Author Claims Killing Someone in Self Defense Violates the Attackers Right to Trial

“Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.”

I read a very interesting article today from the Huffington Post on the Second Amendment. Typically, when the left tries to attack the amendment, they use tactics such as stating that the right to carry only applies to hunting or handguns, or the fact that if machine guns existed back in the colonial days the Second Amendment would never have been created. (Fun fact: the puckle gun was a crew-operated machine gun that was patented in 1718, 58 years before the signing of the Constitution). This one doesn’t try to go through those tiresome arguments. The author, Justin Curmi, freely admits the right of the people to “have a stockpile of guns.”

According to his logic, using a gun to defend yourself is illegal because if you kill someone, you are robbing them of their Sixth Amendment right. He articulates this quite clearly:

“The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.”

In order to believe this garbage, you must first completely disregard such laws as the castle doctrine, stand your ground laws, or even justifiable homicide.

According to the author, the woman who killed Jeremy Arnold Ford should face murder charges for shooting Ford. While this may be Curmi’s view, I believe most Americans would probably want her to receive multiple accolades for her heroism.

The victim (whose name was withheld due to the victimization she already endured) was kidnapped at gunpoint and then raped. Ford then drove her around town, where she continuously attempted to get help from others by doing such things as mouthing that she needed help. The victim could not find anyone willing to engage her rapist.

She convinced this monster to take her back to her boyfriend’s house, hoping he would be there. The home was empty, and upon entering the house, Ford raped her again. It was at some point after this that she was able to secure his gun and emptied all of the bullets into him. This woman saved not only her own life, but the lives of other women this animal would have attacked.

This is simply one of countless stories where armed civilians have saved lives. To say that they should stand trial for taking away the rights of their attacker is nothing more than blaming the victim. Additionally, every time someone is shot, there is an investigation to determine the culpability of the shooter. This includes not only civilians, but the police as well.

No one gets a free ride for having committed a homicide. I am in no way advocating vigilantism. I do believe that there is a clear difference between justice and vengeance. I also believe that everyone has the right to defend their life with any force necessary or available. If that means that someone threatens your life with a club or a knife, you have every right to shoot that individual.

To further confuse the issue, the author states,

“A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use. The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons.”

I had to read this part several times to understand the thought process. First of all, Curmi is stating that guns, in the hands of a civilian, are only used as weapons against the government. So all of those Olympic shooters out there are simply refining their skills so that they can eventually take over the country. The same applies to those who enjoy target or even skeet shooting. I am hoping that my sarcasm is completely evident.

Then there is the second part of his statement. Although I understand the words, I cannot comprehend his logic. He is saying that having a gun for protection is illogical because bad guys can get guns to use against you. What he did not say is that they will get your gun, which I could at least follow. How does a legal gun owner having a gun for protection in any way affect someone else? More importantly, if someone who wants to do you or your loved ones harm is utilizing a gun, doesn’t it actually make sense for you to have one for protection?

I understand the fear that guns generate in some people. There are a lot of individuals out there who have never touched or even seen a real gun. All they know of guns is their destructive potential. Unfortunately, they allow their fear to cloud their judgment and common sense.

They also fail to understand that you cannot clear this country of guns. Even if you could, guns would find their way back in. Look at the United Kingdom for a prime example. It is a relatively small country with no real borders to speak of (yes, there is Scotland, but they have similar gun laws). In the 1990s, the United Kingdom created exceptionally strict laws on purchasing and owning handguns. Yet the black market has filled that void. Such individuals as Harry Shilling and Michael Defraine are willing to risk the ramifications of smuggling guns into the country. In October 2016, The Guardian reported that violent crime was up 24% overall and gun crimes were up 7% in the United Kingdom.

The fact is that in a country as large and porous as the United States, there is simply no way to get the guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Criminals will always be able to find a way to procure weapons of mass destruction. I always scoff at gun-free zones for their sophomoric belief in the power of laws. The truth is that if gun laws work, there would never be a school shooting in America. After all, it is illegal to have a gun in a school. Yet clearly we know this is not the case.

In fact, all that gun laws do is disarm law-abiding citizens and make them easy targets for criminals. Schools and other gun-free zones are easy targets and thus attract violence. These murderers are cowards. This is why so many of them take their own lives before the police can end it for them. They are afraid of being shot and suffering.

Only in the minds of the very liberal could someone justify the victimization of a victim or transferring responsibility of violence from a criminal to those they harmed. It is the crazy notion in their minds that the assailant holds no culpability for their actions. Instead, the fault lies with the victim for having been targeted. Clearly they must have done something to cause the initial crime. If not, then they act as a proxy for the society at large that forces the attacker to conduct such horrendous feats.

Suzanna Gratia Hupp summed up gun control when testifying to Congress. In 1991, she was eating lunch with her parents when a gunman entered the restaurant and began gunning down anyone he saw. Here was her statement:

I had a perfect place to prop my shooting hand, and I have hit much smaller targets at much greater distances. Could I have missed? It’s possible. But it sure would have changed the odds. Then I realized that a few months earlier, I had made the stupidest decision of my life. I had begun to leave my gun in my car because at that time, in the state of Texas, concealed carry laws did not exist. I was concerned about getting caught with it. I did what most normal people would do: I wanted to obey the law and certainly didn’t want to lose my license to practice my livelihood. I never thought I’d need it in the middle of a crowded restaurant. I remember looking around for something to use as a weapon and thinking, “Great…what do I do now? Throw a salt shaker at him?” I can’t begin to get across to you how incredibly frustrating it is to sit there, like a fish in a barrel, and wait for it to be your turn, with no hope of defending yourself.

She lost her mother and father that day because of the inability to kill that man. How many lives were needlessly ended in an attempt to protect his Sixth Amendment rights? While I appreciate Curmi’s idealism, I believe Suzanna would appreciate her parents more.

Matthew Wadler

Matthew Wadler is a Senior OpsLens Contributor and U.S. Army veteran. Matt served in the Army for 20 years as both enlisted and officer before retiring. His service includes time as Military Police, Field Artillery, Adjutant General, and Recruiting. His deployments include Somalia and two tours to Afghanistan. His formal education includes a master’s degree in HR Management. He is a strong supporter of the constitution and advocate for the military and veteran communities. Follow Matthew on Twitter @MatthewWadler.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.