THOUGHT PROVOKER 9


Blindness and Shooters


Last Updated November 12, 2000
To Provoke Thought Is The First Step To Beyond




     I am wondering how my blindness will play into the next part of my life? I killed someone in what I feel is self-defense.

     Last night at about 2:30 am we woke to the sounds of some one breaking into our home. Dogs barking, security system going off I rocketed out of bed. I pulled the plug to the whaling alarm.

     Gun in hand I headed to the living room where I could hear the patio door about to cave in.

     My daughter, behind closed door asked what was going on? I told her to stay in her room. My wife was getting on the phone as I closed our bedroom door behind me.

     With a crack and splintering he was in.

     I step into the living room, jack a shell into the short-barrel 12 gage. I wanted him to hear the pump action, know I was armed. I said, "STOP."

     He kept coming, fast. I shoot, once, twice.

     Ears ringing, I hear him on the floor. I get a strike to my legs. I shoot down, backup, fire again.

     Then it was quiet.




RESPONSES
e-mail responses to newmanrl@cox.net




**1. "WOW. Is that provoker true? I hope not. But is sure is an interesting scenario. I have so many reactions to it myself. Firstly my husband was a solicitor for 22 years in a large country town before becoming a Magistrate in another large country town. Both became city status while we were living in them. So I have lived with the law for years and that evokes a response that you may not get from others. Also, the use of guns is not acceptable in Australia. We are going through a long 'rash' of break ins and bashings of vulnerable people in WA at the moment. The elderly and disabled are being targeted and as a result our politicians have been lobbied intensively by the elderly and the press to increase the penalties for the 'home intruders'.


For the first time in history, just about, the Judges have come out and publicly criticized the Attorney General who is an arrogant man and who was a layer, but as a politician now has little to do with the law except to make them. I won't go on here as this is not entirely related to your provoker.


My final reaction is that you would have been charged with murder some years ago, but would not have been found guilty. The pressure is on the law makers to have more rights for the homeowner and less for the intruder, so today you may not be charged with murder. You may be charged with some lesser crime, but again I doubt if you would be found guilty.


That is the most obvious outcome, but how do you and your family live with all the spin offs that occur from a major event in life, like that. And at this point I do not have time to consider just what those might be, but I do know that when a rock gets dropped into the pond, the ripples spread far and wide for a very long time."


FROM ME: " I wrote back and made sure she under stood that the story was fictional. She wrote back and had her lawyer/magistrate husband sit down at the keyboard and input his read on the Provoker. I appreciate the prospective of them both. Others follow."


Rosalie again: "I did tell your provoker to my husband and his response was you would probably get off. I asked if you would be charged with something and he said it was possible. Would depend. Not sure what on, but my guess is, on the maturity of the senior officer in charge of the case. So your provoker asked how it would affect the rest of your life. My guess is you have to adjust to having killed someone. You might find you enjoyed it, that it gave you a buzz. Or you could get full of guilts and end up depressed. Your wife might hate you for having enjoyed it and leave you. Then there would be a huge custody battle for the daughter. After you are both broke having spent all your money fighting over custody, you might kidnap your daughter and kill her and yourself. What do you think?"


FROM ME: "Not me! I will over come. (Hmmm, Was hers meant in humor? Sounds too grim, worse than my story.) What do the rest of you think?"


Mr. Glynn wrote: "I don't know if Rose has told you, but I am a lawyer. I qualified at the law school at University of Adelaide in South Australia about 1000 years ago and I have worked in WA since 1970. I hold an appointment as a magistrate (the bottom rung of the judge's ladder) and Albany is my district.


Your question is interesting in that it reflects a current social phenomena.


Australia, unlike the USA, is generally an anti-gun community. There are very strict, nation wide restrictions on possession of firearms here, and a lot of types of firearms are absolutely banned. All of this was in place to a limited extent up to 1995, but has moved forward since then in reaction to the firearm killing of 30 people by a nutter named Bryant at Port Arthur in Tasmania.


Like the USA, Australia is experiencing a rise in violent, home invasion and robbery type crime. Some States, WA included, has had to confront their inadequate laws relating to defense of person and property. In this State the law has been changed to better protect the person who uses reasonable force to defend himself, his family or his property. WA has followed the common law formula of "reasonable force, not being excessive in the circumstances". The problem with that approach is that it involves consideration of 2 factual elements, what is reasonable and what is justified by the nature of the invasion. Because they are factual considerations, they are questions for a jury to decide. The result is that in any situation where the reaction of the person defending himself is in question, that person is charged with an offence, usually manslaughter, for a jury to test his response to the situation.


In Australia, your fictional person would probably be charged, either with murder or manslaughter, and thereby put to his defence.


I personally see that as a problem, in that it can cause a huge expense to the accused person and a waste of court time and effort, but I am not sure what is a proper alternative.


Like the USA our court processes, particularly criminal processes, are adversarial and not the inquisitorial processes that are used in parts of Europe. (Example; France, and the way that Princess Diana's death was dealt with there.) In the USA you still use a Grand Jury in some instances, which is an inquisitorial process. In Australia we still have a committal process in some instances, also an inquisitorial process. But neither goes close to the inquisition that happens in France and other European countries. In the case you are giving as your question, perhaps an inquisitorial process, where the issue was not just the strength of the prosecution case, might be appropriate.


I doubt that there is a process that will be right all of the time. Cheers"


FROM ME: "A generalization we know. But one that has a reasonable feel to it. We'll accept it as one view from Australia. Are there other views?"



**2. "The use of a gun for purposes of self-defense by a blind person is certainly an interesting question. However, the legal issues contained in Robert's hypothetical are extremely complex. As you read my thoughts, keep in mind the white cane laws which have overrule court rulings that a driver was not liable for hitting a blind person because a "reasonable blind person would not be walking alone," or crossing a particular street because a "reasonable blind person" would not cross the street without help. Without the benefit of the white cane laws, such backwards court rulings might still be the norm, and such attitudes might still be encountered by a blind person who uses a gun for self-defense. While I will endeavor to explore the hypothetical issues related to blindness, I must first comment on the general legal rights pertaining to self-defense,.


First, it should be mentioned that the homeowner is violating Federal law and faces a 5 year mandatory sentence without plea bargaining or parole for possession of a sawed-off shotgun. So, the homeowner (blind or not) is going off to Federal prison for 5 years. The felony possession of an illegal firearm also greatly complicates the issue as to what charges might be lodged against the homeowner. Since the writer of the hypothetical probably did not intend the complications, I will generally ignore the fact that the shotgun is sawed-off. I think he intended the homeowner to have a "riot gun," which is a shotgun with a short factory barrel of about 18 inches.


Regardless of the disability status of the homeowner, the legal ramifications of the shooting would depend on the laws of the jurisdiction involved. In some states a homeowner has the right to use deadly force on a intruder who has broken into the home. In other states the homeowner can only use deadly force if the homeowner is in fear of death or great bodily injury. There might also be legal consequences if a homeowner did not retreat when he/she could have, or in the case of a homeowner who continued to use deadly force after the homeowner was no longer in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. There would also be legal ramifications in those states and localities which restrict the ownership of shotguns.


In considering the issue of blindness and self-defense, I think that we should first recognize the basic principle that blindness does not rob a person of the right to defend oneself. From that basic principle, the issue gets much more complicated.


The relevant questions are as follows:


1. Does the ownership and/or use of a gun by a blind person automatically connote recklessness?


2. Can a blind person reasonably use a gun in the course of self- defense?


**3. What are the specific instances in which the use of a gun by a blind person for self-defense is reasonable under the circumstances? Is a blind person held to a "reasonable blind person" standard of what constitutes fear of death or great bodily injury? In other words, if a reasonable sighted person would visually discern that he/she was no longer threatened with death or great bodily injury, is a blind person held to a different standard if the blind person continued to use deadly force?


Of course, a complete discussion of these three questions would occupy several law review articles.


So, with that qualification, does the ownership and/or use of a gun by a blind person automatically connote recklessness?


I would guess that most people, including some blind persons, would answer this question in the affirmative. However, I would strongly disagree. I believe that a blind person can own and fire guns, provided that he or she takes the appropriate precautions. Like any other shooter, a blind person must be sure that he/she is knowledgeable in the safe operation of the firearm, and is shooting in a safe location which has an adequate backdrop. Basically, I believe this means the use of a competent sighted person as a guide, unless the blind person has access to a secure and enclosed shooting area.


If you disagree with the notion that a blind person can own and operate a gun in a safe and legal fashion, consider the implications for issues such as car ownership by blind persons, or the rental of a car by a blind person. Gun ownership and/or use may be a difficult example, but to hold that a blind person is automatically incapable of owning and/or using a gun is to reject the precept that a blind person has equal rights and is capable of competing on terms of equality through the use of alternative techniques. This does not mean that a blind person will be a champion marksman, but neither will a blind person be a champion race car driver. Yet, a blind person can own a car, and I would maintain, a gun. However, this notion may be tested in states which require gun training and testing as a condition to the purchase, concealment, or ownership of a gun.


The next question is whether a blind person can reasonably use a gun in the course of self-defense. Once having established that a blind person is entitled to defend him or herself, and that a blind person can own and/or use a gun, it logically follows that a blind person might be entitled to use a gun in the course of self- defense.


The third and by far most difficult question is what are the specific instances in which the use of a gun by a blind person for self-defense is reasonable under the circumstances, and whether a blind person is held to a different standard. This is where the question gets really complicated. The law does allow for consideration of differences between a victim and an attacker. For instance, an average-sized man would not be allowed to use deadly force against another average-sized man who was swinging a fist at him. However, a small woman might be allowed to use deadly force on a large man who was hitting her with his fists. Likewise, a court might hold that a blind person was within his/her rights to use deadly force against an intruder who was shouting, "I have a gun and I am going to kill you," even though the intruder was actually unarmed.


As for the hypothetical, what if the intruder was a small deaf girl who broke into the home to steal the daughter's vast collection of beanie babies? If this is the case, the issue might become a question of whether the mistake was reasonable under the circumstances. Assuming that the homeowner was in a state that allowed a homeowner to shoot an intruder and did not impose a duty to first attempt to retreat, the homeowner might have been allowed to fire the first two shots. Keep in mind that some police officers have gotten off manslaughter charges for killing children who were holding toy guns in the dark. In the other states, regardless of blindness, the homeowner is probably going to go to jail for some form of manslaughter or murder. Indeed, here is where the homeowner's blindness may start to hurt him before the jury, if the jury believes that a reasonable blind person would have retreated into a locked bedroom. Remember that the homeowner has a shotgun at the ready, has a wife calling 911, has an alarm system which has sounded, and more than one dog is barking. Help should be on the way. Even if criminal charges in this situation were not filed, the homeowner is going to be hit with a massive civil damages lawsuit. The 4 shots from the sawed-off shotgun, the availability of a locked room, the access to a phone, the barking dogs and sounding alarm system would all be raw meat before a civil jury, and also before a criminal jury. In addition, the fourth shot would probably merit manslaughter charges, unless the blind person had a reasonable reason to believe that there was a continuing threat.


Now, let's suppose that the intruder is a large drooling pathological killer armed with a huge carving knife left over from Thanksgiving. In such a case, as discussed above, in most states a homeowner would be allowed to fire the first two or three shots. However, the homeowner had the option to retreat, so in some states the homeowner would again be going to jail. As for the fourth shot, the homeowner backed up and fired. This is problematic even in the case of the pathological killer. It might be different if the intruder screamed that he was going to "kill the homeowner and his entire family." In such a case, the offensive action might be excused. However, in the case of a pathological killer, a jury and news media would probably be very sympathetic to the homeowner, and probably even more so because of his blindness. It would also make a difference as to where the homeowner lived. For instance, a jury would probably let the homeowner off in New Mexico, but the homeowner might be in big trouble in New York. The homeowner might have been in a better legal and public relations position had he fired a warning shot, provided that he had done so in a safe direction.


So, what can be learned from the discussion of this hypothetical? Well, for one thing, if it is not reasonable for a sighted person to charge into a room to confront an intruder, than it is probably not going to be reasonable for a blind person to do the same thing. If the sighted person would have seen a small deaf girl who was after beanie babies, than a blind person who shoots the little girl is in a lot of trouble. However, if the intruder was the pathological killer, than in most states not requiring retreat, a blind person would probably be excused for firing the first, second, and third shots. However, there might still be problems with the 4th shot because of the failure to retreat, or if a sighted person would have perceived the danger as being over. In addition, even the pathological killers surviving family could go out and hire a lawyer to file a civil lawsuit, though a civil suit would be an uphill battle given that the intruder was a pathological killer, especially in a conservative state such as New Mexico.


Some other issues should be addressed. For one, I assume that the blind homeowner chose a shotgun because of the wide spread of the shot, and the lack of penetration that characterizes a shotgun blast. It would probably be foolish for a blind person to use a high-powered rifle or handgun for self-defense, considering that the fired bullet might pass through several walls and kill a neighbor down the street. This is an important factor when considering a gun and bullet combination for self-defense, and even more so for a blind person. I believe that it would be reckless and negligent for a blind person to use a .357 magnum for self- defense, unless the person was a skilled shooter and miles from the nearest neighbor. While a 12 gage shotgun may seem like a good answer, as might a safety slug for the .357 (a type of exploding bullet with little penetration), it should be kept in mind that prosecutors, juries, and the media do not like exotic firearms and bullets. Twelve gage shotguns and exploding bullets are highly lethal, and not very forgiving of mistakes. Worse yet, the homeowner's use of an illegal twelve gage sawed-off shotgun places him in an even less sympathetic position with the media, prosecutors, and any civil or criminal jury.


So, what is the bottom line? If a blind person chooses to use a gun for self-defense, he/she should first think carefully through the issues, and consider the prudent selection of a gun and bullet combination. Also, like any other gun owner, he/she should store the gun and ammunition in a safe and legal fashion. Most importantly, he or she should be trained to safely use the gun, and be knowledgeable of Federal, state and local laws pertaining to when a person can use a gun for self-defense.


I believe that a blind person has the right to use a gun in the course of self-defense, but he/she must be certain of who he/she is shooting at and, and certain of where the bullet is going to go. Rather than buying a shotgun, perhaps the blind person should have installed good locks and solid core doors on the outside doors, and also on the inside bedroom doors. If a blind person instead chooses to own a gun and use deadly force, he or she should be prepared to accept the consequences of his or her actions."


Respectfully Greg Trapp (From the NFB blindlaw listserv)


FROM ME: "A very good job in examining many of the key aspects of the human potential, the reasoning for one wepon over another and how the law in general will react."



3. "I think this guy's blindness will be a factor, always is. Just as it was in what he prepared himself to do, in what he did and how.


Blindness will be in his favor if what he does is close to being what should have been done by a sighted person. Even if he made a mistake or too, they'd give him some slack. Get real, in an all out fight for life and death, in more cases than I would like to think of, blindness is a handicap. Get real, a good person/fighter with all his senses going for him has an advantage. He's got more to work with!


In a case like the one described here, the blind man is not only forced to shoot, but he knows that at all costs he can't allow the bad-guy to get to him. He can't take the chance that the guy has or hasn't a wepon, is bigger or not, is a marshal arts expert, is crazed by drugs, etc. He can't wait for the cops; at best they will take minutes to arrive and what was coming down for him and his wife and daughter will happen in the next few seconds. Thus if he's smart, wants to use his edge, he shoots and shoots until he knows he's finished it and he and his family are safe.


Like Mr. Newman stated in the Provoker, "God for bid that it would happen." No one should have to face this situation."


(A person from New Mexico, USA)



**4. First of all, what the heck is a blind man doing with a gun in his own home , loaded?? That is the first mistake. (I am a woman...who used to hunt.) After the fact, it seems to me that he should take full responsibility for the deed. It is up to a jury of his peers to decide his guilt. If convicted, he should "do the time". I know he would not "play handicapped" to get out of it. But you know, he will get off. What if the intruder saw a fire and broke in to put it out?? Okay! dumb idea."


Pam McVeigh (Herman, Nebraska, USA, pmcveigh@huntel.net)



**5. "Wouldn't the others in the household be sighted? They could at least clue him in as to whether the intruder was armed. Probably he'd be a three-day wonder in the papers. But a friend of mine told me if you kill an intruder in your house it's self defense. just don't let him fall out the window. Lots of blind people have guns. That probably ought to worry you."


Lori Stayer (Merrick, New York, USA)



**6. "The hypothetical resident who kills the burglar in Mr. Newman's 11/29 posting would suffer no adverse ramifications because of being blind. To the contrary, he would likely become an instant local hero. I'll bet the ranch that no possessor of property -- regardless of the possessor's vision level -- has ever been held criminally or civilly liable for using deadly force against an intruder of the kind Mr. Newman depicts. Nor are there any valid laws requiring visual acuity as a precondition to the mere ownership of otherwise legal firearms. It is, of course, a no-no to cause damage by recklessly firing a weapon. But by no stretch of the imagination does this case involve that.


Craig Anderson (From NFB blindlaw listserv)



**7. "The blind person waited and upon hearing the splintering announced a stop warning, along with audibly racking a shell into the gun. The person was inside his house, so I see no reason for not defending oneself. The family were inside bedrooms and had been audibly located. The person was in his full rights, there was no difference between being sighted or blind, this would not have been an issue. We use a saying here "a horse is a horse" or in this case a "crook is a crook" In addition, in working with our local police department on self defense courses, I have found that a person with a disability has more rights and more measures to defend themselves than even the police do. A person with a disability cannot incapacitate a wrong doer and run away, they need to stop that wrong doer in whatever means necessary.


Mike Wardin (Columbia, Missouri, USA)


FROM ME: "I've sent messages out to several journalism schools. What do you out there think the mass media would make of this type of event?"



**8. "WOW...certainly this evokes many thoughts. ... I cannot speak from a law stand, not can I pretend to know the law. I can say that, the laws and the consequences would have little bearing I believe, on what would be an instant, panicky, spur of the moment reaction. I would hope that I would make a wise decision. But having been a victim of crime before, I will say this. There is a deep-seated fear of mine. That one day someone would follow me home, seeing that I am blind and perhaps later breaking in... The possible things that could happen to me, my hubby and children are unimaginable. Would I as a blind person, use a gun to protect my family? Would I stand by and watch or wait for the intruder's next move? NO, I would not stand by, and yes I would risk whatever necessary to protect them. I have read all of the arguments, but in the end I doubt many of us would stand by and wait for help to come, God willing, none of us would have to make such a choice."


Sheila Loos (Lincoln, Nebraska, USA, NOWISEE799@aol.com )>



**9. "Well, I have only one real point to make in this response to your story this time. I do not find this to be a blindness issue, this is a social issue that affects everyone these days. I grew up in a home with guns, and I have a great deal of respect for these devices. They are a valuable tool when used properly, sadly they are far too often used the wrong way. I was taught how to fire a weapon, how to maintain one, and its proper usage. My father firmly believed in everyone's right to won firearms, and equally he believed that those that owned them should understand and accept the responsibility that owning a weapon involves. The first statement my father made to me when I first held a rifle was, "Never aim at anything you do not intend to shoot, and never shoot at anything you do not intend to kill." It is just that serious of a matter, and I fear that the majority of people that purchases a weapon with the intent of protecting his or her family does not take this matter seriously enough. Owning a weapon is a commitment to care for that device, respecting its terrible power, and recognizing that owning a weapon represents a serious danger to you and the members of your family. I do not own a firearm, not because I am blind, but because I have no true need to own one. Without a proper reason to have and use a weapon, owning one is an act of endangerment to those you love and anyone living near you."
Jeff Altman (Lincoln, Nebraska, USA)



**10. "Who cares what the law says in a time like that?! The guy did the right thing to protect his family. I know that living in America, that you would get off free and probably get a medal for doing it. I am totally blind as you may know and my wife and I have gone over situations like that to see what we should do in similar circumstances. I am physically fit and not afraid of most anything. We have a shotgun in our home. It is not loaded but we keep the shells easily accessible. My wife has very good eyesight. I would meet the crook at the point of entry, I would tell him to stop or he was a dead man. I would then turn on the lights so my wife could have a clear shot if need be. I have an 18-year-old son who lives here. He is no coward either. If I, being blind would use a shotgun, I could have shot my son. What if he had come up to fight the man and was in between us?


My wife, is a cute little blonde, who when we hunted together, out shot most of the men when we were shooting blue rock. She would not have a qualm shooting a crook who was going to hurt our family. Whether you are sighted or blind, if you do not protect your family, you are a coward. Blind people can shoot a gun, but you have no idea what is in front of what you think you are shooting at."


Pat Conrad (Dunlap, Iowa, USA, rccrash@pionet.net )



**11. "The whole matter of fire arms is rather a difficult and sensitive subject here in South Africa. We have a tremendously high crime rate of violent crimes in which firearms are used. To complicate matters, the new dispensation have gone a bit overboard on the matter of human rights and often leaves one with the perception that the victim's human rights are less important than those of the offender. Often people who legitimately defend themselves and their possessions by the use of firearms, have a lot of explaining to do and are treated as if they were the actual offenders.


Another problem is that it often happens that a house is burgled or a car hi-jacked and a person gets shot with his own weapon. That is probably the main reason why I've never considered trying to get a fire arm license. I don't know what the authorities' attitude in general would be if blind people started applying for firearm licenses. I have a blind friend who does have a licence and apparently had no problems obtaining it, but that was in a country town where everybody knows everyone else. I suspect that in the cities blind people might find it more difficult to obtain licences.


As for the press: I think everyone here, including the press, but seemingly excluding the government, is so fed-up with the crime rate that, should a blind person defend himself with a fire arm, the press would probably commend him. But I rather think the legal system will demand some serious explanation. Imagine the infringement of the poor criminal's human rights! Being shot by a blind person!


But this hasn't yet become a serious issue among blind people. We rather tend to safeguard our homes and make use of armed response and stay away from dangerous areas."


Christo de Klerk (Alberton, South Africa)



**12. "After reading this, a couple of points come to mind. I don't feel like this guy's blindness was that much of an issue. Why?


Number one, no one has a right to barge into any ones house at 2:30 in the morning..If all family members have been accounted for, this is obviously someone that should not be there....Therefore this person is taking a chance of being shot by any house he goes into at this time of night.


Number 2, The owner warned this person that he had a gun, this intruder probably also had a gun, a man/woman has every right to protect their property and family.


Number 3, My husband has very limited vision due to CHM, but I would trust him with a gun before me....He used to shoot quite well, and probably still does....At 2:30 in the morning, it is going to be dark. How well can "anyone" see in the dark....I admit I can walk through my house in the dark and see where I am going, my husband must sometimes "feel" his way....but can maneuver around enough to know where he is....the intruder probably has no clue and this is to your advantage....so coming into someone's house in the dark, you deserve what you get, or go to the front door and ring the doorbell....but this is obviously not what happened...


Number 4, How many people do you know that without their glasses they are blind as a bat? How many people put their glasses on the night stand when they go to bed...What if during the excitement, you knocked your glasses off and couldn't find them....Would this person be treated as a "blind" person? Even if the lights were on, most people cannot see 3 feet in front of them without their glasses. Besides if I was on a Jury and this did happen, I wouldn't care if this guy had a sawed off shotgun....My husband has always had powerful guns, shot guns, etc....He always said that I didn't want a little gun, you shoot that at an intruder, all you are going to do is piss him off....You want to have something just a little bit more intimidating....Blind people have every right to own guns just like everyone else, and protect themselves when threatened...."


Renee Tucker (USA)



**13. "This is my response. Attached you will find the article. The only thing that I want to say Go for it with all you have!!!


Fatos Floyd (Lincoln, Nebraska, USA)


ARTICLE: "The Daily Oklahoman
November 30, 1998
Blind man subdues attackers with chain saw STILWELL, Okla. (AP) _
Adair County officials say two men who broke into a blind man's home were seriously injured when the man defended his family with a chain saw. Injuries were about all the two men took with them following the altercation with J.R. Colston on Thanksgiving.


"I don't think they got away with anything except their lives," said Undersheriff Gary Sinclair.


Colston's brother, Raymond Colston, said the incident began about noon when the two men started throwing rocks through windows of Colston's rented house southeast of Stilwell. Family members said by the time the men forced their way inside, the family was frantically looking for weapons to defend themselves.


"He did the only thing he could and got a chain saw after them," said Bonnie Colston, his mother.


Sinclair said both men ended up with serious injuries. One was sent to St. Francis Hospital in Tulsa and another went to the Stilwell hospital. The Adair County Sheriff's Department would not identify the men. Sinclair said he expected charges to be filed against the intruders sometime next week.


Family members said Colston, 50, blind since birth, was injured when one attacker hit him in the back."


FROM ME: "Interesting to have an actual news article in which to view some of the important elements of our Provoker. Here is evidence that the blind will stand and fight. It is also one sample of how the law and press handles this type of event. Firearms of course are not the only weapon which can be employed, right?"



**14. "I am a regular reader of the Matilda Ziegler magazine. I enjoy it and am often intrigued by the topics of discussion that show up in the Reader's Forum. For several months, just such issues as you have raised were high on the list. Right now, blind people are feeling very vulnerable, maybe even picked on by society. We do know that criminals are looking for people who are vulnerable.


I once had a sighted roommate who wanted to get a gun. I told her that if she felt unsafe enough in that building to think she needed a gun, she probably needed to move to a place where she felt safe. I was working on helplines, coming in at 2 and leaving at 3 am. When I wasn't coming and going, I was probably on the phone. She might have shot me.


In Lincoln, it is required that firearms be kept under lock and key. This ruling means that they are probably not available for self-defense. Another consideration is that many times it is the criminal that uses the weapon rather than the victim.


I guess the way I see blindness playing into this is that we need to think ahead and figure out what we can do to make ourselves and our families safe. I am not so sure that blindness is the real issue with having or using a gun for self-defense in this situation. I have never used a firearm without "hands on guidance" and probably never will. I don't have enough interest in them to stay in practice or maintain the gun. For those two reasons, it would not be an appropriate self-defense tool for me. I would be better served by something like pepper spray or even a dagger kitchen knife which would be more easily accessed by me than an intruder.


If you have concerns about your safety, I would recommend taking a self-defense class. Police departments have them and community colleges also hold classes. You might even want to consider martial arts training. Another option is to participate in the self-defense seminar usually held at the NFB convention."


Nancy Coffman (Lincoln, Nebraska, USA)


FROM ME: "Options; for all."



**15. "I am from the UK where firearms are band. No citizen is to carry or own one. I am also a veteran of our armed forces. I fought in our scrape with Argentina where I was wounded. Many of you I am sure have heard the saying "My home is my castle." My flat is my home, my castle. I am the lord and protector of my family. As a disabled man I know I am not as fit as I was in the army, I lost that edge. So to protect my family and myself I have a pistol. Yes, illegal, but necessary. If I am forced to use it will be a situation where if I do not use it either my family or myself will be at risk, in harms way. I would then trade one evil for another. I would rather risk my rights to freedom by using the pistol, then risk having my wife and child harmed. They trust in me and rely upon me to protect them. If my loss of sight becomes an issue, then may it be in my favor.


You will understand if I request that my name not appear with this message."



FROM ME: "Blindness, protect, illegal, all words/concepts which can appear together.



**16. "I'll preface this by saying I faced a very tense situation in January of 1997 in my home town of Kearney. I was home on break from college and my younger brother threw a party at my parents' home while they were away on a trip. He and a bunch of his buddies were drinking and naturally, as parties go, lots of people showed up who weren't necessarily invited. When a couple of Mexican guys showed up, one of my brother's friends, who was somewhat wasted, threw some racial slurs at them. The two Mexicans left, but soon returned with about eight of their friends. They were brandishing rocks, empty beer bottles and one even had a knife. They threatened to start breaking out windows unless my brother's friend gave himself up. My brother and two other guys went outside in an effort to defuse the situation. The crowd outside threatened to beat them up unless my brother's friend gave himself up. I overheard all of this from the front porch and, in a moment of panic, thought of my father's 357 magnum which was upstairs in the bottom drawer of his dresser.


I ran upstairs and knew that if I heard one cry from outside, I'd get the gun. I was very afraid for my brother's safety. Luckily, a scared girl called the police and they showed up several minutes later. There was no bloodshed that night, but there very well may have been. I would've felt no compunction about using the gun if it meant saving my brother from harm. The idea of ever harming someone that way, or taking a human life is abhorrent to me, but the idea of standing by helplessly and letting a loved one suffer because of my inaction is even more so. I'm sure many blind persons feel this way. I'm also sure that the authorities would take into account the state of mind of the person using the deadly force in self-defense. As many others on the list have commented, there is little doubt a blind person would get off in a case such as the one you write about. The idea of me, as a blind person, owning a weapon is very disturbing, but we live in disturbing times. As more chaos continues to boil up in our society, we can either choose to drown in it, or ride the wave. Hope this doesn't sound too extreme."


Ryan Osentowski (Lincoln, Nebraska, USA)



**17. "Frankly, were I in the man's place, I would shoot to kill and keep ON shooting until I *knew* the intruder was immobilized. Permanently. Why? Because allowing an intruder to live guarantees a lawsuit! uit also guarantees that the intruder will win in court. Have you not read the stories? It is FAR better to see to it that anyone found in one's home at night... is found there in the morning! Dead men do not sue. IMHO, the householder in the incident gave *three* clear warnings, first, by turning off thre alarm. This tells the person breaking in that the home is *occupied*. Second, by shouting "Stop!" Although the law requires a clearer warning, such as "Stop or I'll shoot!" it can be interpreted differently with the third and final warning, the chambering of the round! Had the intruder been a "little deaf girl", she would not have had the strength of "Splinter the door in" as the story describes. Had it been a neighbor, warning them of fire, ...well... what would YOU do to warn a neighbor? Yes, you'd KNOCK ON THE DOOR, not kick it in! In his place, I'd fire and keep ON firing. The necessity of defending one's family overrides all else.


But yes, a person does change when they take a life. They change irrevocably. There are ramifications and consequences. But they MUST be faced NOT at the moment of firing, but the moment the gun is purchased! Once that firearm is bought, the intent MUST be there, to take life with it, if necessary, or it becomes not only useless, but DANGEROUS. yes a gun can be more dangerous in the hands of one not willing to kill with it, than otherwise, in the hands of one trained in its use and mentally prepared to act in the extreme SHOULD IT BECOME NECESSARY.


I am the ex wife of an L.A.P.D. person, have dealth with self defense issues and know what it is to take life. I will not go into details, but there are changes that MUST be considered BEFORE buying that shotgun. In fact, I do not have a firearm of any kind, nor will I allow one in my house. Because I HAVE dealt with firearm violence, accidental and criminal, and do not intend to run that gauntlet again. I have other lethal means of self defense which are far safer."


Sylvia Stevens (San Francisco, USA)



**18. "I have something to say about this subject, and although it is not my intention to offend or belittle anyone, I have to express my condolences to you for your recent loss, the loss of your mind! Are you nuts? The person in this story is blind, am I right or did I misread? It's a story about a blind guy who owns a gun? A guy who cannot see, has no visual sense, and he not only owns a gun, but has bullets and actually uses the gun and shoots someone. This is the craziest thing I've ever heard of. Who sold a gun to a blind guy? Did his wife not know he had it? She must be blind also, or she'd have found it and God only knows what a disaster that could have been. What about the kids in the house? If sightless Daddy has easy access to the firearm, then surely those kids could have found it and caused a tragedy.


The man in the story has irresponsibly endangered the lives of his children and for what, the chance to not look helpless? The opportunity to use a pistol just like all the sighted people can do? Hey, if you are blind, you should please understand that there are just some things that are better left to the sighted. I'm sorry if that sounds a little cruel, but so are the staggering statistics involving handguns, shootings, children, deaths in this country. The sighted people of the world are making enough of a mess of the gun control situation and don't need any more help. In a country where it is not only legal but an inalienable right to bear arms, we draw a fine line between peoples rights and stupidity. Guns do not belong in the hands of children or the blind. If you really want to senselessly create a disaster, why don't you steal a car. If you think you can fire a gun into the blackness and hope for the best, then you'll probably love steering a car into the nothingness that you see ahead of you. Maybe you'll get lucky and take out not one person but a whole group of people. Too bad you won't get to see the damage you've done, though, some nice sighted person can describe the carnage to you. I know this sounds awfully mean, but when it comes to guns I am very opposed to their very existence. I resent that anyone, including criminals can purchase and own weapons, even a person who has to use a long stick to probe the space in front of him just to know if someone is there or not. Does this really make sense? Would it not be safer to learn martial arts (hey, you could also improve your balance), or equip your home with alarm systems that will summon help for you? Now, please don't think I'm picking on the poor blind people of the world.....I'm against guns in anyone's hands, except the police, and it would be nice if all guns could be eliminated someday. I do not want a gun in my house because the chances are if it is ever needed, it would be at night time when it is dark and as I've said before, that would be really stupid. Blind people, no matter how good or poor they are at being blind, whether they are well adjusted or stumbling around, regardless of their self confidence and attitude, should not play with anything as dangerous as a gun. If anyone kills another human, I think that they should be ready to deal with the consequences. I know I would hate to have to go to jail, and I would especially hate it if I could not see......all the Bubba's that are doing hard time for horrible crimes are just waiting in their jail cells for a cellmate they can take advantage of, and I wouldn't want that to be me. The whole point is that there are just some things that are better left untouched, and guns in the hands of humans is at the top of the list, as far as I'm concerned. Sorry if I offended any blind hunters that may be out there (oh God I hope not) or any members of the NRA.”


k Naples (Florida USA)



**19. "While reviewing past Provokers, I found this one about shooting those breaking and entering. I wished to respond since I experienced a similar situation.


First, I did not try to shoot anyone. For seven years, I worked with mentally ill and developmentally disabled people in a residential and vocational setting. I was the first blind person ever hired by this company, so, the issue of being injured was raised. I had some wonderful coworkers teach me how to handle a situation, so that, force would not be necessary. Unfortunately, one day, I was supervising a young lady in a home alone. She had been taken off a medication since it was not viewed therapeutic. First, she tried to burn down the house with me inside. While I was calling for assistance, she smashed the telephone. Trying to relax and change her mind, she grabbed my waist-length hair and smashed my head with wall-hangings and furniture. It took some time to remove her fingers from my hair. I got loose and stood in a different room, trying to decide what to do. I heard her pick up the piano bench and her mumble that the bench would certainly finish me off. I charged out the door and held it shut.

Eventually, help arrived and I was brought to the hospital. The doctors there said I was not injured, just upset since I proved that I could not perform the same job as a sighted person. I answered that my lack of sight did not provoke this person. They refused to perform any tests since I was making up the story. My supervisor and nurse from the agency went to bat for me, unfortunately, we could not get the doctors to do the tests. I am just fine now, but it still angers me since my sight actually prevented further injury. I have seen so many sighted people use force when escape may be the better choice. The company has been very supportive of hiring more disabled staff after I proved that the work could be performed by a uniquely abled person. Marcia Beare, M.S.W. (Martin, Michigan Jmbeare@accn.org)