Den bevæbnede dame og journalisten

De fleste har nok efterhånden hørt historien om journalisten, Terkel Svensson, der vadede ind i en texansk baghave, hvilket fik en ældre dame fra den dertilhørende bolig til at komme ud med sin pistol fremme, klar til forsvar af sig selv og sin ejendom.

Hun informerede den kære Terkel Svensson som at han opholdt sig ulovligt på privat grund, men det var åbenbart ikke noget han, en vigtig journalist, kunne tage sig af… Lige indtil han opdagede at damen bar på et skydevåben, så kunne det nok være at han fik benene på nakken.

Så er det hele historien udvikler sig hjemme i Danmark. En stor del mener at det jo er typisk skydegale amerikanere, som er helt vilde med at slå ihjel – selv den gamle bedstemor er jo bevæbnet. Men hvad er lige præcis problemet?

Terkel var jo faktisk gået ind på privat ejendom og det er ikke tilladt hvis man ikke har fået lov eller har et bestemt ærinde såsom at levere post eller lignende. Sådan er det i Texas og sådan er det i Danmark. Den store forskel er at man i Danmark ikke rigtig kan gøre noget hvis nogen beslutter at bryde denne lov. Man kan ringe til politiet, men det tager lang tid før de kommer – hvis de overhoved kommer. I den periode kan meget nå at ske, især hvis lovbryderen har onde hensigter.

Men i Texas har man lov til selv at forsvare sin ejendom. Man kan selv smide såkaldte trespassers ud, og hvis de ikke makker ret, ja så har man lov at bruge magt. Her håndterede den ældre dame situationen helt som hun burde: Først beder hun ham om at gå, dernæst viser hun at hun mener det ved at fremvise sin pistol. At Terkel Svensson ignorerer damens henvendelse er en helt anden sag – men det er jo tydeligt at hendes pistol fik afværget den kriminelle handling som Terkel Svensson faktisk var i gang med, da han gik ind på privat ejendom og endda ignorerede hendes anvisning om at forlade stedet. Hvordan skulle damen kunne have forsvaret sig hvis hun var ubevøbnet og Terkel Svensson havde været en gal voldsforbryder fremfor en harmløs journalist?

Situationen viser desuden ganske glimrende at helt almindelige mennesker håndterer skydevåben fornuftigt og med sindsro. Terkel blev jo ikke skudt, og damen kunne gå ind i sit hjem igen forvisset om at kun er i stand til at forsvare sig selv – præcis lige som enhver dansker burde kunne. Som en sidegevinst kan det være at Terkel lærte lidt om at respektere andre menneskers ejendomsret.

Tak til hodja for at henvise til BBC artiklen.

Update: George Bruce, en læser af Gates of Vienna, har følgende velformulerede og informative kommentar til episoden:

As a lawyer and a Texan, let me start off by noting that the statements contained in the Copenhagen Post article are totally false. Given the facts stated, the woman could not have legally shot the reporter. Deadly force is not authorized in Texas, or anywhere else in America in response to mere trespass. In Texas, deadly force is justified in defend oneself, or a third party, from an immediate threat of violence. The belief that one is threatened by violence must be reasonable. One cannot simply shoot someone at random and claim “I felt threatened!” The perception of a threat must be connected with some action or circumstance that would cause a hypothetical reasonable person to believe they were threatened with immediate bodily harm.

Deadly force is also justified in Texas to prevent a felon from escaping with stolen property, or in the case of criminal mischief at night.

So, the woman was justified in holding a gun, but she could not have fired at the reporter unless he took some act sufficient to create a reasonable perception that she was threatened with bodily harm. Had she shot him without further provocation, she could have been charged with murder.

It is very important to remember that she was only holding the gun. She did not point it at the reporter and she certainly did not fire.

The reporters statement that she “pulled a gun”. She didn’t in the sense that she did not point it at him.

Let’s put this in context. She lives near Bush’s Crawford ranch. That area has been overrun with Cindy Shehan wackos, protestors, counter-protestors and nut jobs of all shapes, sizes and varieties. I don’t blame her for being suspicious of oddly behaving strangers. Given the extent that elderly people are victims of robbery, assault, burglary and worse, she was only acting reasonably in having a weapon, just in case. She had no reason to know that the person aimlessly wandering in her front yard was an absent minded reporter looking for an internet signal. Holding a handgun, just in case, was a very sensible precaution. If the trespasser had evil intent, I doubt she would have time to call the police. And if she had, they would have arrived only in time to string tape around the crime scene.

The real story here is not that an elderly woman might hold a weapon to protect herself in the event that she is attacked. The real story is that many Europeans and some Americans are so shocked by such a thing. The inhibition against individual and societal self defense is so strong in Europe as to be pathological. I fear that this disease may be spreading to America. Imagine that some “youths” arrived at that woman’s house to burn her car. Her response would be justified and admirable. The response in similar circumstances in some European cities is contemptible and sickening.

(Mine understregninger)