Black mob with bats and pipes besieges and invades white family in their Philadelphia home
Because the second paragraph of the article, from the Philadelphia Daily News, didn’t seem to follow from the second, I had to read the two paragraphs about three times before they made sense. This is what the story tells us. Dozens of blacks with bats and pipes were chasing (or threatening) two white boys in a residential neighborhood. The two boys approached Mark Lavelle, a white man, on the street and asked for his help, and he ran with them into his house, whereupon the mob surrounded and broke into the house. One man hit Lavelle with a pipe. A second punched him in face. A third brandished a gun, and Lavelle wrestled with him until the sound of police sirens led the mob to flee.
The reporter does not explain why, since the incident occurred on September 9, it is only being reported today, September 27. Evidently it took the staff at the News two and a half weeks to come to terms with reporting a black mob invasion of a white home.
Posted on Tue, Sep. 27, firstname.lastname@example.org 215-854-2592
I recall several readers disagreed with me that concealed carry is not the answer to inner city crime due to repercussions from one’s “neighbors.” This story about the attack on the white family in Philadelphia illuminates my point, as the protagonist’s life is already threatened by merely shielding himself from violence and from being at the scene of an arrest.LA replies:
I don’t get your point. It seems to me that if Mark Lavelle’s life is being threatened he would be better off with a firearm.Lydia McGrew writes:
Does Pennsylvania have a castle doctrine for defending your home? LaVelle was lucky to have been strong enough to fend off an armed mob while unarmed himself. My impression is that he would have been entirely within the law had he used firearms to defend himself once the mob entered his house. Don’t most states have such protections for homeowners? This isn’t a matter of concealed carry, which is usually covered by a different set of laws from home defense.LA replies:
Of course you’re right. Concealed carry is not the issue here.Jonathan W. writes:
I don’t think Mark A.’s point makes sense. He originally argued in the past discussion that concealed carry is not a good solution to combating inner city crime because of possible recrimination from the thug’s family or friends. But if merely shielding himself from violence and being at the scene of an arrest will lead to that retaliation anyway, one might as well have an effective means of self-defense.Matthew H. writes:
Note how the writer puts “mob” in quotes in the third paragraph. What, you mean it wasn’t a mob? What other possible meaning could the word have? [LA replies: I think that the quotation marks showed that this was Lavelle’s word.]Lara writes:
The attack in Philadelphia reminds me of the murder of Eddie Polac in 1994. A mob chased him through the streets of Philadelphia and beat him to death with a baseball bat. I do not know the race of the mob. Mark LaVelle likely saved the lives of these two teenagers.JC in Houston writes:
Of course Lavelle would have been within his legal right to use a firearm to defend his home when a criminal mob broke in. An AR-15 carbine loaded with a 30 round magazine of 5.56mm ammunition would have made short work of the intruders. I keep one handy at the house for just such an eventuality. Lavelle’s other problem seems to be that he lives in fairly close proximity to large numbers of blacks.Mark A. replies to LA:
Indeed. But relating to our discussion on the original thread, after he used that firearm, he and his family could no longer live in Philadelphia. His life is already threatened for doing essential nothing (except for slamming his door), imagine what would happen if he had shot a perp? Thus, the focus of traditionalists should be on the dysfunction of the community and the inability of certain people to live in what a proper historian would call “civilization” rather than asserting that a solution to this behavior rests in an individual’s use of armed force. Separation is essential.D. Edwards writes:
Lydia McGrew writes:LA replies:
Well, this would seem directly to answer Mark A.’s concern, expressed at VFR last month, over civil lawsuits facing individuals who use firearms to defend themselves. In fact, the bill was signed into law in June and took effect in August.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 27, 2011 11:45 AM | Send