And Who was Stupid First??
December 19, 2006
10:16 a.m., MT

One just knows that there's going to be an interesting subtext in a story with a headline like this one: Egg-toss prank turns deadly in Ohio. Yep, some bored kids were lobbing eggs at passing cars. One driver didn't take too kindly to that, and pursued the kids; someone in that vehicle fired some shots that ended up killing a 14-year-old boy. What caught my attention is the way the tale is turned in the report:

Cars give people a sense of anonymous power that helps explain such confrontations, a type of road rage, said Northeastern University criminologist Jack Levin. ....

"That's what kids do, they have fun on the weekends," said Kwon Wright, 16, a sophomore at nearby West High School. "That's what him and his boys was up to — having fun doing what they do." ....

"We had hoped that he would graduate from high school, possibly go to college," said his grandmother, Gayle Shiner, 65, of Fork Union, Va.. "We hoped he would date and marry and have children, and of course all of that was ended because of somebody's stupidity."

Ah yes, somebody's stupidity ... Unfortunately—but totally typically—what Grandma apparently fails to realize is that the stupidity that brought about her grandson's death was his own. Initiating force against someone's person or property will almost always result in some kind of response—sometimes that response might not be immediately apparent. Responses can be unpredictable, particularly when the initiator doesn't know the recipient. You pays your dues and you takes your chances ...

Does that mean that I condone firing at teens egging cars? Not at all; it seems to me an obviously disproportionate response of force. That said, I think I have an inkling of understanding as to why these kinds of events happen. Do you grok the unspoken implication in all the excerpts I quoted? It's that respecting private property isn't appropriate. Getting angry at someone whose actions could endanger your life and damage an expensive item isn't acceptable: it's road rage. Throwing stuff at other people's property isn't potentially dangerous or vandalism: it's having fun. And if someone does get upset about having his property targeted and retaliates, it's stupidity.

In a culture that doesn't value private property, and doesn't respect property rights, individuals who do expect a basic level of common courtesy become increasingly frustrated at its absence. He also sees that aggressors are increasingly released from accountability, which has the inevitable result of increasing their trespasses. Therefore, it isn't surprising at all that a few individuals snap, and take the action that the shooter in this report did.

In all honesty, in thinking about this trend, I have to say it's somewhat depressing that there aren't more stories like this. Another sad commentary on the state of USSA society ...

Sunni

Comments: 3 people have contributed to the conversation

On Tuesday, December 19th, at approximately 5:03 p.m. Mountain time, Ian Scott said:

I share your concerns. Who the hell is anyone to tell another what value they should place upon their property?

If a million dollars is worthy of armed guards and possible shootings in defence of, then so is any property. It's not the "value" others put on it, it's the value the owner puts on it.

I own property that was passed to me from my father. That property has enormous value to me, although to others, minimal value.

Would I kill someone in defence of it? I don't know. But I might. Just because it is not government issued paper with numbers on it doesn't mean that it's not valuable enough to me to use whatever force I need to use in order to prevent it from becoming trespassed against.

On Tuesday, December 19th, at approximately 6:27 p.m. Mountain time, R.J. said:

This disrespect for private property is often supported, and angry responses disparaged, by governments; yet look how jealously governments guard their own property!

On Tuesday, December 26th, at approximately 12:44 a.m. Mountain time, Soreheaduk said:

It's worse than that, Jim....the man with the gun probably carried the gun for self defence.
Self defence requires eternal vigilance.
The 14 year old was hobbling the man's perception by subjecting him to a minor assault with a ballistic object.
The man probably felt that(with whatever other dangers exist in his life)the teenager was providing a real entry point and acquired vulnerability for his real enemies;hence the warring.
And sometimes the kids know it; my neighbour told a ten year old to kick a football against my window when I was trying to listen to music.
I call that child abuse.
It happens.

Home
Previous entry: "Why, Yes, I Am; Thanks for Noticing!"
Next entry: "Movers and Takers"