FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE

Monday

Taking The Law Into Your Own Hands

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Many of you will recognize this statement as being in the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. This document set the stage for the foundation of our country. It threw off the old form of Government, the oppressive British crown, and declared the desire to establish a new Government based on inalienable freedom. The role of this new Government is to protect those inalienable rights.

Read that opening paragraph again, and answer this question. Where does the Government derive its power? They are granted the power to protect our rights from the consent of the Governed. In essence, we, as free people, hire them to do a job.

However, what happens if the Government or one of its institutions is not able to provide that protection? What happens when our very life is threatened, and the Government isn’t there to stop it? The duty is ours. We have created provisions in our laws, based on the idea of self-defense, that protect us from Government retribution if we are forced to act in self-preservation.

With that said, why do we keep hearing the phrase “people can’t take the law into their own hands?” The law IS in our hands. We hire police officers to protect and serve. Our consent gives them their just powers. But, if they are not present when our life is being threatened, the responsibility falls on us.

Last week, Catarino Piedra, a store owner in Oakland, California, was faced with this situation. And he acted.

Last Thursday, a man named Allen Hicks entered Piedra’s pizzeria armed with a gun and tried to rob him. Held up at gunpoint, Piedra had a decision to make. His wife and three children were also in the restaurant. All of their lives were in danger. This was a matter of self-preservation and the protection of his family. So, Piedra picked up his own gun from behind the counter and killed Hicks.

The act was completely justified. No one can argue that.

But, remember. It’s California. So, they’ll certainly try to argue it. First of all, the San Francisco Chronicle refers to this as a tragedy. Why? What tragic thing happened? A criminal threatened the life of this man and that of his family. He put himself in that position. Piedra acted ethically and in accordance with the law.

Secondly, a spokesman for the San Francisco police department made the following statement:


"This thing had potential -- who knows where the suspects were going to take the situation? But by no stretch of the imagination are we agreeing with or justifying what the owner did.

We're not saying that we want citizens to go out there and arm themselves and take the law into their own hands. We want citizens to be good witnesses, to be good report-takers and to identify suspects."

How cute. They want us to be good witnesses and good report-takers. They want us to be defenseless peons that can’t survive with out the omnipotent Government there to protect us. Screw you. If it is kill or be killed, and you aren't there to do your damn job, we will act. We refuse to stand idly by while criminals threaten our lives. In that situation, I would take a gun in my hand over a freakin' notepad any day.

He also used the phrase, “take the law into their own hands.” As I have already explained, this statement is in complete contrast with the spirit of our law.

On top of all of that, the San Francisco police department can’t even bring themselves to justify what Piedra did. But, it doesn't matter. Whether they like it or not, he was justified. The police weren’t there to do the job that Piedra hired them to do. So, he took action. Case closed.


This report is also a classic case of media bias. The San Francisco Chronicle felt that this was a perfect opportunity to espouse their anti-gun feelings. First, The Chronicle made room in the article to quote an anti-gun business owner:


Mohammed Ali, the manager of a market on the busy thoroughfare that has seen its share of robberies, had mixed feelings about business owners arming themselves. "Of course they have a right to protect themselves, but from what? If we have law enforcement, should (businesses) have guns? I don't think so. They're inviting trouble."


Moving past the obvious idiocy of Ali's statement, why is this quote even in the article? What possible relevance does it have to the situation at hand? It serves no other purpose than to promote the anti-gun agenda of the San Francisco Chronicle.

Then, in a heroic story of a husband who protected his family, the Chronicle thought it was necessary to end the story this way:


Hicks was remembered at a growing makeshift memorial Friday near the corner of 90th Avenue and Olive Street in East Oakland. Friends left balloons, candles and bottles of Hennessy cognac on the street and wrote messages on white boards tied to a fence.

"Hard-headed ass, Boonie," one message read. "The world's gone miss u boy."

"He always had a smile on his face," said a 22-year-old man who identified himself as a rapper named Little Al. "He was a solid dude, loyal."

He didn't express any anger at the pizzeria owner for shooting his friend. "Life happens," he said. "I'm not upset, you feel me? You wouldn't want it to happen, but it happened. Ain't no telling why that shooting occurred.

That’s right. They memorialized the criminal. They dedicated the last half of the story in fond remembrance of the perpetrator. They even quoted an ex-girlfriend, who Hicks abused. She told the Chronicle that he was a “good person.”

Wrong. He wasn’t a good person. He was a thief. He threatened the life of Piedra and his family.

The fact that his life ended during one of his criminal exploits is justice.

1 Comments:

  • No Comments!?
    Excellent BLog!

    A man can not truly be free if he does not have the ability to protect him self. Was a man who had a gun ever take as a slave? NO!! They either took his gun away or he died a free man.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At August 16, 2008 10:07 AM  

Post a Comment



<< Home