watching criminals, many of whom are savagely merciless, prey upon the populace with impunity.
If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.
- Thomas Sowell
There was a incident in Houston on January 6 of the new year where an armed robbery victim drew his own gun inside a restaurant, shooting and killing the thief. Afterwards, he took back the money that was stolen and gave it back to the other victims, in an incredible act of heroism and magnanimity. Here’s the complete video of the incident along with audio, but don’t watch if people getting shot in real life is something you lack the stomach for:
Bottom line up front: I have no problem with what the Good Samaritan did. Many Americans, myself included, are done watching criminals, many of whom are savagely merciless, prey upon the populace with impunity. Yes, some get caught, but they rarely get stopped. It’s always a win when a citizen stops a crime from happening, even if it costs the perpetrator their life. Someone brazen enough to march into a restaurant, point a gun at people, and rob them, deserves no sympathy, no benefit of the doubt.
It’s worth mentioning the criminal in this story was armed with either an Airsoft or BB gun. These are less lethal than regular guns, but they can still cause injury or, in some cases, death. More importantly, the difference between an Airsoft/BB gun and a real gun is meaningless when you don’t have the luxury of inspecting it while you’re being robbed. Take a look at this Airsoft gun:
Are you able to tell the difference between this and a real gun? If you can, now imagine you’re looking at this same gun from a distance, while it’s being held by a potential shooter waving it around. How confident are you that you can draw the distinction in the heat of the moment? Some of you might say, “It wouldn’t matter, because I wouldn’t fight someone holding a gun.” That may be in most cases the best choice and that’s also the point: you wouldn’t know the difference. To say nothing of the fact you’re still ceding your life into the hands of someone else who, again, has at least conveyed a willingness to take your life to get what they want. We’ve seen other incidents where, even after robbing their victims, the criminals still murder their victims, anyway.
That said, it could’ve been a prop gun and it wouldn’t make a difference. Again, brandishing what very clearly appears to be a gun is something you do only when you want your audience to believe you’re willing to hurt or kill to get what you want. There’s no hedging here, no speculation of intent. If someone threatens violence against you and has what appears to be a weapon in the eyes of a reasonable person, believe what your eyes tell you! Don’t bluff or try to talk them down, otherwise you’re basically flipping a coin with your life.
That all said, I hope the shooter, who has yet to be identified, spent the last week finding himself a competent, dedicated self-defense lawyer, because he’s now been questioned by Houston Police:
Referred to a grand jury. I’d be nervous if I were the man, because a decision will now be made whether to charge him with a crime or not. From the start, it was obvious, at least to me, the authorities weren’t going to let a citizen get away with using deadly force against a criminal (doing the government’s job, in other words). Under anarcho-tyranny, the state is threatened less by the criminal and more by the citizen willing to defend himself and others. Remember that the state’s legitimacy is rooted in a monopoly or near-monopoly on the lawful use of violence. Nothing is more threatening to the people in charge than those who can protect themselves and others, especially if they a better job of it.
That said, on this blog, we encourage only lawful conduct. Though I have no issues with what the man did on a moral level, only the first four shots are wholly justifiable on a legal level. A clear and present threat exists, with the criminal appearing to even point his gun in the direction of the patron sitting at the table closest to the door. The next four shots become questionable, as by then the robber was put down and the Good Samaritan stopped before opening fire again. Generally, these additional shots might be justifiable if the suspect still managed to exhibit some kind of threat, but that doesn’t appear to be the case, at least not from the video.
The ninth and final shot is most problematic. Not only is the robber down by this point, the Good Samaritan has also taken his gun and disarmed him. The second set of four shots might be justifiable on certain grounds, but a “finishing shot” like the ninth shot is going to be very difficult to argue in favor of. Even in self-defense-friendly states like Texas, the law still only allows citizens to use force sufficient enough to stop the threat, and the threat was stopped somewhere between four and eight shots. I suppose it could be argued there was no chance of survival at that point for the perpetrator, rendering the ninth shot inconsequential, but the law requires the justification of every shot fired.
John Correia and his guest co-host at the YouTube channel “Active Self-Protection” (highly recommended) analyze the incident in greater depth, explaining why the final shot was so problematic, even though they concur justice would be better served if the Good Samaritan wasn’t charged.
Were his actions reasonable? This is why I hope the shooter found himself a lawyer specializing in self-defense, because that’s the only person who can find a way of justifying that final shot. In fact, if you carry a gun in public, you better have a lawyer on retainer. Don’t tell me it costs too much; guns and ammo cost too much! If you’re willing to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars to possess the means of delivering lethal force, you better be willing to spend as much, but likely more, on making sure you stay out of prison. “Better judged by 12 than carried by 6” is a sentiment and a pretty stupid one, if you ask me. I’ve never been incarcerated, but I’ve seen and heard that cell door slam shut and it’s loud. You don’t want to be on the other side of that, believe me.
If a lawyer on retainer is too much, and for most people it is, then having some form of legal coverage is an absolute must. Never, ever, rely on the authorities to uphold your right to self-defense and never rely on your personal interpretation of the law to prevail in court. We have lawyers and they get paid what they do because interpreting and practicing law is a full-time profession requiring years of education and real-world experience. The court isn’t going to accept your verbatim recitation of the Second Amendment as any form of defense.
The Active Self-Protection video on the incident includes an advertisement at the beginning for a firm called Firearms Legal Protection. From their website:
Firearms Legal Protection provides uncapped legal defense coverage for its members who legally use a weapon in self-defense or defense of others. Firearms Legal Protection is a legal service plan that provides its members with peace of mind that they can protect themselves and their loved ones.
More:
Firearms Legal Protection differs in three ways: 1) We pay your attorney fees directly for both criminal and civil actions. Unlike most legal protection plans, we are not an attorney reimbursement system. 2) We take the time to research and provide you with a local attorney who is experienced in self-defense cases, Criminal Law, and/or has experience handling firearms-related incidences where self-defense occurs. 3) We provide the most comprehensive protection at the lowest price while never sacrificing member service.
If you look at their pricing plans, for $329 a year, you not only get to have your legal fees covered, you also get payment for expert witness and investigator fees, coverage of lost wages, among other benefits. At the risk of sounding like I’m advertising their services, this is definitely something worth looking into if you carry your gun in public, but cannot afford a attorney on retainer. Even if you don’t carry in public, it may be worth considering having a minimal protection plan in place to deal with incidents at home.
The lesson is this: at the time of the incident or post-incident isn’t when you want to learn if your actions were legally sound. In many ways, you have to know ahead of time and you need to have played out scenarios in your head where you decide under what criteria you’ll shoot without hesitation and when you’ll hold fire. There’s no room for error in these situations. As in war, the decisions which affect the outcome are often made before the bullets start flying.
Even if that last shot was legally indefensible, I hope the grand jury will have the good sense not to press charges against this man. Laws exist to be enforced, but they don’t exist for the sake of enforcement. To charge him would send a message that he is as much a criminal as the robber who created this awful situation in the first place. The law must be tethered to some kind of morality, otherwise, it becomes a dehumanizing system which says our lives possess no value beyond our ability to follow rules and generate tax revenue for the state.
Unfortuantely, the legal climate is utterly hostile towards actions perceived as “vigilantism.” There have been a number of recent incidents where citizens used deadly force against criminals and were arrested and charged. Here’s an incident in Louisiana just days before the Houston incident:
A Louisiana Dollar General store clerk who shot and killed an armed robber Monday is being charged with a crime, authorities said.
Rafus Anderson was working at the store in Monroe when the suspect entered with a weapon, a police report said. Anderson fired a shot that struck the suspect and a customer as the robber fled the store.
Responding police officers found the robber "lying in the money he had just robbed the store of" north of the scene, the report said. The suspect later died at a hospital.
The customer was taken to a hospital and was later released after receiving treatment. After the shooting, Anderson locked up the store, set the alarm and left.
He later gave a statement to police. He said he was afraid the suspect would kill him and "had no idea" that the suspect was struck by gunfire because he continued to run.
He also said the store had been the target of six armed robberies since August. He said there were four robberies and two attempted robberies. [bold mine]
What the state failed to prevent, people like Rafus Anderson were forced to endure repeatedly. Now the government has a problem with the way he handled it? What did they expect him to do? Tolerate another armed robbery? It’s insanity.
Here’s another incident, from Missouri back in December:
Police arrested a Missouri woman after she tracked down her stolen car and killed two men outside a gas station for the alleged theft.
Demesha Coleman, 35, was charged Thursday with two counts of murder, one count of assault and three counts of armed criminal action after shooting and killing Darius Jackson, 19, and Joseph Farrar, 49.
Police found Farrar next to a gas pump with a gunshot to the torso and Jackson was on the ground next to the car, also shot in the torso.
More:
Coleman approached a Hyundai Tucson at a St. Louis Speedie Gas station Wednesday night with a man who was also carrying a weapon, police said after examining surveillance footage. Coleman opened the door with her gun raised and started shooting.
Coleman told detectives during a recorded interview that she went to the gas station to recover her stolen vehicle. She had no prior criminal history.
Arguably, this incident is more legally problematic than the former. My point is that the state can neither stop crime from happening, nor can it keep criminals in prison long enough, but it sure does a good job of arresting and charging otherwise law-abiding citizens who are left to the mercy of the barbarians. If the government doesn’t fulfill their end of the social contract to use overwhelming force to protect the people, why so shocked when some of us refuse to be obedient, tax-paying victims?
UPDATE:
Click the tweet to read on and decide if you truly feel the robber was done any kind of injustice. It’s an appalling story and has become far too typical: a multiple-offender who, despite many second chances, can’t help but commit crimes. There is no redemption for these people and anyone who feels he was done wrong by the Good Samaritan is probably a criminal themselves or endorses the anarcho-tyrannical order.
In fact, few fears are more irrational than that of “vigilantism.” It’s something which occurs in a state of lawlessness, not orderliness. Vigilantism is all but unknown in places like Singapore or Qatar, where the World Cup was held last month. Why? There’s no need for it because there’s virtually no crime! Someone who is worried about vigilantism or equivocates it with crime essentially prefers a state of disorder and lawlessness, often out of a misguided sense of fair play and social justice. They’d just as soon hand this country over to the barbarians and savages to prove to everyone they’re on the Right Side of History.
Hyperbolic on my part? I quoted Thomas Sowell at the start of this post and I’ll quote him again for those in the back:
If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!