Canadian Cincinnatus

Why is nobody paying attention to the racist mass murders in Tulsa, Oklahoma?

Over the weekend, two white men were charged in the shooting deaths of three black people and the wounding of two others in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The killers were both charged with murder and “hate crime charges”. They have both confessed to the killings but have pled not guilty to murder. The killings appear to be random in that there is no known connection between the victims and the killers. Given this and the fact that the only common denominator between the victims is that they are all black, it is reasonable to assume that racial hatred was the motive (in spite of protestations to the contrary by one of the accused).

So, if the media is so concerned about anti-black racism, where is the collective outrage over this slam-dunk case of racial hate-crime? Where is the sustained moral indignation?

Considering the fact that the circumstances of the Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman case are much more ambiguous, why is that case garnering so much more media oxygen? Why didn’t the New Black Panther Party issue a bounty on the heads of the two white killers? Why hasn’t Mike Tyson called for them to be shot? And why hasn’t Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson organized demonstrations and threatened riots? 

Could it be that the problem with the Tulsa case is that it is too uncontroversial? Not uncontroversial in that people aren’t morally outraged by it, but uncontroversial in that a vast majority of the people are outraged over it in the same way. In other words, if everybody – black and white - finds these killings utterly deplorable, there is no opportunity to sow racial discord. At best, you have a Dead Man Walking – style debate about capital punishment. These days, ho hum.

In contrast, recent polls show the opinions of whites and blacks divergent on the Martin – Zimmerman case, with whites lining up behind the neighbourhood watch volunteer and blacks lining up behind the innocent victim. Lots of potential for controversy – and getting your name in the paper. Just like the O J Simpson trial!

Something to consider when pondering the motives of those sensationalizing the events in Sanford, Florida.

 

 

Once again, our right to self-defense is under attack by the Province of Ontario

In March of this year, Ontario’s crown prosecutors persecuted Ian Thompson of Welland for the crime of defending himself against multiple armed attackers who assaulted his house in the wee hours of the morning. Mr. Thompson’s sin was that he used a gun to defend himself and his property (which was being firebombed). I wrote about it here and here. The result was a legal nightmare for Ian Thompson, that I had thought he had won, thanks to public pressure that gun rights activists had brought to bear on this case.

But I now hear from Mr. Thompson’s lawyer, Ed Burlew, that the persecution still lingers to this day. According to Mr. Burlew, “The charges of weapons dangerous and careless use were dropped. However, the crown is still prosecuting Mr. Thompson on the charges of careless storage of the firearms and a two-day trial is scheduled for January 30 and 31.”

If you know anything about Canadian gun law in, you will know that careless storage is the catchall charge that the cops use to go after gun owners if they want to get them when they haven’t done anything wrong. Any reasonable prosecutor would have dropped the matter completely when the careless use charges were dropped. Of course, any reasonable prosecutor would not have pursued this outrageous matter in the first place. What is happening is that an obstinate persecutor is going after Mr. Thompson out of spite.

His lawyer, Ed Burlew, is appealing for donations again, as Mr. Thompson is (or was) unemployed and is therefore not wealthy. I have mailed in my cheque. To see how you can help Mr. Thompson (and help protect our right to defend ourselves), please call Ed Burlew’s office at 905-882-2422.

 

The solution to flash mob violence

A disturbing new trend in the US is racist violence perpetrated by blacks on non-blacks using flash mob tactics (more details here, here and here). For a few years, flash mobs have been a harmless phenomenon: a bunch of bored teenagers in their twenties and thirties congregate in some public place to perform in unison some harmless activity. The joke is that while the whole things seems spontaneous to onlookers, it has been organized via the Internet, facebook, twitter and text messages. This summer, this trend has taken a violent twist with gangs of black ‘youth’s’ using flash mob tactics to violently attack non-white people. This phenomenon first surfaced at various beaches in Chicago this June. It made the big time when it occurred at the Wisconsin State Fair in early August. Ever since, the mainstream media has been doing its best to ignore the phenomenon.

Here are three possible solutions to this problem:

More policing. Hardly a solution. One of the hallmarks of the flash mob beatings is that they can happen anywhere and occur without warning. What makes it so frightening is that many of the attacks have occurred well within neighborhoods that were considered very safe. You would have to put a cop on every single street corner. Good luck with that. Even if you could afford to put a cop on every single street corner, who would want to live in a society like that?

Take control of the Internet, most particularly social media. I’m sure he People’s Republic of China could sell us some useful software in this regard.

Just let the beating continue. After all, the overall violent crime rate is still declining (at least in the US). I’m sure this is the answer favoured by white liberals, who love to wallow in white guilt inside their gated communities.

All of these solutions are either ineffective, promote police-state tendencies in the government or are a mixture of both. 

The only real solution? Enable the private citizen.

A good example is 9/11, when private initiative was the only effective force combating Islamic terrorism. The government should encourage the ‘let’s roll’ ethos. Concealed carry laws are a good start. Fortunately, many states already have such laws on the books. Second, the criminal law should be modified so that people are protected from legal action when they do exercise their right to self-defense, or for that matter their defense of other innocents. Third, the power of citizen’s arrest should be reaffirmed. And lastly, the authorities should not only encourage people to protect themselves but publicly and loudly exhort them to defend the public peace, telling them that doing so is part of their civic duty. Past a certain point, civic duty cannot be outsourced to professionals. 

In the US, the last step would be most effective, as progress have already been made with regard to the first three. In Canada, we have got to start working on all four steps – before this kind of violence comes up here.

 

The right of Canadians to self-defence under attack again by our legal system

Peter Worthington relays another tale of outrage perpetrated by the Canadian legal system on an honest citizen:

The Chen case pales before the most recent incident in Toronto, where a guy escorting his girlfriend to her home at night, found signs of a break-end-enter, and checked out the house.

He found a burglar hiding, and in the ensuing fight the interloper was stabbed several times and ran away. He was admitted to hospital, but was not charged.

When the police eventually arrived, the guy who fought with the burglar was charged with “aggravated assault” — using unreasonable force by stabbing the guy.

If found guilty — as unlikely is this case — he could get 14 years. 

This is nuts.

This is nuts. And it is indicative of the contempt that the ruling classes have for the average citizen.

If asked why they are so hostile to the right of self defence, doubtlessly the cops and lawyers inhabiting our legal system would cite a fear of vigilantism, ‘street justice’ and kangaroo courts.

This is contrary to the experience in the US where the only measurable result when “castle laws” are introduced is that the crime rate drops. It seems that criminals are opportunists who discount the future heavily. They are looking for an easy buck and the prospect of facing physical resistance right now weighs much more heavily on their minds than the possible prospect of a prison sentence a year or so from now.

In contrast, the motivation of the legal system apparatchiks is a combination of paternalistic arrogance (“we know what’s best for you”), fear of job security (“hey! that’s my job, not yours”) and an ambient socialist pose that is so omnipresent that it is not even acknowledged by those afflicted by it.

In reality, the right to self-defence is our most basic right, even more basic than freedom of speech (and I am a big proponent of freedom of speech). If we aren’t allowed to even defend ourselves, what in blazes have we allowed ourselves to become?

 

Why was the teen - charged in Constable Garrett Styles’ death - charged with first degree murder?

The distinction between first degree and second degree murder is that with first degree murder, the killer must have a premeditated idea or plan for what he did. With second degree murder, the killer acted upon a spur-of-the-moment emotional reaction. This legal distinction separates cold-blooded and hot-blooded murder.

According to the newspapers, the relevant circumstances of the story are as follows: the good constable pulled over a minivan on a country road at night; it was driven by a 15 year old who had taken it from his parents to go joyriding; in the middle of the traffic stop, the van accelerated forward without warning; Constable Styles hung on, trying to reach for the ignition key (so that he must have been leaning into the drivers side window as the car lurched forward); and after 300 m of this arrangement, the van rolled over into the ditch killing the officer and wounding the driver.

Where do you see first degree murder in this scenario? Heck, this isn’t even second degree murder!

I see no evidence at all of any intent to kill on the driver’s part. The worst thing that he could be guilty of is criminal levels of recklessness, i.e. manslaughter. The driver’s most probable train of thought - consistent with the known facts - are: “Oh shit! The cops are pulling me over. I’m in trouble now. My parents will be pissed. I might even be charged with auto theft!” Panic set in during the questioning and he bolts, hoping to get away and somehow fix the mess he found himself in – perhaps by ditching the minivan and hoping the cops come to believe it was stolen.

Isn’t this hypothetical narrative a bit more likely than an express intent on the driver’s part to kill Constable Styles? somehow knowing in advance that Styles would hang on to the minivan in such a way that he could be conveniently crushed in a rollover.

And as unlikely as that is, it is at best second degree murder. For the teen to have committed first-degree - i.e. premeditated - murder, he would have had to have taken the minivan from his parents with the express purpose – fully formed in his mind at the time he turned the key in his parents’ driveway - of killing a cop.

No, I don’t think even the Crown Attorney is so gullible as to believe this. What I think is happening here is that the criminal justice system is lashing out emotionally because one of their own was killed. Such a reaction is understandable, and in other circumstances it can even be socially valuable (to deter career criminals from intimidating peace officers). In this case however it is not only unjustified but ugly. The driver is no predatory criminal. He is no murderer. Where, in the known facts of the case, does he demonstrate sinister intent?

The justice system should be run by level-headed adults. And if we don’t want to see arrogant government departments behaving like bullies, they should be slapped down hard when they do. Hopefully the judge in this case will do so in the trial.

Two Maryland teens get charged with a hate crime, but not the hate crime that they actually committed

According to this Fox News story, the two black teenage girls who viciously beat a white transsexual woman in a Maryland McDonalds last month are being charged with a hate crime in addition to assault. A cell phone video of the protracted beating ended up on the internet, generating widespread revulsion and disgust after Drudge linked to it. One thing is for sure: after viewing it, there is no way you can conclude that the principal alleged attacker is “a very nice young lady” as her lawyer describes her.

The attackers were black and the victim is white. Therefore it is possible that anti-white racism was at least a partial motive. Indeed, the police have charged the two ‘nice young ladies’ with a hate crime, but not for an anti-white hate crime but for an anti-gay hate crime. I have my doubts about the police’s own motive in the decision.

From the video, anti-white racism is strongly suggested. I think this was why people reacted to it the way they did. I think the cops wanted to charge her with an anti-white hate crime but racial politics in Maryland and political correctness in general gave them second thoughts. I think when it came out that the victim was transgendered, everybody seized on that because it is a safe, uncontroversial motive for a hate crime. 

Why do I think this? Partly from the video, where the victim looks like a white woman. I was certainly clued out about the victim’s transgendered status when I first saw it and I think the perpetrators were as well. Consider the fact that just prior to the assault, the ‘nice young lady’ had accused the victim of ‘looking at her man’. This suggests sexual jealously as one motive. Would the lead attacker be as jealous of a transsexual looking at her man as she would of a white woman? I strongly doubt it. If she had been aware of the victim’s sexual status, I think the ‘nice lady’ probably would have just contemptuously laughed at her, secure in the knowledge that ‘her man’ wouldn’t be tempted.

All of which illustrates the folly of hate crime as a legal concept - the reason why I bring the whole incident up in the first place. While I think part of the reason white people reacted to the video as strongly as they did was because they felt personally threatened by what they saw (“Hey! That could happen to me!”), what difference should that make to the court proceedings? The fact is, aggravated assault is an ugly thing - regardless of the motive. Would it have been any less ugly if the victim had the same sex and skin colour as the attackers? Doubtlessly the video would have been less controversial, but the harm inflicted would have been the same.

All the hate crime angle does is inject grievance politics and increasingly convoluted PC metaphysics (‘How many holocaust deniers can dance on the head of a pin?’) into what is really (or what should be) a straightforward criminal matter. The sex and skin of the participants should be irrelevant to the prosecutors - except in determining motive. 

 

The right to self-defense is the citizen’s most important right

Many people, especially liberals make the claim that the right to free speech is our most important right. Others believe it is freedom of the press. Still others assert freedom of assembly, or the right to free elections. In contrast, I assert that as important and fundamental as those rights are, there is one right more fundamental still, and that is a right to self-defense.

This right, or rather, the absence of this right is illustrated by the Ian Thomson case. As I detailed in a post a couple of weeks ago, Ian Thomson is an unemployed person living in Port Colborne who woke up early last August 22 to what he thought were gunshots. They turned out to be not gunshots but explosions from Molotov cocktails that were thrown into his house by three armed thugs. While assaulting him with deadly force, they yelled death threats at him to get him to stay inside and burn to death. Most properly it can be said that Ian Thomson’s life was in deadly danger.

To respond, he grabbed a handgun that was legally registered to him and stored in accordance with the Firearm Act’s safe storage requirements and proceeded outside to face God knows what. He fired three warning shots at his would-be murders and they fled. For his troubles, the cops charged him with “unsafe use of a firearm,” “pointing a firearm” and “careless storage of a firearm”.  

Apparently the Crown Prosecutors thinks what Ian Thomson did was wrong. I ask, so what is Ian Thomson supposed to have done? Is it his duty as a Canadian citizen to throw himself at the mercy of firebombers? And if they decide to not be merciful is it his duty to let his murderers kill him? Or is he allowed to resist, but only after every option for defending himself is no longer possible? Hey, Mr. Prosecutor! Isn’t that too late?

From this case, and from the David Chen case last fall, it is clear that our prosecutors’ answers to the above question are: submit, yes, yes, yes and yes. As I said about the David Chen affair, “Public safety is not the main motivating factor in the police department’s disapproval. Rather, cops don’t like spontaneous citizen action because it infringes on their monopoly on force. They look at citizen arrests the way unionized city garbagemen view private contractors who haul away the trash for less money.” 

It can be seen that, from Ian Thomson’s point of view at 6 AM on August 22, his right to self-defense trumped his right to say what he wanted, operate a printing press, assemble in a crowd or elect a city councillor. We must understand that the difference between Ian Thomson and any one of us is circumstances, at least if the prosecutors – theoretically our servants – have their way. We are all Ian Thomson because if he loses his case, we will live in a country where it is everybody’s duty to be a victim. And if you are about to be a murder victim, who cares about anything else?

Columnist Lorne Gunther has related thoughts.

There is a rally to support Ian Thomson tomorrow put on by the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA). The following is copied from the CSSA press release.

“CSSA members are encouraged to attend a rally of support for Ian Thomson on March 2nd at 9:00 a.m. in Welland, ON. Mr. Thomson (of Welland) was recently charged with numerous firearms offences when he defended himself again three masked men throwing Molotov cocktails at his home and dog house. While Mr. Thomson was not injured, one of his dogs suffered burns.  CSSA General Counsel and noted firearms lawyer Edward L. Burlew LL.B., is defending Thomson. If you feel Canadians must be allowed to protect their own safety and property without being forced to defend themselves against criminal charges, come and show your support. The rally will be held at the Welland Court House, 102 East Main Street, Welland, Ontario L3B 3W6 and all caring citizens are encouraged to participate.”

As I already mentioned in my last article on this subject, Mr. Thomson has now been reduced to poverty by this persecution. For this reason, Mr. Thomson’s lawyer, Ed Burlew is urgently soliciting donations for Mr. Thomson’s defense. Details of how you can help out can be found by calling Mr. Burlew’s office at 1-888-486-5677.

 

 

The Right to Self-Defense Under Attack Again in Canada

Once again, Ontario’s Crown prosecutors are assaulting the right of Canadian citizens to defend themselves. Last fall it was Toronto Chinatown grocer, David Chen, who made a citizens arrest against a shoplifter who had been robbing him blind for years, and whom the cops charged with assault for his troubles. 

Now it is an unemployed Port Colborne man in his 50’s, Ian Thomson, who was charged with using a firearm, “namely a handgun” “without lawful excuse”. His crime was to defend his property and his life when three masked men assaulted his house in the middle of the night with Molotov cocktails while yelling death threats. He came out of his house armed with a handgun while his house burned.

Thomson was also charged with unlawful storage of a restricted firearm. According to the prosecutors: what he did was “without lawful excuse, store a firearm, namely a revolver, in a careless manner.” His handgun was unloaded and stored in a locked safe prior to this incident. 

My God! What on earth has gotten into our prosecutors? What moral disease are they labouring under? When they behave this way, they are no longer public protectors, but public enemies.

Unfortunately, as a result of their efforts, Mr. Thomson has now been reduced to poverty by thugs – both legal and illegal. For this reason, Mr. Thomson’s lawyer, Ed Burlew is urgently soliciting donations for Mr. Thomson’s defense. Details of how you can help out can be found by calling Mr. Burlew’s office at 1-888-486-5677. I’ve made my donation. An interview of Ed Burlew explaining the case can be viewed under the “Right Interviews” section at the Daily Split web site.

Ed Burlew is also calling for people to come out and provide moral support to Ian Thomson at his next court appearance, on March 2, 2011. Please show up at 9 AM for a “peaceful day of protest.” The Welland Court House is located at 102 East Main St., Welland, ON.

Please remember that this is not just about the profound injustice done to Ian Thomson. As of this moment, Ian Thomson is not only defending himself but also the right of every Canadian citizen to defend himself against violent threat. 

 

The David Chen case shows why Mayor David Miller was powerless to stop crime in Toronto

When it comes to crime control, David Miller’s City Hall is like the hapless gang who can’t shoot straight. When Jamaican drugs gangs got caught up in a violent drug war a few years ago, David Miller targeted gun clubs, where peaceable citizens go to practice their law-abiding sport. While some of them may be guilty of paperwork crimes dreamed up by Alan Rock and Kim Campbell, they have absolutely nothing to do with the competitive activities of drug dealers. When Miller tried to explain away his perverted priorities by asserting that gangs get most of their guns by stealing them from law abiding gun owners, he not only further obfuscated the distinction between victims and criminals, he also contradicted an OPP study which concluded that most guns used in crime are imported from the US. End result: gun crime in Toronto unaffected during his tenure.

And now when a confrontation between a thief and a law-abiding merchant ensue, David Miller’s police force targets the merchant. Make no mistake about it, David Chen’s persecution is not accidental. It is a deliberate act of police policy. It is not an accident that police response time to shoplifting in Chinatown is measured in hours while their response time to law-abiding citizens defending themselves is measured in minutes. The police have their priorities; when they decide which call to go to first, they go down the priority list. Protecting criminals from ‘vigilantes’ (i.e. law abiding citizens) is high on that list. Theft from those same law abiding citizens is a bit lower down. Even then, the cops could have chosen to interpret Chen’s citizen arrest as having occurred while the crime was being committed instead of afterwards. Given that Chen arrested the man immediately after he had stolen something from him, this would have been a reasonable interpretation and there the matter would have rested. But they didn’t, thus precipitating the current controversy. This happened only because somebody higher up values the rights of criminals more than the rights of citizens. 

If Miller had concentrated on prosecuting criminals instead of persecuting citizens he might have gotten somewhere with Toronto’s crime rate but he didn’t. This is one reason why he is hated and most people will be glad that on Oct 26^th his unionized garbagemen will take him out with the rest of the trash.

 

Self-defence and the justice system in the age of David Chen

Us conservatives love law and order. As a result we naturally side with cops, prosecutors and hard-boiled judges. Normally I am no exception. On the flip side, we are also predisposed to personal responsibility and are inherently suspicious of big government as it accumulates more power. The trial surrounding David Chen citizen’s arrest case detailed yesterday’s post is what Barack Obama might call a ‘teachable moment’ for us. What it teaches conservatives is that the justice system is not immune to the flaws inherent in other Big Government departments so that we should never uncritically embrace the expansion of police power.

The truth of the matter is that the justice system behaves like every other government entity when their monopoly is being threatened. Normally cops and citizens are united in their hatred of bad guys, but the interests of the two groups diverge when it comes to self-defence. The average law abiding person loves it when his fellow citizen gets the better of a hooligan. But not the police, as evidenced by the ubiquitous police department spokesman who warns us on TV that people should not resist criminals: “It’s dangerous,” he intones, as if obeying psychopaths is safe. The existence of plenty of sociological studies, which conclude just the opposite (that resistance is at least marginally safer than obedience, and that the armed citizen is a better deterrent than even capital punishment), is neither here nor there to him. Public safety is not the main motivating factor in the police department’s disapproval. Rather, cops don’t like spontaneous citizen action because it infringes on their monopoly on force. They look at citizen arrests the way unionized city garbagemen view private contractors who haul away the trash for less money.

The David Chen incident also teaches us is that ordinary citizens can sometimes be far more effective than the government. David Chen caught the thief as soon as he attempted it. The Metro cops, who are paid 70+K a year to serve and protect him, were stumped for years. As Glenn Reynolds likes to point out, the self-organized citizenry is a pack not a herd.