Earlier this week, 71-year-old Samuel Williams shot two armed robbers at an internet cafe in Ocala, Florida. This appears to be a clear case of self-defense. Mr. Williams did well under dangerous circumstances, and he may have saved the lives of the other patrons.
Following the incident, I’ve seen and heard numerous comments that can be summed up as, “good job giving those thugs a dirt nap!” While there’s a certain philosophical satisfaction in seeing criminals get their comeuppance, we must remember that there’s a line between self-defense and vigilantism.
We live in a civilized society governed by laws. Everybody deserves due process. Depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property is a serious matter. Doing so without a fair trial is something that must be treated with the utmost gravity.
Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, and we don’t have the luxury of letting the system work. In that moment, we have the right to use force to protect ourselves. However, we have to treat such a situation for what it is: a moment in which we’re suspending the entire legal system.
That’s where I have a real problem with the unfortunate and tactless chest-thumping I hear so often. Remarks about throw-down guns and “dragging the body into the house” might seem funny, but they convey a cavalier attitude about violence that’s quite unsettling.
Having the means to use lethal force isn’t a license to mete out justice. It’s a grim expediency to fall back on when there is simply no other way to prevent serious harm. When we treat it any differently, we reject the very principles that make us civilized.
5 thoughts on “Violence is Not Justice”
Well said, sir. Very well said.
It’s always good to be reminded of that. I have said as much countless times, but the idea persists that we are simply violent people that can’t wait to kill or injure someone because of comments such as the ones you refer to. We accept a huge responsibility when we carry a firearm, and being cavalier about it does everyone an injustice.
We cannot defend ourselves in the court of public opinion so long as there are people throwing out nonsensical macho rhetoric that is certain to ruin our reputations. It’s frustrating, but there’s nothing we can do about it. The world is populated with Internet Tough Guys that think nothing of trying to prove how tough they can be from the comfort of their couch.
*clapclapclapclapclap*
On various Internet venues, I’m always wondering how to say exactly what you said. Thank you.
Author sez: However, we have to treat such a situation for what it is: a moment in which we’re suspending the entire legal system.
Jack replies: No, this situation is that the defender was working entirely within the entire legal system. Either the laws are part of the “legal system” or they are not. Since the legal system is designed to judge people according to the “law” it is going to be difficult to hold that they are not part of it (which doesn’t mean to say that laws and the legal system are the same thing.)
Since the elderly gent was defending himself and others exactly how the law provides for self defense, then he was working within the legal system. If he used lawlessness actions to shoot the two thugs he would have been working outside the legal system.
Jack,
Self defense is usually an affirmative defense to accusation of wrongdoing. It’s unlawful for me to shoot someone. My defense would be that I was threatened with imminent harm and had no choice.
The minute we use force on another human being, it’s up to us to justify it. And that’s how it should be. The alternative is vigilantism and chaos.
Fortunately, most states give reasonable latitude in cases of self-defense, but fact remains: I’m still admitting that I’ve committed a crime, but if I can prove I did so for the right reasons, I won’t be prosecuted.
By the way, very nice site on the S&W Model 10.