Zero Tolerance of Fighting has Long Range Dangers
Zero Tolerance is a big topic. It's aspects and pluses and minuses is discussed on Wikipedia. Strangest of is application of ZT to minors in schools. Randy Cassingham has a blog on the later at Losing my Tolerance for "Zero Tolerance". In the school system "administrators" are judge and jury. "Due process" is unknown.
Of interest on this website is the doctrine of zero tolerance of fighting in schools. The basic idea is that whenever two kids are fighting that they are both equally at fault. A recent case in point is a Korean young man fought back against a bully in Keswick, Ontario, Canada. The young man was a victim of racial abuse and physical attack. He used his Taekwondo training in self-defense, breaking the nose of his attacker. Both students were suspended, but the victim has been warned that he faces possible expulsion. And the local police have charged the young man with "assault causing bodily harm." See more of the story. The comments that follow the story are most useful as well.
The long range dangers ZT for fighting are that
- Young people are conditioned to accept being victims. That may be a great way to accept being a team member in a corporate or government hierarchy, but it's no way to lead a life, especially in a country that has a criminal "Catch'n'Release" "justice system" as we have in the United States.
- It is only a short while until we are all deprived of effective means of self-defense, like the people in Britain. And when we fight back against criminals, we will be sent to prison not the perps.
- When we reach that state what will be the posture of our nation in the world when we a nation of people conditioned to be victims? The writer leaves that to your imagination.
The Illusion of Safety in Banning Weapons
It is an article of faith in some circles that banning weapons would reduce crime and suicide. Criminologists Kates and Mauser review murder and suicide rates in Europe and North America and found no correlation between gun ownership and either murder or suicide. Their work was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy in spring 07. Read the paper for yourself.
The writer lives in New Jersey. A nearby Interstate Highway bridge over a canyon has been used by two people in some 10 years to commit suicide. Nobody has yet suggested that the bridge be taken down. But maybe they will. And then there's rope. People use rope to hang themselves. Maybe one should have a psych permit to buy rope.
Prepare for Unarmed Self-Defense When Flying
The mission of the Federal Air Marshal Service is to protect us from terrorists on commercial airlines. There are some 28,000 flights per day. There are some 4,000 air marshals; they are suppose to work in teams of two. After a bit of arithmetic you see that they can cover between 0.5% and 1.5% (that is to say that between 5 and 15 of every 1,000) of flights. The Airline Pilots Security Alliance claims that something less then 1% of flights are protected by two armed pilots. For the pilots we’d expect that one of them would have to deal with the plane. Flight attendants are poorly trained in self-defense. In testimony before the U.S. Senate in Dec. 2005 [that's more than 4 years after 9/11] by Ms Patricia Friend of the Assoc. of Flight Attendants stated that "Neither flight attendants nor pilots have received what aviation self-defense experts would consider appropriate and effective self-defense training at even a basic level let alone any advanced levels that would train them in techniques that will allow them to defend themselves ... ". See all of the testimony.. So there is a 98% chance that your flight will not be totally protected.
TSA, the pre-flight inspection service, has a mixed record on success identification of weapons. Estimates vary on how effective they are at finding contraband when the traveler really wants to hide it. Most of the stories are on their failures are from before 9/11 and creation of TSA in 2002 so the stories may not pertain to today. Nonetheless, there seems to be a reasonable chance of a terrorist getting through a weapon: gun, knife, or explosive.
In GAO report number GAO-07-623R
entitled 'Aviation Security: TSA's Change to Its Prohibited Items List
Has Not Resulted in Any Reported Security Incidents, but the Impact of
the Change on Screening Operations Is Inconclusive' released April 25, 2007 is stated:
TSA considers the vigilance of able-bodied passengers to
be an important layer of aviation security. Able-bodied passengers are
those passengers who may engage in self-defense actions should an
incident occur onboard commercial aircraft.
Plan to do your own self-defense work when you fly. TSA relies on you. Your fellow passengers rely on you. While a GAO report is certainly not law, it is an explicit statement by the Federal Government that robust self-defense is expected of it's able bodied citizens, at least on aircraft.
The Police Have No Obligation to Protect You
The officers I know do
feel the obligation to "Serve, Defend, and Protect." But in the end self-defense is your
problem. Even if the police where so legally obligated it would be of
no benefit in the interval between the onset of a "situation" and the arrival
of the police. Be prepared to do your own work. For further info see Peter Kasler's article. We recommend Close Combat - Self Defense for the Elite
You Are On Your Own - The Castle Rock v. Gonzales Case
The estranged husband of Mrs. Gonzales had taken their children in violation
of a restraining order issued by the state of Colorado. Police failed to respond
even after repeated calls from Mrs. Gonzales. Mr. Gonzales murdered the children
and committed suicide by attacking a police station with his hand gun. Mrs.
Gonzales sued the Town of Castle Rock, Colorado for monetary damages. She lost.
The U.S. Supreme Court held
||"The Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution provides that a State shall not 'deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.' ... [but
this] does not 'requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and
property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.' ...
It is inappropriate here to [infer] that Colorado law gave [Gonzales] a
right to police enforcement of the restraining order. ...
Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of
restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such
enforcement mandatory. A well-established tradition of police
discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statues."
The initial complaint by Gonzales named three police officers. The U.S.
Court of Appeals concluded that they had a "qualified immunity." The case was
decided June 27, 2005.
MI and MS Join FL in Restoring the Right of Self-Defense
In March '06 Mississippi (MS) enacted law that would presume that a person who used deadly force acted prudently and would therefore be immune from civil liability.
In July '06 Michigan (MI) enacted legislation that clarifies when a person can use deadly force in self-defense during break-ins, car jackings, and other violence outside of the home. The law makes it clear that when attacked that a person need not try to flee. The law also shields the defender from lawsuits by the attackers and their families.
OK Joins FL in Restoring the Right of Self-Defense
05/12/05 - Gov. Brad Henry signed into a "Stand Your Ground" bill. “This act will allow law-abiding Oklahomans to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property,” Gov. Henry said. The effective date of the bill is 11/01/2006. Oklahoma’s "Make My Day" law currently provides citizens the right to protect themselves inside their homes, but that right does not extend to other locations. The major provisions of the new law will
- authorize residents to use deadly force, if necessary, to defend themselves against attackers inside their homes or, in some cases, vehicles;
- declare an individual does not need to retreat from danger and "has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force ... if force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm or the commission of a forcible felony;
- and provide immunity from criminal prosecution or civil action for using justifiable deadly force.
Florida Restores the Right of Self-Defense
04/26/05 - Castle Doctrine bill signed into law by Governor Jeb Bush. The bill authorizes person to use force, including deadly force, against intruder or attacker in dwelling, residence, or vehicle under specified circumstances. It provides immunity from criminal prosecution or civil action for using deadly force. The effective date of the bill is 10/01/2005.
Full text of the bill and analysis of the bill
The Brady Campaign in a press release of 09/27/2005 states that they have put out a flyer stating that vistors to Florida should: "Avoid unnecessary arguments with local people; stay in their cars and keep hands in plain sight if involved in a traffic accident or near-miss; and maintain a positive attitude and avoid shouting or threatening gestures if someone appears to be hostile toward them." In former times such behaviour was generally expected; people grew up to be decent because they had been trained by their parents to behave. If fear of Mr. 9 can counter the ill effects of deficient parenting then so be it.
New Italian Self-Defense Law Empowers the People
The BBC reported on 24 Jan. 2006 that the Italian parliament has passed a self-defense law that allows a person to use guns and knives to protect themselves, others, and their property from harm. The law applies to the home and places of work. If guns are used they must be legally registered. Use of weapons is allowed under the law only if there is danger of aggression and the attacker will not stop when warned. Leftists opposed the law. We leave it to you to speculate why leftist, the self appointed defenders of the people, would want to continue to expose people to the depredations and assaults of criminals.
U.K. Government Policy on Household Self-Defense
This was first brought to our attention by a Feb. 1, '05 news release from
Bloomberg News. The Crown Prosecution Service in the U.K has issued a
leaflet defining the self-defense rights of householders. In brief
- "Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to
carry out an arrest or to prevent crime."
- "If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the
intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully."
- You may pursue, hit, or tackle a fleeing perpetrator to recover your
stolen property and make a citizen's arrest
Still one should try to call the police first, only use reasonable force, and
not set traps. Read the complete statement on the U.K. government website.
Download the Crown's leaflet
All of this sounds very brave and pro-people until you learn that the Labour government has outlawed guns, knives, pepper spray, batons, and other means of effective self-defense by the average person against criminals. Labour has aided and abetted criminals by making victums safe for them, causing a boom in violent crime.
The Right to Bear Arms
A number of the stories pertain to would be victims shooting their
assailants. We do not deal in guns on this site, but that does not
mean that we are against them. We wonder why liberal, equalitarian
people in the states of CA, MA, NY, NJ, IL, WI and few others are against
the Great Equalizer. Is there some hidden self-interest here? As of 2006
acknowledged the right of a person to full self-defense.
Several states restrict their citizens in other ways. Restrictions are imposed on the size and types of self-defense sprays (like pepper gas and tear gas). Restrictions are imposed on the type of knives that can be carried and where they can be carrried. Some states ban people from having stun guns. We would all like to have a level playing field. Laws must be reworked to give everyone the opportunity for EQUALITY IN THE STREETS.
It is so bad in New Jersey that even the cops aren't allowed to carry stun guns. Now there's a PERP FRIENDLY STATE.