Standing Up: A Tale of Two Riots and Steps Merchants Took To Protect Their Businesses

It seems almost inevitable that this month's rioting and looting in London would draw comparisons to the 1992 Los Angeles riots.



To be fair, there are some very valid comparisons to be made. One could argue that in both instances, an evaporating police presence and hypersensitivity to the perception of police brutality only served to fuel the rioters brazen aggression in the early going.



Before the first pane of glass was broken in Tottenham, it seemed as though enablers such as Ken Livingstone were prepared to make any number of excuses for the socioeconomic reasons leading up to the unrest while very conveniently ignoring the more immediate consequences of the rioters widespread looting, arson and assaults [one wonders if these same politicians would have such a forgiving outlook if it was their home or business that was picked clean by looters and firebombed- NANESB!].



Growing up in Western New England, I saw televised coverage of the LA riots unfolding pretty close to real time, including the brutal, unprovoked and near-fatal beating of truck driver Reginald Denny.



At the time, I couldn't help but wonder how much further things would spiral out of control. But in the second day of the LA riots, I saw something that was strangely reassuring. Abandoned by the LAPD and with the California National Guard still at least a day away from showing up, Korean merchants armed with pistols, rifles and shotguns began fortifying their shops and exchanging gunfire with approaching looters and roving gang members.



Not surprisingly, the gun-phobic Northeastern press was aghast and horrified at the armed Korean 'vigilantes' defending their livelihoods taking the law into their own hands. A contemporary account from the New York Times reads:

One of the most gripping and, increasingly, controversial television images of the violence was a scene of two Korean merchants firing pistols repeatedly from a military stance. The image seemed to speak of race war, and of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.

I'll admit that I found it fascinating but not for the inflammatory and just plain wrong reasons the New York Times cited. Having grown up in a fairly liberal state, I was told that keeping a firearm for self-defense was a fallacy and if I did so, I was far more likely to injure or kill a member of the household than an intruder. Yet that particularly dubious statistic unravelled pretty quickly for all the world to see on live TV.



From the looks of it, there were two clear choices of what to do in such a dire situation. Find yourself at the mercy of unchecked thugs and criminals like Reginald Denny and others found themselves, or protect yourself, your business and your family by taking up arms like the Koreans did. Granted some businesses were lost to arson and looting, but by day two of the riots the armed merchants made it clear that rioters bound and determined to burn or loot their businesses would pay a heavy toll.





Fast forward nearly 20 years and on the other side of the Atlantic, the closest thing you have to the defiant Koreans fending off a murderous, rampaging mob are Turkish and Kurdish shopkeepers armed with baseball bats, knives and pool cues greeting the looters in England. Granted it had the desired effect this time around, but one has to wonder what the presence of even an old Lee-Enfield .303 rifle or over-under shotgun might've done to disperse the marauding crowd.



However, the United Kingdom has among the strictest gun control laws in the world- something many gun control advocates were hoping the USA would emulate some day. Yet since the UK's 1997 prohibition on private ownership of handguns, crime has only increased.



Even more problematic, without any debate or consultation the legal standard for what constitutes self-defense in England, hinging on a magistrate or prosecutor's definition of 'reasonable force' ex post facto. Yet many Britons feel that the people who have been engaging in a week-long spree of arson, assault and robbery will get off with a light sentence- if they're ever caught.



For all the complaints about America's supposedly lax gun laws, I'll take my chances with that versus a disarmed society where you're on your own once the police decide they can no longer protect you.

Death Panels Revisited? Obama Administration Revives Controversial 'End Of Life' Provision via Regulation

Not surprisingly, this was announced on Christmas Eve when the overwhelming majority of Americans were otherwise preoccupied.

WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill. [snip]

Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”

“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.”

After learning of the administration’s decision, [Congressman] Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.

“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”

I can't help but wonder if these death panels are so 'mythical', according to Congressman Blumenauer [D-OR, 3rd District], then why was it kept out of the original legislation, only to be snuck in later on via regulation when they figured nobody else was looking? Moreover, why are Blumenauer and others urging supporters to keep quiet about it instead of 'shouting from the rooftops'?

Elsewhere, the incoming House Energy and Commerce chairman Fred Upton [R-MI, 6th District] announced that the House will schedule a vote on repealing 0bamacare before President Obama's state-of-the-union address later on this month. Although the vote would be largely symbolic and almost certain to be vetoed by the President, Upton and other Republicans said they would plan on defunding or rolling back key provisions (the 1099 requirement for small businesses, the individual purchase mandate or the 'Stupak Amendment' regarding language in the bill on abortion) of 0bamacare.