Tags
barack obama, capital punishment, Christian theology, evil exists, flyover country, God and gun clingers, Gun Free Zones, justifiable homocide, Ronald Reagan, self-defense, Teddy Kennedy
All articles in this series may be found by entering “guns and liberty” into the SMM homepage search bar.
Part three of this series of articles explored the morality of killing, and exposed the reality that the police not only cannot protect any individual; they have no legal obligation to do so. It ended with this observation:
Whose survival best serves a just society governed by the rule of law: the honest and law-abiding that wish harm to none, or the brutal, cruel and sociopathic? In Los Angeles in 1992, New Orleans in 2005. Ferguson in 2014 and Baltimore in 2015 the politicians and the police knowingly chose the latter. In truth, the veneer of civilization is thinner and far more fragile than most imagine.
When the rule of law is suspended, those that violate societal norms justly do so at their own risk, unless public servants disarm the innocent.
When a woman found herself the only thing standing between her young children and an armed burglar, she saved all their lives because the politicians of her state had been unable to disarm her:
Sometimes, the mere threat of deadly force does not suffice, as in the January, 2013 case of a woman at home alone with her 9 year-old children when a burglar trailing a long criminal record and armed with a crowbar broke into her home in broad daylight. Armed with a revolver, she hid her children and herself in the attic, but the criminal searched every room of her large home, hunting them down, and when he opened the attic door and advanced, she fired, striking him with five of six rounds. He was knocked to the floor. Holding an empty handgun, she was able to bluff him, threatening to shoot him again, until she could flee the house–her own home–with her children. He eventually got up and fled, crashing his car nearby. Who could legitimately argue that society would have been better served by the deaths of the mother and her children, that the burglar–who did survive–might practice his trade unmolested? This incident, and innumerable others, puts the lie to the idea to leave personal protection to the police, the professionals.
Some people of good will oppose capital punishment, arguing, among other things, putting men to death is playing God, capital punishment is not a deterrent, and with life imprisonment, capital punishment is no longer necessary as a means of protecting the innocent. Perhaps the strongest argument against capital punishment is that human beings make mistakes and sometimes execute the innocent.
But if the individual may act in self-defense, why is the state, a government deriving its just powers from men, prohibited from acting in defense of men? True, it is the nature of our criminal justice system that execution takes place not on the spot, but after many years of the exhaustive application of due process, but this long, careful process would seem to be an argument for, rather than against, the capital power of government, for it provides multiple safeguards against the accidental execution of the innocent, which might even be more likely to occur on the spot. In fact, the police, forced to barge into ambiguous and potentially deadly situations, often shoot, and sometimes–fortunately rarely–kill innocents, including each other.
Can we limit human action to only that which may be performed perfectly, without possibility of error, at all times and in all circumstances?
Christian theology recognizes that killing is sometimes justified and necessary, hence men acting in good faith under those conditions are not playing God, but acting in ways anticipated and approved by God. And while capital punishment does not deter the psychopath, common sense (and my own police experience) suggests that some will be deterred, and that we will likely never know their names or numbers. Unquestionably, some innocents will live who would have otherwise died, and their names and numbers will likewise remain unknown.
Life imprisonment is all too commonly anything but. There is such a thing as life without parole, but this is far from universal and relatively uncommon in practice. D/S/C politicians furlough murderous thugs. Killers sometimes continue to kill while behind bars, taking lives that while not entirely innocent, are not deserving of that fate. In addition, escape from prison is not unknown, and foolish politicians have been known to commute the sentences of, or pardon, those who might be in political favor, a case in point being the cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, who, for the moment, remains behind bars, yet continues to be a popular cause célèbre for D/S/Cs who have for more than 30 years labored ceaselessly for his release. It takes little imagination to believe that he will eventually be released or pardoned by a politician of “enlightened” political leanings.
As we have already agreed that evil does indeed exist, there is a strong argument for destroying evil wherever it is found, for evil exists to destroy the good and innocent. There are many apocryphal stories of stereotypical southern lawmen asking of murder victims: “Well, did he need killin’?” Those telling such tales usually do so to ridicule supposedly simple-minded lawmen and the unenlightened denizens of “flyover country.” As Barack Obama put it when explaining such unsophisticated people to a friendly audience, unaware his words were being recorded:
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
In reality, any competent police officer investigating an unattended death (all unattended deaths are investigated as homicides until homicide can be ruled out) must determine if the death was caused by another and if it was justified or unjustified. Asking if the dead “needed killin’” is simply a direct, politically incorrect way of asking if the killing was justified, hence, not murder. To put it simply, to protect the lives of the innocent, some people do need “killin.”
It is indeed disturbing that some innocent people—their numbers are thankfully few–have been put to death. This is not an argument against capital punishment but an argument for the perfection of the criminal justice system to the greatest degree possible. And while we must always strive for perfection in every human endeavor, we cannot cease our endeavors because they do not, at all times and in every way, reach perfection. It is indeed terrible when the innocent are executed, but error is a part of humanity and it cannot be allowed to paralyze us from achieving worthy ends. Of course, the argument about whether the good of capital punishment is greater than the tragedy of executing the innocent goes on.
LAW AND THE BALANCING ACT:
How does this apply to governments? To individuals? Each sovereign nation or state may adopt its own laws, which may be applied within its borders and within territories under its control. One of the essential powers of sovereignty is the power to punish those who transgress the law, including the power of capital punishment. Our laws come from the British tradition, under which, during the Medieval period, there were some 200 capital offenses. This led to bizarre spectacles, including that of pickpockets happily working the crowds gathered to watch the execution of other pickpockets.
Fortunately, American law has evolved such that there are commonly only two capital offenses: murder and treason. While kidnapping, under some circumstances, may also invoke capital punishment, these two are our primary remaining capital crimes. Our society has devolved to the point that it is difficult to imagine anyone being prosecuted for, let alone being put to death for, treason, such “old fashioned” values having fallen out of fashion among the self-styled cultural and political elite whose default position is to apologize for and criticize, rather than to defend, America.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, Soviet archives were opened and it was discovered that the late Senator Teddy Kennedy (Democrat of Massachusetts) actually contacted the KGB (through an intermediary Democrat Senator) in 1984 tried to enlist their aid to defeat Ronald Reagan and his arms control policies to pave the way for a Kennedy presidency. While there is no known evidence that they took him up on his offer, it’s hard to imagine a sitting US Senator committing a similar transgression during WWII not being tried for treason, but now it’s a completely different matter. This was known–by the media and the Department of Justice–during Kennedy’s lifetime. It was also known, and widely suppressed, by the legacy media.
ERRARE HUMANUM EST (To Err–Sin–Is Human):
Is killing, in every instance and always, a sin, and if so, may that sin be forgiven? Again, these are questions that have been argued for millennia. There are several possibilities:
(1) Killing, under any circumstance, is always a sin. God’s gift of life is precious and to take life is God’s province, not Man’s. Such sin is unforgivable.
(2) Killing, when justified, as in self-defense, is not a sin. God is omniscient–all-knowing–and understands that his creation–Man–will be subject to situations where killing is necessary, therefore why would God consider that which he has set into motion—ordained–to be sin? Man has free will, also ordained by God, so he who tries without justification to take the life of another sins, but the person who defends their life or the lives of innocents against an unjustified attack and takes the life of the attacker as a consequence of that defense does not sin. They have preserved God’s greatest gift (affirmed good) while their attacker tried to destroy it (manifesting evil). Sin lies with the attacker.
(3) Killing, even when legally justified as in self-defense, is a sin. However, there is no degree to sin, therefore one may ask for and receive forgiveness for any sin. But what about a serial killer who asks for forgiveness after each murder? It is inconceivable God does not know whose plea for forgiveness is sincere and whose is not. God pardons whom He chooses, and He knows the hearts of all men.
Even if one should consider killing under any circumstance, whether homicide, self defense, killing while serving in the armed forces during war, or by accident to be sin, our shared faith tradition makes clear that even this sin, if one sincerely repents and begs forgiveness, will be forgiven. This does not mean that the aftermath of a justified killing will be trouble-free or ever forgotten, but one need not worry for the final disposition of their soul if forced to defend their life or the life of another.
THE AFTERMATH OF KILLING:
America has, since the founding, had the experience of citizen soldiers reintegrating back into society after exposure to combat. Men, and more recently, women, who have killed others have, for the most part, successfully reintegrated into civilian society, becoming productive citizens. Some have suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, some few have been driven mad by their experiences, but the overwhelming majority learned to deal with the experience of taking the life of another.
So too have police officers who have been forced to kill in the line of duty, and citizens who have been forced to kill to protect their lives or the lives of others, been successful at living with their experiences. Some have been able to simply and effectively compartmentalize, to wall off their experiences as past and done. They accept what they did as necessary and justified, and it does not haunt them. Others have sought and found peace through faith and forgiveness. Some periodically deal with the doubt and pain of their experiences, experiences that never entirely leave them. Such is the burden of being honorable people, people of good will and conscience, people who deserve to live that society might benefit from their example and that those that love them might benefit from their presence.
That these issues are of concern to you speaks well of your conscience, of your humanity, for if you were not concerned about them, you might very well be a sociopath—one without a conscience, who has no concern for others–and as such, is completely indifferent to the suffering of others. Various psychologists and their associations estimate that 3%–or more—of the male population are sociopaths, and 1%–or more—of the female population are so afflicted. Of course, one may find a much higher percentage in any prison population. Three percent may sound small, but consider the next time you’re in a crowd of one hundred, three—or more–are sociopaths, people who would feel nothing about killing others. Is one of them standing near you?
Have no doubt that if and when killing ever becomes necessary and is justified, the aftermath may be, personally and in every other way, intense, demanding and difficult. The way in which one deals with it will depend upon their upbringing, their faith, the strength of their character, their beliefs and those who love and support them. It will always be better to be around to have to deal with the aftermath than the alternative. I’ll cover this issue to a greater degree in following articles.
CODA:
Let us further assume that you now accept the inalienable right and necessity of self-defense. Let us also assume that you accept the idea that killing–never murder–is justified and is not sinful. Or in the alternative that it is a sin, but that sin may be forgiven for those who sincerely ask for forgiveness. The next article in this series will deal with the political issues of crime, social disorder, and employing deadly force. I’ll get to the matter of attitudes, tactics, weapons and accessories a bit further down the line. I hope to see you next Tuesday on this continuing journey.
Some good moral points you make. Do we not need to also reflect on the why we have laws in a civilized society.. or even what makes a society “civilized’? Retribution, revenge, avenging, reciprocity, eye-for-an-eye… all are more or less emotional responses to violations of local norms. The establishment of laws is for the collective good of all persons… with the enforcement through a judicial process that protects the rights of the victim and the accused to defend themselves, and removes the imposition of a punishment, even execution, .from individual responsibility and emotional retribution.
To borrow from Psychology Today…
“…social justice is impersonal. It revolves around moral correction in situations where certain ethical and culturally vital principles have been violated. When justice is successfully meted out, the particular retribution benefits or protects both the individual and society—which can operate effectively only when certain acceptable behavioral guidelines are followed.”
Law enforcement has been a tool for enforcing our collective laws. In the past we could simply rest on the idea that punishment for breaking laws, along with a certain personal morality toward right & wrong, was enough of a deterrent. With increased populations, mental health maladies, political and religious extremism, and economic desperation, law enforcement when needed is not always possible when one thinks that an AR-15 on semi can release 20 bullets to kill or injure 20 people inside of 10 to 12 seconds… and the cops won’t be on scene for another 3 to 5 minutes. So we buy a gun to (ostensibly) to protect ourselves… or think we can.. and the dynamic of what partially defined our civilized society now changes.
Good points on the religious morality.
But.. and there had to be a “but”… your “Kennedy” story seems a bit questionable…
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jul/18/greg-gutfeld/fox-news-host-cites-ted-kennedy-kgb-meeting-never-/
Dear Doug:
Thanks. The dynamic of our society does not change when citizens act in self-defense. That’s a necessary prerequisite for civilization and the rule of law. Without the unalienable right to self-defense, there can be no such thing as laws against assault, wife beating or even murder. That right exists in recognition of the inestimable value of each human life.
Regarding the Kennedy issue, let’s keep in mind that Politifact, as well as most other “fact checkers” have earned a reputation as D/S/C apologists. But in any case, I’ll provide a link to actually factual information on that situation, and readers, as always, can make up their own minds. Considering Kennedy’s flexible morality, I’ve no doubt he would have used anything against a political enemy, even up to and including treason if he thought he could get away with it, and he did.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/kgb_kennedy_the_ted_kennedy_i.html
Treason is defined in the Constitution as being aiding and abetting a declared enemy in a declared war.
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
To compare, the Rosenbergs were executed as a result of “conspiracy to commit espionage” and not treason.
The reason the “fact checkers” are considered Liberal “apologists” is because their accuracy offends Trump supporters… and Trump himself, of course.
Dear Doug:
Not quite. They’re considered liberal apologists because they lie or mislead to the exclusive benefit of D/S/Cs.
How did I miss this one? The only true conservative here, I’ve sympathized with the inability of Mike to comprehend the true concept of “social justice.” It is so simple: SJ is “impersonal” and therefore SJWs are impersonal, as is Politifact, as is Psychology Today, as is Doug, as I am.
Dear Dug:
“Impersonal.” So that’s what they call it.
I’m late to the party, but I’m gonna go ahead and comment. That politifact article is a good example of why the establishment media is untrustworthy. The USSR was our enemy during the cold war. Plain and simple. Kennedy, through an intermediary, reached out to the Russians proposing that if they helped him win the Presidency, he would de-escalate tensions. This was Treason. Collusion with the enemy for personal gain (and yes, a career politician winning the Presidency IS personal gain.) What motivation would the Soviets have had to lie in that memo? The internal memos of the KGB and the GRU were honest, as the nature of the work meant that relying on Party Truths would often mean failure – which was even less acceptable than violating party truths. Failure or falsification of documents would land you in a Siberian Gulag. The document was classified and never intended for the public. The politifact article first debunks a strawman argument as “false” and then casts aspersions on the authenticity of the memo by quoting the intermediary, who of course denied it. Now if only Kennedy’s office or Kennedy himself had ever denied it. Given Ted Kennedy’s character I fully believe that he reached out and would have happily colluded with the Russians. This article by Forbes does a significantly better job of being honest on the topic.
https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html#779fc18359ab
Get your history.. and terminology correct. The Soviet Union was NEVER a declared enemy (other than being part of the Axis early in WW2) during the Cold War. It was a political adversary… and because of that was a clear & present danger to the U.S. that required continuous military preparedness. Also.. treason is defined in the Constitution as in effect, aiding and abetting an “enemy”… which can only be declared by Congress.
So.. regarding the Ted Kennedy “Russia story”… we can agree that there’s enough explanation versions going around and not one is likely an absolute explanation… and you can pick any that you wish to believe, determined by the point you are trying to make, and whatever supports your personal opinion regarding the character of the man.
Very likely neither one of us, nor anyone else writing about this event in here, knows any truth of what happened. Every Conservative claims to be a “Trump whisperer” and able to explain/defend Trump’s blatherings. But it’s tougher to presume there are “Ted Kennedy whisperers” who know what he was thinking at the time. Given that… Trump is President… Ted Kennedy was not. Apples and oranges. But far more important to me.. who cares.
Dear Doug:
Oh, I know what Teddy was thinking: “how can I get more power, where’s the booze and how can I bed more women?”
Maybe so. But to Trump’s credit, he can claim only two of those thoughts… and got further.
It may just be me, but when I’m carrying deadly force, in a holster on my belt, I find it’s sobering. Knowing that when I pull that weapon out of it’s holster, bring sites on target and squeeze the trigger, I will seriously wound or kill someone, makes me less likely to use said weapon. This is not hollywood, the bad guys don’t get up when the director yells cut. On the other hand, when bullets are headed in my direction or in the direction of someone I feel I need to protect, then I have the tools to deal with the situation. Are there wack jobs in the world? Of course, but when the wack jobs outnumber the good guys, we are truly screwed.
Maybe instead of rushing to sell and buy more guns, we try putting some effort on how to deal with people before they turn into whack jobs.
Dear Doug:
Unfortunately, the majority of gun-wielding criminals are not definable wack jobs.
The democrats dumped them out of the mental institutions during the Regan years. I’m happy to send them back.
Doug,
If only it were that easy.
Phil,
Yes, indeed. Lawsuits by the ACLU in the late 1970s eventually forced the closure of many mental institutions. Forcibly treating mental illness is very difficult within a free society. It’s impossible to objectively determine if someone is a threat to themselves or others, and all citizens are protected against arbitrary imprisonment, so our institutions become revolving doors where someone goes off their meds, gets committed for a few days or weeks, gets back on their meds, and is then released. Wash, rinse, repeat.
For instance, the Colorado movie theater shooter from 2012 was seeing a therapist, who was so worried about him that she violated privacy laws to contact his mother, who downplayed his issues. The therapist claims that he never expressed an intent to kill others, so she couldn’t report him to law enforcement. He killed 12 people.
Mike is absolutely correct about Ted Kennedy. The story was
circulated about 8 years before the fall of the Soviet Union collapsed.
Democrat Senators Kennedy and Gene Tunney indeed traveled to
Moscow in order to undermine President Reagan’s agenda. They
met with Yuri Andropov and addressed the Kremlin. One can cite
Politifact and Snopes all day long, but the story was confirmed
when Boris Yeltsin opened up the Soviet archives to the Western
world.
Another good source of info was the Venona decrypts. It proved
once and for all that Alger Hiss was a paid KGB asset and the
Rosenberg’s were guilty as hell. The decrypts even proved that
Joe McCarthy underestimated the number of Soviet agents that
infiltrated government agencies (especially within the State
Department.)
The lady who cleaned the OSS code room was revealed to be
a Soviet asset and had FDR died a little earlier, his vice president
Henry Wallace (another paid Soviet asset) would have succeeded
him. When Roosevelt met Stalin in Yalta, he told him that America
was developing a super-weapon, Stalin already knew about it
because Los Alamos was crawling with Soviet spies. This is the
difference between Internet warriors and people who actually read!
Roosevelt and Truman both ignored repeated warnings about the
problem of Soviet infiltration of the American government!
I’m impressed that you know the “absolute truth” about Kennedy. Did this all become “obvious” when Trump descended from the heavens?
I’ll stick with the fact checking sources for now, if you don’t mind.
The rest of your reply… I have no idea what you are talking about or how any of this relates to what I said.
Dear Leonard Jones:
Indeed. It’s not possible to think or speak too lowly of the former “Lion of the Senate.”
It became obvious to me because I am a lifelong book whore who
was wolfing down books since I was in my early teens. My tastes
run from classic Western literature, science, politics, current events,
and most of all history! The Venona decrypts have been declassified
and are available online, as are the details of the Soviet archives.
Kennedy and Tunney’s treasonous activities are there waiting for
you to read them. I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen!