Sometimes it's necessary to investigate deeper.
(Sherlock Holmes courtesy of Wikipedia)
An elderly woman and her family were in town for a convention, when an armed intruder broke into their hotel room, demanding their money. She drew her revolver and fired. The attacker suddenly became the retreater, as he ran into the parking lot and expired.
These are the facts of the case, but not if you listen to Old Media. The first report examined here may be guilty of nothing more than lazy reporting, but contains a teachable moment. The second report contains one of Old Media’s favorite lines when attempting to morph self-defense into murder.
NBC’s report was mostly accurate, except for one telltale of bias: “Police considered the city’s 69th homicide of 2009 a self-defense shooting.”
NBC based this statement on the Columbus PD press release, which said this was the 69th homicide of 2009. Perhaps it was a simple oversight, but there is more to the story when the homicide is justified.
The half-truth is that this is a justifiable homicide, but the FBI doesn’t include it in their criminal homicide totals.
According to Sergeant Rich Weiner, Public Information Officer for Columbus, Ohio Police Department, this incident was included in their homicide totals for record keeping purposes. However, Sgt. Weiner stressed that within the law enforcement community, this incident isn’t considered a criminal homicide. “Just because it was classified a homicide for tracking purposes doesn’t always mean it’s a homicide,” said Weiner.
The FBI differentiates between criminal and justifiable homicides:
The Program classifies justifiable homicides separately and limits the definition to: (1) the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty; or (2) the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.
For example, in the FBI’s 2008 Crime in the United States report, Table 1 displays the number of criminal homicides committed for the last 25 years, while Table 15 displays the number of civilian justifiable homicides for the last 5 years. These two numbers taken together–plus the number of law enforcement justifiable homicides from Table 14–equals the total number of homicide records in the Supplemental Homicide data for a given year.
The concern here is that reporting this incident as part of the total homicides may confuse the uneducated reader into believing a 70-year-old lady:
· Added to Columbus’s “gun violence"?
· Committed a criminal act?
WBNS did a good job with their print copy, reporting that the defender has concealed carry license, and that the deceased attacker had a criminal history.
However, in the accompanying video, the announcer leads with: “Police say a 70-year-old woman took the law into her own hands last night."
Here is how Sergeant Weiner responded to the question: Did you tell reporters the lady “took the law into her own hands?"
“No. That phrase is not a fair and accurate depiction of what happened. She was simply defending herself. Had the perpetrator been arrested, he would have been charged with robbery. Also, when a perpetrator forces his way into a dwelling with a gun–it doesn’t matter if he forced his way into an apartment, hotel room, or a house–we would also charge him with kidnapping."
The FBI definition of “robbery” justifies the use of deadly force in self-defense:
The taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear. [emphasis added]
Ohio law states that aggravated robbery is a theft where the perpetrator uses a deadly weapon.
Ohio law provides for self-defense:
[A] person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force.
When somebody enters the place where the defender lawfully has a right to be, intent upon committing a violent felony with a deadly weapon, Ohio law provides immediate remedy to the victim in the form of justifiable self-defense. This is no more taking the law into one’s own hands than is driving one’s car through a controlled intersection when they have a green light.
In addition, by protecting the lives of her family members, the defender took the same actions as a police officer had he/she arrived at the scene while the crime was still unfolding.
This elderly lady was obeying the law.
The only remaining question is: Are the media outlets obeying the higher laws of Truth and Integrity?
****************************************
For in-depth analysis of the issues discussed here, read Howard’s book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?, which deconstructs the gun control agenda and motivates more people to support our civil right of self-defense. Autographed copies are available from the author.
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
This is one granny that I would want to have my back. She carrys a gun that she uses for protection. She brings it with her. And she knows when to use it. Instead of a burden that society teaches us that she could have been in a situation like that she turned out to be the only asset. Good for her. God bless the second amendment.
Good for the Lady. As far as "took the law into her own hands"-that just tells us the reporters bias and laziness; self defense is not vigilante justice, and may we all be vigilant.
Good catch Howard Nemerov.
In a country governed "Of , For and By the People" the law is in my hands as I am a people. Whether I convict a man of murder and sentence him to death as a jury member or shoot him down while in the act as an armed citizen, it matters not. There is no moral or factual difference except that the second scenario is more likely to result in a live victim.
The gun grabbers would have you kneel and take it in the back of the head. I consider this to by not only criminal but ghoulish. I believe every member of the brady coalition should be charged with accessory before the fact in every criminal case that could have been prevented by an armed citizen. Then again, I am just unreasinable like that.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!