I was negligent, and I only just noticed that the link was to the canoe.ca site, which means the Sun newspaper chains, which means reliably right-wing opinion (just tawdrier than the Black/Hollinger/Asper chain).
After quoting John Lott North -- Gary Mauser -- as if he were some sort of genuine authority worth listening to:
"Focus on the guys who are a threat instead of the guys who are not a threat."
he goes on to say:
That makes perfect sense to me, but for those of you who wish we had the same freedom as so many Americans to "pack heat" for personal protection, all I can say is look at the case of poor Karen Brown.
A trained security guard, when she was attacked she didn't have time to use her gun to defend herself. Had she tried drawing it while Aquilina was beating her, he might have forced it from her and used it, on her or someone else.
Damn, not even the Canadian right wing can be counted on for "pro-gun" opinion.
This week Brown was charged with one count of murder. It's hard to imagine her being convicted because she was, after all, doing her job. But had she been a mere citizen with a legal permit to carry a concealed weapon, a conviction would be much more likely, since Aquilina apparently did not pose a threat to her when she killed him.
So it sounds good -- this idea of citizens going around all armed and civil. Especially if the knowledge of that fact deters criminals from attacking people.
But it isn't that simple. Just ask Karen Brown.
Now, the problem with this little thesis seems to be where some in this thread of also run aground.
Killing someone in the course of doing one's job / protecting personal property (e.g. one's employer's cash) is NOT "self-defence". There is no more
lawful justification for killing, or injuring, a person to prevent theft than there is for killing or injuring a person out of spite.
The Winnipeg Sun columnist says:
But she had the gun, and her job was to protect the money, so she killed the robber.
... and if that were actually an accurate summary of what she did -- shoot at the robber
to protect the money, there would be no doubt that it was murder.
Security guards do not carry firearms to protect property -- they carry them to protect themselves because of their heightened vulnerability to assault.
Some interesting tidbits:
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C4057%2C10328882%255E421%2C00.htmlInfuriated by her decision to conduct media interviews before speaking with investigators about the events of last Monday at Moorebank, police had threatened to charge Brown in absentia if she failed to meet them.
... Channel 7's Today Tonight program last night aired the controversial interview with Brown, for which she was paid $100,000.
Crying throughout the interview - which was recorded at the weekend - Brown said she was devastated for herself and Aquilina's family.
"I'm just so sorry for his family and for him," she said.
"I know what they would be going through. I wish I would wake up tomorrow and my life's normal again ... which it won't be."
In light of those facts, I really think it is reasonable to wonder how many of the tears were of the crocodile variety, and how much of her message was prepared for the purpose of swaying public opinion while she still did not know whether she would be charged.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/02/1091432112969.html?from=moreStories&oneclick=trueIn the days after the shooting Brown was declared medically unfit to give a police interview but managed to speak to Today Tonight and a newspaper. The move infuriated police, who gave her until 6pm on Sunday to attend the Liverpool police station. She failed to meet the deadline but was finally interviewed yesterday afternoon, six hours before the recorded interview went to air.
Asked on Today Tonight why she had waited a week before giving a statement to police, Brown said: "I didn't know whether I was going to be charged, whether I was going to get jail. I really wanted someone there to look after me."
Her barrister, Joseph Busuttil, said the fee would cover her medical and legal expenses.
Doesn't Australia still have public health care insurance?
Asked if she thought Mr Aquilina might kill her, Brown answered "yes", because she thought the flash she saw was a knife. "I would never go and just shoot someone dead like that, for God's sake," she said.
Of course, she saw the "something silver" *before* she was first struck by him, and when she shot him he had stopped beating her.
Nonetheless, I remain entirely open to the idea that she was a perfectly normal Australian who did not harbour revenge fantasies and was not retaliating for the robber's theft of the property it was her job to protect, and really, and
reasonably in her circumstances, was scared out of her mind and believed that her life was in immediate danger.
The "battered woman" defence is one example of the point here. The reasonableness of the belief in the immediate danger to one's life does depend on the individual's experience, and it simply may be too much to expect of a particular individual in particular circumstances that s/he analyze the situation with the calm and cool eye that someone outside the situation could bring to it.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
