Read this horrifying account of a mob attack in the Port Richmond part of Philadelphia. A good Samaritan took the two intended teenage victims into his home and protected them until the police got there. Unfortunately, the good Samaritan did not have a firearm to protect himself, and nearly got shot by one the yobs. Fortunately for him, the police arrived before it could get really ugly.
Our opponents like to pretend that there’s never any reason to own a gun. They would also probably argue that it was a good thing no one was hurt. The difference between them and us is that I think it would have been a net social good if each of these yobs had been shot dead as they entered this man’s home.
The police in Philadelphia pretty clearly have lost control of the streets. Hardly surprising given police are one of the first places the incompetent boobs who run that city cut when the going gets tough. The only thing that’s going to put a stop to this behavior is if private citizens raise the cost of doing it. At the very least, if this man had a gun, the City would possibly have reduced the population of people willing to chase and beat other human beings by a few members, in which case it’s hard for me to see why that would be a net social negative. Not all gun violence is a bad thing. Our opponents have long failed to understand the difference between predatory and protective violence.
Does PA have hate crimes? Because if chasing somebody with pipes and bats and guns because they are white doesn’t count as a hate crime, I’m not sure what would?
There are so many directions this comment can go.
The scum that run “The City of Brotherly Love” always cut the police first because they are laboring under the gross (and apparently deliberate) misapprehension that people are good unless society acts upon them to make them bad, so it is sensible to continue to pay to give out goodies instead of paying people to work to have bad people keep their faces off the street when budgets need to be trimmed.
As for the injury/fatality ratio of this incident, I agree with you, that the death of someone breaking and entering with the intent to do great bodily harm to the occupants of the dwelling would have been a salutory result. Not only because such a result would cut down on the recivism of the yob whose body temp was reduced by his IQ to equal room temp, but because possibly a yob or two outside might have been persuaded of the error of his ways and sought gainful and ethical employment.
Nobody deserves to die unless and until it is apparent that that person intends to bring death and destruction upon someone undeserving of death and destruction.
It all the radical, right wing Tea Party hatred being spewed in Philthadelphia that’s to blame…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLWmo2kCa8o
…oops! Never mind!
In the future, could you please not use the term “gun violence”?
Using, and therefore validating, our opponent’s Orwellian misuse of language isn’t helpful.
I used it specifically because I was refuting one of our opponents assertions, that all gun violence is a bad thing. Their leaders have openly admitted they are not activists against violence using any other means except a gun.
Not so fast. I thought the same thing when I read this, then I wondered if there was a reason he didn’t already have one, so I checked here:
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CP.aspx
He won’t be [legally] buying a gun anytime soon:
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.aspx?docketNumber=CP-51-CR-0100311-1993
His picture from that article matches the description here:
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CourtSummaryReport.aspx?matterID=103521948
And his zip code here matches up with Port Richmond:
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.aspx?docketNumber=MC-51-CR-0212631-1993
The court summaries also list an alias:
Hollingsworth, Thomas
Mr. Hollingsworth also has an extensive criminal past, is almost the same age, and is from the same area. So there’s a good chance they ran together when they were younger. You know, committing crimes.
Guns are great and all, but maybe the message should be:
“Actions have consequences.”
My own belief is that:
1. people shouldn’t be released from prison if they can’t be trusted with a firearm, and
2. people who have served their time should be allowed to defend themselves (heavily dependent on #1 being implemented)
Unfortunately, I’ve known several people who’ve been threatened with death or the kind of vague “if you make it to court…I know where you live” kind of thing & the cops never do a damn thing. Philly is starting to look more like Chicago every day, complete with psychotic mothers of juvenile thugs making every excuse they can for their worthless sons. The fact that guys in their 30s are involved in this kind of mob violence is pathetic. Beyond charging them with a “hate crime,” they ought to be charged with terrorism because this good Samaritan is never going to feel safe in his house again, never know when the guy on the corner really is watching for him to leave so these misguided dipshits can “retaliate” against his family for whatever slight they think he gave them. If I were he, I’d probably move, but then again, I’d have been armed when they came through my front door, so it would be their next of kin I’d be leaving the area to avoid.
Good find. Though I would note he’s been convicted of a misdemeanor, and thought he conviction is prohibiting for firearms, it was nearly 20 years ago by this point, which means he stands a good chance of getting an expungement, which would restore his rights.
Good find, Mike.
Maybe I misread the sheet, but it looked like one of the convictions got him a two year sentence. Would that still be a misdemeanor?
Funny how this story took several weeks to make the news. It’s clear that this attack was racially motivated. This is many times worse than anything that happened in the Jena 6 incident, yet nobody gives a rat’s ass. We have to do away with all hate crime prosecutions until they begin enforcing these laws evenly.
Patty Kozlowski (of the Daily News) blogged about this a couple of weeks ago, but for some reason it only made the paper today.
And realistically, unless this guy were to have a gun holstered on his person, it doesn’t look like he would have had the time to retrieve a firearm in time to put it to good use.
It’s only racially motivated if a white guy beats the crap out of a black guy. A black, or group of blacks, can beat the crap out of a white dude and it’s not about race, ever, no how, no way.
Then they say you shouldn’t judge people by the color of their skin in the next breath…….
Forget the “Hate Crime” thing. Only blacks can be victims of hate crimes. Shortly after Seattle enacted hate crime legislation, a group of melanin enhanced youths beat a melanin deficient youth to death with a skateboard while yelling all sorts of anti-melanin deficient curses and taunts. The melanin enhanced youths received a stern talking to and free bus passes to sports events or anger management sessions.
Since the man sheltered two individuals from a mob, wouldn’t that make hime a Good Sodomite rather than a Samaritan?
Just sayin’…
mobo,
A good argument for carrying even in your house.
He did bring the kids in, then go outside, then retreat inside again. If the gun was anywhere near the door he had the few seconds needed to retrieve it. Alternatively, he had a wife to get it as well.
But it’s easy enough to just leave the gun on when you get home.