Refresh the page (if you still see the old one) and see if you think the new one is better.
United Press International has their amusing version of the culture clash between Texas folkways and a Danish reporter, Terkel Svensson. Along with many other journalists, Mr. Svensson was in Texas to cover the meeting between President Bush and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
As UPI noted, “don’t mess with Texas” - but I’ll bet the journalists from Denmark weren’t briefed on the cultural oddities of The Lone Star State before they left home. That was careless.
The Copenhagen Post has the story featured, too, so I thought we should go with the impressions of the reporter’s home country:
Ritzau journalist Terkel Svensson apparently could not get an internet connection on his laptop computer at the building in Crawford, Texas, where he and other reporters were covering President Bush’s meeting with the Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
Svensson went outside to call his colleagues in Denmark on his mobile phone and began walking while he talked. He became acutely aware he was in [a] woman’s garden when an older lady came outside the house and shouted, ‘Get off my property - you’re trespassing’.
He skedaddled out of there. However, it wasn’t until he viewed pictures of the encounter later that he realized she’d been - to use the American lexicon - “packing heat.” The little old lady had a revolver in hand.
Imagine what might have happened had he not understood English, especially Texas-style. He could have approached her to ask a question and that would have been that. No doubt, the Danes would have been very angry when the old lady was found “not guilty.” The American-Danish relationship would never have recovered.
However, lest you think that this quality is peculiar to Texans, there are a number of other states who permit “The Castle Doctrine,” which is derived from English Common Law. The Copenhagen report says seventeen other states have such laws in place, but the number is quite a bit higher than that, says Wikipedia:
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one’s place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one’s car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her “castle”), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine.
- - - - - - - - -
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
North Carolina
Oklahoma §21-1289.25
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
Utah
Wyoming
Read the full article to see which other states are considering such laws. By the way, Florida reports its statistics in this legislation. In 2005, (before the guns laws become more liberal) Florida had 762,859 violent crimes. Two years later, in 2007, the number had dropped to 638,256 for 2007. The latter figure is an estimate from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Uniform Crime Reports. What is even more pertinent is the fact that the significant decrease occurred in spite of population growth. If the figure seems large, remember that Florida is overrun by illegal aliens and drug runners, often doing each other in.
So is there a nation-wide correlation between gun laws and lower crime rates? It certainly looks that way:
20% of U.S. Violent Crime occurs in four cities: New York, Chicago, Washington D.C., & Detroit. These cities have near prohibition laws regarding handgun ownership.
1976- Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Effect: Murder has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
New York City - Up 15% between 1998 and 1999. The SAME time frame that new handgun restrictions came into effect.
In 1986, Florida Adopted the Right-To-Carry law, allowing citizens to carry firearms. The results from 1987-1996:
Homicide Rate: DECREASED 36%
Homicide by Firearm: DECREASED 37%
Homicide by Handgun: DECREASED 41%
Ninety-three percent of Police officers believe law-abiding citizens should be able to purchase a firearm for self-defense or sport.
Initially, law enforcement was against gun ownership but the evidence is in: gun ownership lowers crime. Lately, there is a push to allow Washington D.C. residents to own guns. It is obvious that the criminals are heavily armed, which leaves law-abiding citizens in the nation’s capital at a definite disadvantage.
Despite the anguish of the pushers of strict gun control laws, the national sentiment seems to be moving in the other direction. In fact, my list may be outdated by now.
This idea of gun ownership and the right to protect oneself is deeply engraved in American folklore, and it is unlikely to change.
Here’s a song from the 1940’s, one which Bing Crosby made popular. The link has a free download so you hear that distinctive Texas swing. There is nothing quite like it, even when city-slickered up by Bing Crosby:
“Pistol Packin’ Mama”
Lay that pistol down, Babe
Lay that pistol down
Pistol packing mama
Lay that pistol down
Oh, drinking beer in a cabaret
Was I having fun
Until one night she caught me right
And now I’m on the run
Oh, lay that pistol down, Babe
Lay that pistol down
Pistol packing mama
Lay that pistol down
Oh, I’ll sing you every night Bing
And I’ll woo you every day
I’ll be your regular mama
And I’ll put that gun away
Oh, lay that pistol down, Babe
Lay that pistol down
Pistol packing mama
Lay that thing down before it goes off and hurts somebody
Oh, she kicked out my windshield
And she hit me over the head
She cussed and cried and said I lied
And she wished that I was dead
Oh, lay that pistol down, Babe
Lay that pistol down
Pistol packing mama
Lay that pistol down
We’re 3 tough gals
From deep down Texas way
We got no pals
They don’t like the way we play
We’re a rough rooting tooting shooting trio
But you ought to see my sister Cleo
She’s a terror make no error
But there ain’t no nicer terror
Here’s what we tell her
Lay that pistol down, Babe
Lay that pistol down
Pistol packing mama
Lay that pistol down
Pappy made a batch of corn
The revenuers came
The draught was slow
So now they know
You can’t do that to Mame
Lay that pistol down, Babe
Lay that pistol down
Pistol packing mama
Lay that pistol down
Oh, singing songs in a cabaret
Was I having fun
Until one night it didn’t seem right
And now I’m on the run
Oh, lay that pistol down, Babe
Lay that pistol down
Pistol packing mama
Lay that pistol down
Oh, pistol packing mama
Lay that pistol down...
Somewhere I have pictures of my brother and me in cowboy/cowgirl outfits we'd gotten for Christmas. I was twirling my pearl-handled six-shooter with great élan.
I wonder if they can even sell such toys now that the nanny state is in charge of children's minds.
Hat tip: TB and DB
24 comments:
From 1982 to 2007, Oregon had a requirement to escape or retreat if possible, established by a Oregon Supreme Court ruling in 1982. In March 2007 the Oregon Supreme Court overturned that ruling, so the old self-defense standard was restored. Moral of the story: don't threaten violence to an Oregonian, on or off their property.
Add Colorado to the list with the Make My Day Law, it doesn't branch out to businesses and automobiles yet, but it's the same concept. Many states also have concealed carry permits too, and enable qualified individuals to do what's necessary to save a life.
In Arkansas deadly force is allowed but not in defense of property only. If you catch someone carrying your TV out the door you have to be able to prove he was trying to kill you with it. That's the law.
In practice, however, most prosecutors are loathe to bring charges against those who defend their homes against invasion, especially if the defender is elderly or disabled.
On a personal note, no member of my wife's family enters my mother-in-law's house unexpectedly without loudly proclaiming: "Don't shoot! It's only me."
As a lawyer and a Texan, let me start off by noting that the statements contained in the Copenhagen Post article are totally false. Given the facts stated, the woman could not have legally shot the reporter. Deadly force is not authorized in Texas, or anywhere else in America in response to mere trespass. In Texas, deadly force is justified in defend oneself, or a third party, from an immediate threat of violence. The belief that one is threatened by violence must be reasonable. One cannot simply shoot someone at random and claim "I felt threatened!" The perception of a threat must be connected with some action or circumstance that would cause a hypothetical reasonable person to believe they were threatened with immediate bodily harm.
Deadly force is also justified in Texas to prevent a felon from escaping with stolen property, or in the case of criminal mischief at night.
So, the woman was justified in holding a gun, but she could not have fired at the reporter unless he took some act sufficient to create a reasonable perception that she was threatened with bodily harm. Had she shot him without further provocation, she could have been charged with murder.
It is very important to remember that she was only holding the gun. She did not point it at the reporter and she certainly did not fire.
The reporters statement that she “pulled a gun”. She didn’t in the sense that she did not point it at him.
Let’s put this in context. She lives near Bush’s Crawford ranch. That area has been overrun with Cindy Shehan wackos, protestors, counter-protestors and nut jobs of all shapes, sizes and varieties. I don’t blame her for being suspicious of oddly behaving strangers. Given the extent that elderly people are victims of robbery, assault, burglary and worse, she was only acting reasonably in having a weapon, just in case. She had no reason to know that the person aimlessly wandering in her front yard was an absent minded reporter looking for an internet signal. Holding a handgun, just in case, was a very sensible precaution. If the trespasser had evil intent, I doubt she would have time to call the police. And if she had, they would have arrived only in time to string tape around the crime scene.
The real story here is not that an elderly woman might hold a weapon to protect herself in the event that she is attacked. The real story is that many Europeans and some Americans are so shocked by such a thing. The inhibition against individual and societal self defense is so strong in Europe as to be pathological. I fear that this disease may be spreading to America. Imagine that some “youths” arrived at that woman’s house to burn her car. Her response would be justified and admirable. The response in similar circumstances in some European cities is contemptible and sickening.
Add Washington to the list, too: while we don't have a recently-padded Castle Doctrine by that name, we're very much in the majority that gives a huge presumption of self-defense to those who use deadly force inside their own homes.
Thank God Svensson wasn't driving a car! If was so engrossed in a phone conversation while walking, oblivious to the fact he was trampling through a ladies garden... just think what damage he could have done while driving a car. Please European reporters, show caution when using your cell phones. Practice situational awareness. Tender young zucchini sprouts and begonias are very fragile this time of year.
I mean, come on. How clueless can a guy be when he doesn't realize that he has wandered into someone's garden. It's not a common mistake, like forgetting to zip your fly or dialing a wrong number or something. I mean, if I was in Denmark and got caught stepping on someone's flowers, are they going to say, "Well just keeping stomping on my tulips all you want Mr American because you're talking on a cell phone"? No. They are going to be pissed off and they are going to call the cops.
Where did you get that map? Hawaii needs coloring in and SD and ND aren't listed but colored in.
Dympna said: "No doubt, the Danes would have been very angry when the old lady was found “not guilty.” The American-Danish relationship would never have recovered."
Danes angry because some mindless journalist got himself wasted by an old lady?.... No way! - You don't know us well enough, dear Dympna. Please ask the Baron, and he'll tell you what: ..they'll laugh their asses off!.
I always wondered what the idiom "packing heat" meant.
Thanks and
Regards,
Snouck
Good point Angle. NC should be colored in too.
D.C.'s gun ownership laws were the primary reason why I have never lived in the District, although I've worked in the D.C. area for almost 7 years and have lived all around the Maryland and Virginia suburbs.
D.C. is terribly convenient, but giving up the capability for effective self-defense in an area so gutted by crime is simply suicidally insane.
Just remember gentle folk: "when SECONDS count, the police are only MINUTES away. Outsourcing your own self defense is unwise to say the least."
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
Sorry, y'all..I didn't compare map and list. Besides, they're both wrong.
Here's a more up-to-date map which has what I *think* is the current situation on the "right to carry" law. Only Wisconsin and Ilinois have their head in the sand:
IRA website as of 2007.
Many students are now pushing for a right to carry on college campuses. Can't say I blame them. If even one college turns, it's a good sign that change is here.
Read some of the commentary. If you scroll down to the Brady Bunch paragraph it has this amazing statement:
self-defense is “not a federally guaranteed constitutional right.”
When I get back home, I'll *urge* the Baron to change the image to this more accurate one. I hadn't realized how prevalent handgun laws had become. So why didn't the MSM tell us?
In California, while we do not have a "stand your ground" law, you are permitted to use deadly force if you believe your life is in danger--and you may assume your life is in danger if there is a stranger in your home.
However, you are legally required to de-escalate the situation if at all possible. Once, my wife was driving down a side street and a woman threatened her truck with a crow bar. In California my wife's only reasonable option (which she did) was to throw the car in reverse and get out of there. But had she been trapped, or had California been a "stand your ground" state, she would have been legally justified in running this woman over, killing her.
"The inhibition against individual and societal self defense is so strong in Europe as to be pathological."
Indeed, indeed... it's sickening and it's called Socialism or Progress!
"Imagine that some “youths” arrived at that woman’s house to burn her car. Her response would be justified and admirable. The response in similar circumstances in some European cities is contemptible and sickening."
Indeed my friend, indeed. But as an European I must say that it is not (only) cowardy, it is reasonable action.
If one do react as a man in Europe he may be praised by his neighbours but he will be attacked by the all mighty State. If one does want to act honourable as a man in Europe with that situation going on, he must be ready to war and start to live like a Rambo.
Now imagine, if you live in a neighbourhood where people know who you are, the "youths" will not have any problem in marking you, atacking your children and rape your wife or daughter. It makes one think twice, don't you think?
Moreover, the State will always turn against you, you will also become significantly poorer (if you are middle class).
"Indeed my friend, indeed. But as an European I must say that it is not (only) cowardy, it is reasonable action.
If one do react as a man in Europe he may be praised by his neighbours but he will be attacked by the all mighty State. If one does want to act honourable as a man in Europe with that situation going on, he must be ready to war and start to live like a Rambo."
You are right, of course, from the individual perspective. My comments should not be taken as a criticism of any one individual, but rather the societal response. I can imagine that I would feel as helpless as any other individual in your situation. In some parts of America it is the same.
How crazy is it that Vermont, one of the most liberal states in the union is one of two states were no permit is required? As someone who is a neighbor of Vermont I have always been tempted to cross the border and purchase a handgun and come home again. No fuss no muss. But with my luck I would be pulled over by a cop and get tossed the moment I left Vermont. One day soon I may just go for it. Especially if the Dems win the election. My state requires many, many hoops to jump through just to purchase a handgun.
spackle, you would commit a federal crime if you do that. Plus, it probably wouldn't be possible. In order to buy a gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer (there is no other kind), you must fill out the paperwork and be approved by the BATF in a background check. When you submit your non-Vermont driver's license, the dealer will stop at that point. He cannot sell to a resident of any state other than the state in which he is licensed. (Unless the transfer is to another FFL holder.) You cannot buy in another state. You may get away with buying from an individual, but it is still a violation of federal law. It is even a problem for family members to give firearms to relatives in other states.
"You are right, of course, from the individual perspective. My comments should not be taken as a criticism of any one individual"
I didn't. But you have to understand that we have to have a life in a very competitive world, and society does not care at all and the State sponsors it. At the individual level, I have seen some cases of robery, for exemple, where two blacks (about 20 years old) were atacking a white child. There was some, say 5 people in the street, of which two were white males with few more than thirty years old and the only one who "saved" the white boy was an eldery black woman of 70 years old. She spook the 2 blacks. Why? Because that woman was raised in the colonies of the good old Europe, which had vallues and now... Society does not care at all. And if one wants to act like a man, he will have some reprisals unless he knows some ethnic leader. If "the society" reagroups itself, and I'm talking of more than three men, it is simply racist, and racists shall be eliminated.
It is shamefull. And it will get much, much worse. I see a civil war on the horizon.
Regards
Afonso, I do not envy you. And I regretfully agree with your assessment. It may be that a civil war is the most hopeful prospect, given the alternatives.
I used to have the standard UK attitude to the US gun laws. "Crazy americans" in a nutshell. But that was before our government was stealth-seized by traitors and criminals started having guns. Now I wish we'd had the US idea.
We in Texas, have a song for everything, including trespassers.
The story of the lil old lady in Central Texas may be news worthy in Denmark, but not in the southern states of America.
My grandmother, the sweetest, kindest woman I have ever known, lived on a working cotton and corn farm, twenty miles from the nearest town. There was no dialing for 911 in those days, and she would not allow anyone or anything to harm her or her family. As she puttered about the sprawling farm house, she kept a .32S&W revolver in her apron. I never saw her draw or fire it once, but I can guarantee if anything had threatened her or her family, she would have, it was her responsibility, and her's alone.
Having served in law enforcement in my younger years, I was never concerned with the knowledge that honest citizens were armed. I was always concerned with those inclined to criminality, whether they were armed or not.
With a one time, short term visit to Texas, the Danish reporter is no more informed about Texas folkways or mores, than he was before he arrived.
I was in my "castle" one night, late and alone, sitting at an intersection, trying to get home, when a man made a run at my passenger door. By the time he opened it, I had my short barreled .357Mag revolver out, and his recognition of the stainless steel threat sent him running. Unfortunately for him, he ran in a straight line, fortunately for him, the first three rounds chambered were .38Special Nyclads, as I shot him in his left buttock. It was the least I could do, in recognition of all the planning and work he had devoted to his profession.
No reports were made, I went home without further incident, and slept soundly, after cleaning my gun.
I believe it is best to practice rule #22, of Mark Moritz's rules of a gunfight, and that is "Your number one option for Personal Security is a life long commitment to avoidance, deterence, and de-escalation."
So what the chart means is that most of the States, the majority, are allowed to pack - one way or another.
Amazing!
What a difference from the entire rest of the world! Don't you EVER let go of your guns!
Here's a toast to Freedom!
Yes, al-lat, let freedom ring, indeed.
Despite horrible misadventures, two joint stock companies from England settled in Virginia and Massachusetts.
And then there were the Puritan dissenters who also settled in New England.
The "venture capitalists" finally managed to survive and even thrive on the edge of the continent.
So did the Puritans, followed by the Quakers, and later the Huguenots, who settled in enclaves in NY (with their Dutch protectors), Charleston SC, and Virginia.
In all of these cases, one needed firearms to survive the wilderness and the unfriendlies among the indigenous tribes. But the biggest threat to all of these was incursions by other European states, mainly Spanish and French -- both of whom were culturally different from the English settlers.
BTW, there were many helpful tribes. But not all...and intramural wars between/among rival tribes were frequent and on-going.
There is an old Virginia way of saying goodbye which I've not heard elsewhere: "goodbye, and see you again, God willing and the creek don't rise." Since there are lots of creeks that overflow when we have storms, I figured it was an old saying from the days when flooded banks made creeks impassable. And the use of the singular "creek" with the plural "don't" I considered just an archaic left-over.
However, I learned a few years ago from a man who is (was) an encyclopedia of local history that the saying referred to the Indian Creeks -- i.e., the Creek tribe, a plural noun.
This version of the saying seems more fitting -- for example, a rising creek is nothing much to remark upon, whereas an uprising of the Creek was fearful indeed. That farewell has much more foreboding in it.
A gun was essential to survival for everyone in the new country. Children learned to shoot game for dinner. Wives also used guns for defense of their homes and children.
This is just the long way back to the beginning... i.e., why there is a deep and abiding respect for firearms and their necessity: it came with the new territory and with the endless stream of immigrants who hacked their way west.
Post a Comment