Walgreen's And Individual Self-Defense: A Legally Correct Decision With Immoral Consequences...

I sent the following email to a number of Michigan state legislators in the aftermath of a federal court ruling upholding the firing by Walgreen's of Jeremy Hoven, a Benton Harbor, MI, pharmacist fired for violating Walgreen's "non-escalation" policy by holding off armed gunmen with his own legally owned and carried firearm:

Gentlemen,

I have written to you regarding this proposed piece of legislation before, and I am going to continue doing so - especially in light of the federal court decision upholding Walgreen's right to require its employees to submit themselves to manhandling, abuse, and even lethal force by criminals in order to uphold a "non-escalation" policy that prohibits employees from actively defending themselves.

I want you to take a hard look at the security video footage of what happened the night two armed men stormed the Benton Harbor Walgreens where Pharmacist Hoven was employed, and then tell me that ANY company has the right to require its employees to submit to such criminal acts, to leave their God-given right to self defense at the door if they wish to retain their job.  You will notice that, at approximately the 54 second mark, one of the gunmen jumps over the pharmacy counter and, before Hoven has deployed his own legally owned and carried firearm, fires at least one shot at Hoven, at which point Hoven deploys his own firearm and returns fire, forcing the two criminals to flee for their own lives:




I could include similar videos and photos from DOZENS of such instances that occur each and every year in this country. Numerous people are killed and injured in such attacks because their employer, in the name of "private property rights," forces them to call police and wait twenty or more minutes for them to respond instead of allowing their employees to defend themselves.  The entire incident recorded in this video is over long before most police departments can respond; there is no indicator that the employees of this pharmacy even had time to notify law enforcement of what was taking place until after the criminals left the building.

Any way you look at this, such requirements are morally and ethically wrong.

We MUST restore the individual's right to actively defend him- or herself in such situations.  While it may once have been true that the best advice for such situations was to comply with the demands of criminals in the knowledge that most would leave one unharmed once they got what they wanted, this is no longer the case; too many criminals now kill for the sheer pleasure of it.

I am once again including a copy of the Hoven Self Defense Act.  To continue to shield employers' "right" to prohibit employees from acting in their own defense is immoral and unethical.

And it needs to stop.

Now.

Critical Lessons Lost To History….

Insights from two men of history who were much smarter than I.

"A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave'; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it. THE LAWS OF THIS NATURE ARE THOSE WHICH FORBID TO WEAR ARMS, DISARMING THOSE ONLY WHO ARE NOT DISPOSED TO COMMIT THE CRIME WHICH THE LAWS MEAN TO PREVENT. CAN IT BE SUPPOSED, THAT THOSE WHO HAVE THE COURAGE TO VIOLATE THE MOST SACRED LAWS OF HUMANITY, AND THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE CODE, WILL RESPECT THE LESS CONSIDERABLE AND ARBITRARY INJUNCTIONS, THE VIOLATION OF WHICH IS SO EASY, AND OF SO LITTLE COMPARATIVE IMPORTANCE? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? IT CERTAINLY MAKES THE SITUATION OF THE ASSAULTED WORSE, AND OF THE ASSAILANTS BETTER, AND RATHER ENCOURAGES THAN PREVENTS MURDER, AS IT REQUIRES LESS COURAGE TO ATTACK UNARMED THAN ARMED PERSONS," Cesare Bonesana, "On Crimes and Punishment," 1764.

"But the position laid down by Lord Sandwich, is a clear demonstration of the justice of defensive arms. The Americans, quoth this Quixote of modern days, will not fight; therefore we will. His Lordship’s plan when analized amounts to this. These people are either too superstitiously religious, or too cowardly for arms; they either cannot or dare not defend; their property is open to any one who has the courage to attack them. Send but your troops and the prize is ours. Kill a few and take the whole. THUS THE PEACEABLE PART OF MANKIND WILL BE CONTINUALLY OVERRUN BY THE VILE AND ABANDONED, WHILE THEY NEGLECT THE MEANS OF SELF DEFENCE. THE SUPPOSED QUIETUDE OF A GOOD MAN ALLURES THE RUFFIAN; WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND, ARMS LIKE LAWS DISCOURAGE AND KEEP THE INVADER AND THE PLUNDERER IN AWE, AND PRESERVE ORDER IN THE WORLD AS WELL AS PROPERTY. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; BUT SINCE SOME WILL NOT, OTHERS DARE NOT LAY THEM ASIDE. AND WHILE A SINGLE NATION REFUSES TO LAY THEM DOWN, IT IS PROPER THAT ALL SHOULD KEEP THEM UP. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves," Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War," published in Pennsylvania Magazine, 1775. 

What is true of nations is true of individuals as well. Since some will not lay down their arms, others dare not. While a single bad guy refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up.

Remember, Thomas Paine was a Quaker - a pacifist, but even HE recognized the truth of this precept.

"Concept" or God-Given Right?

"It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense..."

These words were spoken by USAG Eric Holder during his address to the NAACP following the George Zimmerman verdict, and they vividly illustrate the mindset to which the leaders of the Danbury Baptists referred in their letter to then-President Thomas Jefferson:

"...and such had been our laws and usages, and such still     are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as       inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the            expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are           inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be             wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and     gain under the pretense of government and religion should    reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order         magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order..."

In the views of such people, we have no inalienable rights; we have privileges that have been granted by a magnanimous government - privileges that are as easily taken away as given.   And as was acknowledged by the leaders of the Danbury Baptists, such a view is inconsistent with our status as FREEMEN.

Mr. Holder needs to reacquaint himself with the Bill of Rights.  Its name is exactly what it seems to be, a list of rights - HUMAN RIGHTS - granted as inalienable rights by the God who created us in His image.  The Second Amendment of the Constitution, as delineated by the Bill of Rights, provides for our defense against a government that has escaped the chains of the Constitution.

Frederic Bastiat, in his manuscript, The Law (Copyright © 2007 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute), explains it this way:

"It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?

If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize a common force to provide regularly for this defense.

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right..."

Collective rights are the corporate expression of God-given individual rights.  And as they are God-given, they reflect the very nature of God.  This is of the utmost importance, because, in reflecting the unchangeable nature of God (Malachi 3:6, "For I the Lord do not change..."), the rights themselves are also unchangeable - inalienable.  If, then, we collectively have the right to defend ourselves from our own government (as guaranteed by the Second Amendment), it follows that we have the individual right to defend ourselves from other individuals as well. 

Self-defense, then, is not a concept.  It is a God-given, inalienable right granted to us as the image bearers of God by virtue of the fact that we are created in His image.  In numerous verses throughout the scriptures, God tells us that He will defend His name and His character.  God has the right to His own defense; as image bearers, we share that right.

The right to self-defense is one of the foundational principles upon which our country was founded.  It is one of the chief differentiating factors that separates American law, with its protection of the rights of the individual, from British common law, which subjugates the rights of the individual to the rights and claims of the crown.  It is common law that delineates the so-called duty to retreat.  It is American law that upholds the right of the individual to stand his or her ground when they are where they have a legal right to be and they are committing no crime.

Concept?  No.

Inalienable, God-given RIGHT.