Article here. It recounts the story of John White, a black who moved into an almost-entirely white area of Long Island. A gang of white youths shows up on his lawn at night, cursing him and threatening to kill his son. He draws a .32, one of them slaps it away, and he plugs him. He winds up convicted of manslaughter. The author contrasts the case with that of a while male in Texas who shot two burglars and walked.
OK, that's not the difference of race, but between Texas and NYC. Here in AZ, juries would have walked him in a heartbeat. OK, so maybe the Arizona Revised Statutes require more threat than that ... he'd been menaced, on his own land, the aggressors threatened his kid. He even gave fair warning. The A.R.S. are the written law, but there's also an unwritten one that juries follow. You've got 12 homeowners sitting in the jury box thinking "I could have done that, too."
Instead, the author concludes:
"So should L.I., NY change their gun laws to be more like TX? Then of course we risk the chance of having more child-gun accidents, more gun robberies, and thus more gun crimes, and more senseless gun killings...More guns equal more death. How about calling the police? Getting a dog? An alarm system? Martial arts? Even a taser, for crying out loud!"
So... the guy was within his rights, should have been acquitted, but we don't want anyone to be able to do that.... when you're supporting a self-defender, it's not the time to talk about gun ownership leading to "senseless gun killings."
PS--as to his allegation that gun rights groups "went running" to the Texan's defense, and ignored that of the defendant here, I've not heard that any gun rights groups were involved in the Texas case (which ended, quickly, when a grand jury refused to indict, and I see no mention that the defendant here ever alerted a gun rights group. But that's irrelevant to the author's claim of victimhood, I suppose.)
[UPDATE: I meant that the author of the article was trapped in a victimhood state of mind. He argues that Mr. White was attacked, then victimized by the NY "justice" system. Sounds like that to me. But he then argues that people having firearms, i.e., John White, would just make everyone victims of crime, or themselves victims of accidents. So, one way or the other, we all should resign ourselves to being victims one way or another. I should've been clearer.]
In Houston, Quanell X, a "black activist" showed up outside Joe Horn's house to "protest". Well, since the "protest" was advertized, about 200 of Horn's neighbors also showed up. Then about 500 bikers showed up in support of Horn. When "X" tried to use a bullhorn to speak, the bikers would rev their motors and drown out what he was trying to say. No "gun groups" were involved, since the shooting was justified by black letter Texas law. The grand jury was delayed 8 months in being given the case to let things "cool down".
Posted by: Fiftycal at July 15, 2008 06:51 PM
Martial arts, taser, a dog? Look, if I get a dog and it barks a lot but isn't really a protection/attack dog, it won't be enough protection in a bad situation. If it is an attack dog, and seriously injures or kills one of these kids, am I going to be in any less trouble than if I'd shot the kid?
Same with martial arts - if I'm good enough to put up a real defense of myself, and I hurt or kill one of these kids in the process, I'm going to be in trouble just the same as if I shot the kid.
Posted by: TheOtherOne at July 15, 2008 07:29 PM
That's awesome FiftyCal......
You just cant make this stuff up...unless its in the movies.
Posted by: Tom at July 15, 2008 07:40 PM
I heard that the NYC thing was a fight between the black guy's kid and the other neighborhood kid over some sexual comments made to one of the white kid's sister by a friend of the black kid. The father intervened while they were having a non-deadly argument and shot one of them.
Posted by: Jim W at July 15, 2008 07:59 PM
sorry to disagree, but he was victimized. Probably not for being black, but for not living in America.
Posted by: straightarrow at July 15, 2008 08:36 PM
NY has one of the best self-defense laws in the country. There is no duty to retreat anywhere and deadly force is allowed whenever a person reasonably believes their lives are in danger.
What this guy did, however, was violate that law by deliberately escalating the situation. I have no sympathy for the guy he shot who was by all accounts an asshole. But White left, then came back with his gun. That's what got him convicted.
Posted by: Jacob at July 16, 2008 07:05 AM
But, gun or not, this guy was already the victim of some crimes, trespass, threatening death, etc. So, the gun didn't cause the crime, the kid did.
Posted by: DJk at July 16, 2008 07:45 AM
I'm pretty tired of these turds always suggesting that I just get a Taser.
As someone who lives in Jersey City and works in Manhattan—thus spending my time equally in two cities in two states that essentially ban carrying a firearm—it should be pointed out that the same legislators who think I can't be trusted to carry a firearm also think I can't be trusted to carry a Taser: they are illegal in both NJ and NYC.
Posted by: Guav at July 16, 2008 10:24 AM
I looked into the "get a dog for self defense" thing a while back. The data doesn't stand up well compared to getting a firearm.
Posted by: ben at July 16, 2008 11:49 AM
No DJK. Not by any standard was White justified in using deadly force. He left and came back with a gun deliberately to escalte the situation. He got what he asked for.
Posted by: Jacob at July 16, 2008 01:43 PM
I could've sworn there was a self-defense shooting in which a black home/business-owner shot a couple of white thugs (in Texas).
But I can't find a news article on it right now...
Posted by: Anon at July 16, 2008 01:51 PM
The article is incorrect.
Mr. White was nowhere near victimized, he had an unlicensed handgun that he returned to his house to get and he shot the boy in the face - *off* of Mr. White's property. They tried to turn it into a race thing during the trial, but the fact is Mr. White's son was a scumbag and the other boy was being a drunk show off over a rumor or a rape threat. None of them needed to be anywhere near one another.
Posted by: Bill at July 17, 2008 11:29 AM