playing with fire(power) re: Cory Maye

December 13, 2005

I’m sure there are mountains of precedent that will suggest that someone breaking into your house forcefully in the middle of the night is a threat, prima facie. Despite the fact that most criminals don’t want to harm you (they just want your pearls, your xBox, your TiVo, etc.), because some of them do, it is imperative that we treat them all as though they might. But you needn’t take their motive into consideration when deciding whether to defend your property. On the contrary: THEIR INTENT IS IRRELEVANT. You are not required to ascertain the exact nature of the threat. Simply demonstrate that you feared for your life, and you are entitled to use *any means necessary* to end the threat, there is no force continuum.

You might’ve heard this next argument phrased another way: If you’re going to dress like a gang banger, be prepared to be treated like a gang banger. If your car looks like a drug dealer’s car, be prepared for alot of unwanted attention. Let’s call it “profiling.” Its a very effective way of handling most situations, you simply resort to your first best guess and make assumptions based on probability and stereotype - seriously. It’s like card-counting - except the house frowns on such behavior, the house in this case being the law enforcement.

If you’re going to kick down doors in the middle of the night (or do anything else that is patently criminal), you must accept the consequences of your undertakings, for example: Undercover police officers are, on occasion, wounded or killed by their fellow officers in the line of duty. But, you’ll argue, the shooter was just doing his job and was acting on imperfect information. More on this later… For now, I’m going to attempt to logically show that, if you act in manners typical to criminals, rational men will believe you to be a criminal, and will treat you accordingly:

1) Breaking into houses in the middle of the night (or any time)is criminal behavior.

2) If I see someone breaking into my house, I will believe he is a criminal until I am shown proof, physical evidence, to the contrary.

3) A is A. A criminal is incapable of presenting evidence that proves he is not a criminal.

4) so long as a man appears to me a criminal, i will consider him dangerous, and a threat to my life.

5) it is justifiable to protect one’s life against violence or the threat thereof.

=====it follows : Because I believe him to be a criminal (through is actions), I have no reason to believe he will present me with any evidence that he is not a criminal. (1, 2 & 3) As a threat to my life, (on account that I believe him to be a criminal) I am justified in expelling the threat. (4 & 5)

It’s reasonable to assume that most people who kick down doors in the middle of the night are trying to harm you. Remember, the motive of the invader (whether he is an officer, a burglar, or a disoriented schizophrenic, which cannot be determined ex ante) IS NOT RELEVANT. That is, unless you’re willing to put police officers and government agents above the law. I’m not willing to do this.

The fact of the matter is, Cory Maye was attempting to defend against a probable threat, with albeit imperfect information. Unfortunately for everyone involved, it’s easy to produce more perfect information: Announce your presence and serve the warrant. If the subject thereof refuses to acknowledge the warrant, you’ve made a good faith effort. Kicking down the door in the middle of the night isn’t a good faith effort to identify oneself. It only incites fear and the consequences that necessarily follow. Accordingly, if you want to dress up and play soldier, sometimes you have to die on the battlefield.

Keep playing with fire. Sooner or later you’ll get burned.


Posted in: Potpourri

Comments

Leave a Comment

If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Comments

Archives

Categories