In a prior posting I linked to this video:
It’s footage from the 1992 L.A. Riots (after the Rodney King verdict). It’s about the Korean shopkeepers arming themselves, standing on the roofs of their stores, defending them from the rioters and looters.
While searching for that footage, an NPR interview with Kee Whan Ha came up. He’s the store owner that organized and motivated the Koreatown shopkeepers to undertake their defensive action.
Why would he do such a thing? I mean, why didn’t he just give the looters what they wanted (because “just give them what they want” is the refrain we’re supposed to abide by):
MARTIN: I understand that, as the disturbance was beginning, you heard hosts on Radio Korea – which is L.A.’s major Korean-American radio station – tell people to leave their businesses and go home and pray. And you told one of our producers that that made you upset. Could you talk a little bit about that?
HA: Yeah. I was so upset. So I know the owner of that Radio Korea, so I brought my handgun and I put it on the table. I told him that we established Koreatown. It’s been more than 20 years (unintelligible) riot, even to be able – insurance and everything, but I want to protect my business, as well as all other Koreatown business.
He was one of the founders of Koreatown. He wasn’t going to see his life’s work, what defines him, be put to ruin.
Oh it’s just property, oh it’s just stuff. That’s true to you, but not to him. It was more than his castle, and it was something that, to him, was well-worth defending. Are you telling me he’s wrong? he’s unjustified in trying to preserve his legacy? his positive contribution to society? That the world would be better off if he gave in to the criminals, the leeches, the destructive forces?
So why didn’t he just call the police? Because the police are supposed to defend and protect us, right?
HA: From Wednesday, I don’t see any police patrol car whatsoever. That’s a wide-open area, so it is like Wild West in old days, like there’s nothing there. We are the only one left, so we have to do our own (unintelligible).
[…]
HA: …I was standing a few feet away, so I see that [our security guard’s] body has fallen down on the ground, but I was so scared. I – we tried to call the fire department. Please help us. But nobody listen. Then maybe after five or six hours in the evening – it start around the afternoon, about 1:00 or 2:00 p.m. But actual – the fire truck coming about 7:00 o’clock, late evening. So five hours, of course, is sitting between us and them.
Five hours with no response. No one could come to save them.
Can you imagine the fear, the stress, tha anxiety felt during that time? One hour goes by and still nothing. Every minute watching the chaos unfolding, wondering when someone will come to save you. How scared would you be if you were in his shoes?
But at least they had guns.
But at least they were able to do something for themselves. To pluck up their courage and stand firm. They weren’t helpless victims.
How would you have fared that day? Would you have been a helpless victim?
I would have been.
In 1992 I was in undergrad. I never was anti-gun, but I sure didn’t understand it. I recall questioning my pro-gun friends as to why anyone needed an automatic rifle to hunt Bambi. Looking back, I can see the many facets of my ignorance.
MARTIN: Did you have to fire your weapon?
HA: Yes. Actually, we are not shooting people. We are shooting the – in the air, so make afraid that these people coming to us. You’re not actually targeting people, so…
MARTIN: Sure. You were trying to create a – sort of a protective barrier, and you did succeed in saving your store.
HA: Yes.
So without guns, Kee Whan Ha and the other families of Koreatown would have lost everything. Not just their stores, but their legacy and contribution towards a better society.
Could you look Kee Whan Ha in the eye and tell him you want to deny him his business? his contribution? his legacy? The banning of effective tools of self-defense is precisely looking into the eyes of people like Kee Whan Ha and saying you will deny him.
Stuff From Hsoi 
The items in their store isn’t just property; it is the source of the food on their tables, the roofs over their heads, the medicines they take, the clothes they wear.
I have never understood the idea we shouldn’t defend property; should I give up my wedding band because some thug demands it? How about my asthma medicine? My car that I depend on to take me to work and back ? And in this part of Texas, no car means no job.
I can understand why people think that way — it’s just stuff, and your life is worth more than stuff.
And to an extent, I agree with that. It’s cost/benefit analysis. It may be less problem to give the dude the $5 in your wallet and take off, than to shoot him over it and have the $10,000+ grand jury issues and public crucifixion you’ll receive in the press. And we all weigh these things differently.
But I do agree that a blanket statement that “no stuff is worth defending (or dying for)” isn’t right… because yeah, look at these shopkeepers. It was well worth it to them.
Hsoi,
I think the fundamental difference lies in this sentence “it’s just stuff, and your life is worth more than stuff. (emphasis mine.
The issue isn’t whether or not my stuff is worth dying for; I should be free to make that decision without interference from others or the state. The major question and one already answered by the thug — Is HIS life worth more or less than my stuff?
He or she has already answered that — they are willing to risk their live for my stuff so they must value their life less than my stuff. If they didn’t they wouldn’t risk their lives trying to get it.
The social norms, throughout time, have clearly indicated that lethal force is acceptable to use in defense of property. This isn’t something that has suddenly shifted. Heck, used to people were rewarded for killing criminals in the midst of ‘property crimes’.
To me, it seems the cost-benefit analysis would indicate that armed and lethal defense of property is a net plus for society. Look at the Koreatown shop owners; not only did they protect their property but others around them, they kept the chaos from spreading past that defensive line also.
We need to push back against the ‘public crucifixion’ and kangaroo courts;of course the only real way to make that change is to have more people using lethal force in defense of property. We as a society need to rise up in anger when these kangaroo courts and trials are conducted. I think we saw a bit of that in the Zimmerman/Martin trial; instead of people waffling, there was a clear divide — based on the evidence shown — that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been tried and there shouldn’t be any additional trials.
Think the Silent Majority is starting to speak up about issues; this is definitely one we need to have many people say “Is YOUR Life worth trying to steal my property?” instead of “It isn’t worth your life to protect your property”.
I see your point and don’t totally disagree with you.
But where I do is what seems to be encouragement to use lethal force in defense of property. I’m not sure I’d go that far (tho maybe this is just a matter of blog comments and something is lost in the posting). I think what I’d say would be “willingness” to use lethal force in defense of property. That is, as it is now to use lethal force in defense of property is generally considered “off limits” and something one should just not do… period. I think what ought to be removed is the “period” part.
There are certainly times when such things are warranted… just ask Kee Whan Ha. And THAT is what we have to get over, I think, is coming to accept that yes, sometimes it’s warranted. But it still, IMHO, needs to pass the litmus tests of things like the “beer & tv” maxim, or just the simple question of “is it worth dying for?”.
I agree with you the “period” should be removed and it is more a matter of ‘willingness’.
But for the sake of argument; I’m going to take the extreme position here.
What is wrong with ‘encouraging’ the use of lethal force in defense of property?
Would anyone argue that I could and should use lethal force to protect life saving medicine — think insulin or other must take daily or die type drugs?
How about my nebulizer that I keep on hand so when my Asthma flares up I can take a breathing treatment? It’s less than $200 worth of prhttps://blog.hsoi.com/2013/10/29/could-you-look-him-in-the-eye-and-deny-him/#respondoperty.
Or a ‘trival’ item like my wedding ring — Think it was well under $400 and doesn’t keep me alive (as long as I have it or a great excuse ready to tell my wife why not)?
The value of the items TO ME is absolutely irrelevant. The criminal has already decided that (s)he will risk their life for it. $5,000,000 or $5; they have decided to gamble that it is ‘worth dying for’.
There has to be a point of diminishing returns for the criminal and the more we can push that into the category of “not worth the risk” — the better society would be right?
Most people forget the 2nd part of Heinlein’s famous quote ““An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
We have courts and juries to decide the facts of ‘self defense shootings’; while initially the death toll might increase (I know I sound a little like a gun control here) it would soon decrease. Haven’t repeated studies shown that criminals prefer ‘soft targets’?
So instead of encouraging people to be passive in their own lives, instead of encouraging them to be good witnesses (have you seen the FBI stats on crime clearance?), instead of making laws that give the criminals every edge; why not encourage people not just to fight back but to do so in a manner likely to result in a criminals death?
I see the point you’re making (or believe I do). That is, part of the reason there is so much property crime is because the criminals know people will generally stand-down and not defend property crimes, so it just gives the criminals carte blanche to commit property crimes. If however more people were willing to use lethal force in defense of property and not “just give them what they want”, over the long term the hypothesis is property crimes would decrease because the criminals — who don’t want to die either — would generally say it’s not worth it.
Fair enough point, and an interesting argument to have for sure.
I think it comes down to where each person is willing to draw the line, and the particulars of the circumstance. This is like all things. It may be less costly to give up your wedding ring, than to deal with the $10,000+ grand jury, being destroyed in the court of public perception (especially if you’re white and your robber was not-white, and the press wants to make a race case out of you), etc..
But then yes, should it be that we fix the grander perceptions? That we try to get the media and the public in general to be more accepting of defending yourself? Well, that’s a much bigger issue to tackle, and really ultimately where this has to be waged. But it won’t happen by taking an extreme position… we gotta start with baby steps.
So then, where’s the right baby step here?
So then, where’s the right baby step here?
Figured I would start a new thread here; the other one was getting narrow.
So First baby step — what we are doing but even more so.
We talk about it, we push back against the concept of ‘just give them what they want’ and “property isn’t worth someone dying”.
We do this on our blogs, in conversations with friends and family, in Bible study classes. Yes, even in church — Scripture and Self defense is one of the search terms that often bring people to my blog. There is much misunderstanding about it among believers.
We work on influencing those around us — particularly the young people. Our kids, our kids’ friends, our grand kids. This is to counter the “Long March” approach the Leftists have used in education.
Second, we push and support media reports of people successfully defending themselves and property, especially property, by using the threat of or actual lethal force. We comment on the stories, we link to them, discuss them on our blogs, facebook, etc.
We get people thinking about it and not hearing / reading negative comments.” Koreatown Merchants keeping their stores and family safe by holding off rioters who burn and steal — hey they didn’t need to kill, they were just ready to do so. Wouldn’t you do the same to protect your house? Your Car? Your family’s livelihood?” Pointing out the benefit to society and individuals to counter the current philosophy.
Third , we push our local politicians to support the concept. We replace, through election, the ones that don’t. We have to make sure we are electing Judges, Sheriffs, Constables, who support the idea. We push City Councils and Mayors to appoint/hire Police Chiefs who support it.
The local leaders of today are state representatives several years down the road and national leaders in the coming decades.
Fourth, we support vocally and often, the current politicians who ‘get it’. That reminds me I need to call Senator Ted Cruz and tell him what a great job he is doing. His comments during the recent Stand Your Ground hearings were fantastic.
Any other ideas?
Good list.
I think there’s a key factor in here: working directly with people. I’ve found it’s difficult to “preach” and expect people to get it. Sure that can happen, but I’ve found more people converting when they can be engaged directly. It’s generally because there are misconceptions, misunderstandings, and they have created strongly entrenched emotional beliefs about how things are and then how things should be. It’s difficult to get people to let go of those entrenched, defining stances on things. But when I can talk with them directly, when I can listen to their specific take on the matter, when I can address their specific questions, their fallacies, their arguments, whatever need be to help them see… that tends to be more effective.
But it’s also a lot slower, more laborious, because it’s one-on-one. But it also generates higher quality. So, slowly we go.