The right of self-defense

In the US, controversies concerning gun control focus on the right of legitimate self-defense.  While many question the wisdom of “Stand your ground” laws, which remove the requirement to retreat from public altercation, protection of our homes is undisputed.

This is not true in all societies, as Carl Mather, an Australian friend learned.  Civilians may not possess firearms in China.  In the case of a home invasion, a person may shout, but the use of a weapon is not permitted.

Carl is a long-time resident of Nanjing.  He and his wife have substantial business holdings. One of the local gangs wanted their business assets and sent several thugs to invade the Mathers’ apartment.  Wielding baseball bats, these men forced open the door of the Mather’s apartment, and demanded that Carl sign over his property.  Carl’s ageing mother-in-law and five year old daughter were home at the time.        

 Carl picked up a knife and slashed the hand of an intruder.  For this, he was sentenced to a year in prison, while the gangsters went unpunished. They had not dealt the first blow and had better political connections.

The court found that while the home invaders were wrong to force open a door, Carl’s use of a knife was not appropriate.  By this time, Carl had served nearly six months in prison.  The court agreed to shorten the sentence to six months, and Carl is now home. No charges were filed against the gangsters.

We acknowledge cultural differences regarding interpersonal relations.  But protection of family is a human instinct. One would hope that in a global society, human beings could agree on common definitions of right and wrong.  

Above: Carl in shackles.