Aiming at the enemy

Not too long ago, if a thief was shot by a homeowner, a lawsuit against said homeowner was not only not unheard of, but usually a smart move that had potential for success. However, this seemingly unjust loophole in the law system is gradually coming unlooped.

Published on Oct. 27 on rawstory.com, news out of Dallas, Texas had a thief named John Woodson shot dead by homeowner Dennis Baker. And while police continue to investigate the case, chances are that nothing will happen.

"I just had to protect myself and that was it," Baker said in the rawstory.com article. A man with no visible weapon walks into a home with intent to steal, and another man shoots him down. In 2005, Florida was the first of the now 19 states who defend the homeowner, or "victim," through what are known as "Shoot First" laws.

What's going on here? Is it okay to kill a man because he wants to take your stuff, harboring no weapon or intent to harm?

The implications that come with these new laws directly contradict the base on which the world was built, but perhaps more perfectly illustrates the world in which we now live.

Now, obviously those who break into homes with the hope of taking things that aren't theirs aren't the most righteous of people. However, what about the family of the thief, the sons and daughters, the wife and mother that will have to stare at his coffin at his funeral, only to watch the man that killed him walk free, shooting first with intent to kill? It is events such as these that question what is considered self defense.

Only five years ago, a man like Dennis Baker would undoubtedly be tried in a court of law concerning the murder of John Woodson. And if convicted, most every person, including myself, would shake their heads in disbelief and say things like "that's unjustified" or "it was in self defense."

While these reactions from everyday citizens seem right and just, it is because of these laws that our democratic integrity, or whatever's left of it, is maintained.

What is just in our society is blurred by the human obsession with "eye for an eye." Although this ancient code is thanks to Hammurabi thousands of years ago, it is a timeless policy that no person can deny.

Questions involving that very feeling are posed all the time in conversation: "What if somebody did blank to your sister/son/brother/mother?"

Depending on the severity of the crime and the brutal instincts of the person to whom the question is posed, many respond with something along the lines of moral equalizing. In John Grisham's extremely popular novel A Time to Kill, a black father murders two white supremacists that raped and ravaged his daughter. This man is the novel's protagonist and Grisham writes with pathos for the character.

And who would disagree with this character's actions? What if your daughter got raped and ravaged by a couple of neo-Nazis? Let's think about the reasoning: (1) They're rapists. (2) They're racists. Why should people like this deserve to live?

They deserve to live because life is not a privilege, and it is not someone else's choice to make. Through phrases such as "they deserved what they got" or "it was the right thing to do" when concerning events such as the Baker/Woodson incident, people like John Woodson are dehumanized. They become staples that serve to justify our need for getting even, not justice.

Both Michael Moore and Ishamel Beah touched on this issue earlier this year. Moore showed deleted scenes from his documentary Sicko, scenes focused on Norway and their court system. Norwegian murderers and rapists, who would receive a severe sentence or even execution in America, are given a maximum of 20 years jail time and live on a communal island that would remind most Americans more of sleep-away camp than prison.

Beah, on the other hand, asked his audience to "never belittle other people's problems" describing how hard it is for him to get past his stigma of being pitied for his past.

What were Woodson's problems? Why did he try to rob Baker's house? These are questions that will never be answered; questions that a court appearance could have cleared up. Instead a man is dead and no one is to blame. Perhaps John Woodson was scum who deserved to die. But perhaps he was a family man who made a mistake. He should have been given that chance, and Baker should be tried and questioned as to why he felt the need to take that chance away.

Unfortunately, it appears that in our society, one crime deserves another.