CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES—EQUALLY TRUE AND EQUALLY TRAGIC

Updating an essay from December 3, 2007

By Edwin Cooney

His whole name is Raymond Charles Bunde—although it’s a good bet that his La Vernia, Texas friends call him Ray.  He’s eighty-three years old and to many in south Texas he’s quite a hero these days.

Last September 28^th—a Friday—around one thirty p.m., Ray Bunde heard a loud noise at the home of his next door neighbor.  Knowing his neighbor was at work, Ray Bunde decided it would only be the neighborly thing to do to investigate the goings on at his neighbor’s abode.

Taking along his 12 gauge shotgun, Ray got into his vehicle and drove around to his neighbor’s house.  Upon arrival, he noticed two things immediately:  there was a strange vehicle in the driveway and his neighbor’s front door was kicked in.  Blocking the strange vehicle with his own, Ray Bunde alighted from his car with his trusty 12 gauge.  Next, he shouted for those who were inside to come out.  They complied.

One of the two men, twenty-four-year-old Steven Christopher Muniz, ran.  The other, twenty-three-year-old Dustin Brandon Houston—according to Ray Bunde—got into his vehicle and tried to run Bunde down.

Mr. Bunde discharged his 12 gauge just once and the shot found its mark hitting Houston in the head and killing him instantly.  Muniz was picked up later that evening at his San Antonio home.  Authorities found stolen goods—presumably at the homes of both Muniz and the now late Dustin Houston.  Wilson County Sheriff Joe Tackitt Jr. said that, according to friends, Houston and Muniz had bragged earlier that day that they would spend the day doing burglaries in Wilson County.  Hence, it appeared that with a single shot, eighty-three-year-old Raymond Charles Bunde had made his neighbors in and around La Vernia and Wilson County, Texas at least temporarily free from the tyranny of marauders.

Under Texas law, Raymond Charles Bunde will not be charged with the death of Dustin Brandon Houston.

So, is Ray Bunde a hero?  Sure he is… but can we afford to rely on heroics for our safety and security? Whatever differences you and I may have—as friend to friend or budding columnist to reader—I’m sure that we do not disagree over whether such a crime ought to be prevented or punished.  Nor would you and I disagree as to the cruelty, stupidity or selfishness of those who have committed crimes such as those described above.

The question therefore is:  who should do the “crime prevention” and who should do the punishing once a crime is committed?

It’s hard to be against people being safe and it’s even harder to be anything less than outraged by the utterly selfish and cruel methods of the mugger or the burglar.  Any person who indulges in thievery or deadly intimidation of any kind has a twisted idea of right and wrong and ought to be severely punished via separation from society.

When I was growing up, I believed (because I thought this belief was held by most of the responsible adults I knew) that if anyone invaded one’s home for the purpose of burglary or for any other reason, the occupant of that home had the right to kill that individual—no questions asked.  Such an idea seemed perfectly reasonable to me then. After all, I reasoned, if I’m going to invade someone’s home to rob or intimidate them, can I reasonably expect not to be confronted by deadly force?

I even remember hearing former President Eisenhower assert that if he caught someone invading his house “I feel I gotta go after ‘em.  It’s called hot pursuit—that’s what it is,” said Ike.

Only later did I hear people asking such questions as:

Since when was theft or burglary punishable by death?

What does it say about us if we insist that material possessions are equally as valuable as someone’s life?

If citizens are given the right to kill robbers or burglars, why bother having a police force?

As was the case with the supposed right to kill an uninvited home invader bent on robbery or physical mayhem, the above three questions also seemed reasonable to me when I heard them.

I don’t like guns any better than I like gas chambers, electric chairs, gallows or deadly needles and I’m definitely of the opinion that the National Rifle Association is far more interested in selling fire arms than in protecting my safety or your liberty.  Having said that, it’s impossible for me to tell homeowners or renters that they must face a home invader’s deadly weapon armed only with the victim’s plea for mercy.

I strongly sympathize with people’s outrage over the violation of their homes and personhood by the twisted ideas of twisted legitimacy.  However, I’m not sure I like vigilante justice either.

On March 31^st, 2006, I wrote a column making my opposition to capital punishment very clear.  However, I allowed that there is one justification for killing.  That justification, I asserted, was the prevention of the taking of an innocent life that was immediately being threatened.  Hence my sympathy—with some serious reservations—about citizen concealed gun carrying permit laws.  Here are a few of those reservations.

Isn’t it just possible that more guns in the hands of more people will be costly beyond our expectations?  I’m at a local restaurant, my trusty little hand gun in a shoulder holster under my coat.  I see a man proceed to the cash register and pull something silver from his pocket.  Even though it’s only his key ring, or perhaps a silver calculator or cell phone, I decide it’s his trusty little hand gun.  My first shot misses him and enters the chest of the sweet little lady behind the register passing through her spinal column.  My second shot hits its target in the chest as the man with the keys turns to look toward the direction from where he heard my first shot.  My intention was to prevent a robbery, but I end up killing the man with the keys and perhaps permanently paralyzing the cashier.  Meanwhile, the brother of the gentleman I just shot is still seated at his table with his powerful little piece and he immediately takes care of me.  Next to me sits my son and he’s now got a score to settle.  His first shot hits a little two-year-old and his second shot gets the guy who got me.  The two-year-old’s daddy of course now has a sad score to settle and he’s equipped to settle it.  The score after all the shooting is done is five dead, one paralyzed with no robbery ever intended.

Those sure of the justice of these new laws will of course say the above is absurd and extremely unlikely.  They might keep two things in mind, however.  More guns inevitably mean more gunplay and the more gunplay, the more likely gunplay tragedy will occur.

Many years ago, when I lived in Attica, New York, a prison town, I occasionally rode the bus from nearby Batavia to Rochester with men just released from Attica State Prison.  One day, a newly released prisoner told me, as our bus headed eastward toward Rochester, that he’d been in prison for robbery.  He also told me that while most robbers carry “pieces,” those “pieces” were very often not loaded.  “The last thing most of us want,” he told me, “is to get shot or to add murder to the crime we’ve decided to commit.”

Well, that made sense to me, too.  However, my seatmate was obviously willing to use intimidation to his advantage.  So, therein lies the problem.  Who gets to intimidate and how effective is intimidation?  Are trained personnel or is the average John Doe better qualified to effectively counter criminal intimidation?

Finally, proponents of expanded gun ownership insist that more guns in the hands of law abiding people will “send a message” to potential lawbreakers that they’ll face greater deadly force should they persist with “gun play.”  This force is supposed to deter such potential evil.  I don’t believe that most potential lawbreakers are capable of understanding such messages.  Meanwhile, the public’s safety may well be endangered far more by would-be law enforcers than by determined self-indulgent criminals.

Here’s something else to consider in the wake of an ever increasing insistence on the part of some that more arms will increase public safety.  How many lousy drivers do you see on the road every day?  Would you or I really be safer if even half of those drivers are armed?  Even trained law enforcement personnel often miss their targets.  How accurate do you suppose a lousy driver is likely to be with a gun?  Wow! What would road rage be like then?  Irresponsible drivers are dangerous enough!  Imagine a freeway full of armed school teachers and college professors on their way to work!!  True, such a proposition may well terrorize a terrorist but we’d all be insane if such a condition doesn’t terrorize the rest of us.

The assumption that lawbreakers only break laws because they think they can get away with it, I believe, is unintentionally misleading.  It’s my experience—secondhand of course—that law breakers, like the lovelorn, consider themselves the helpless or entrapped victims of fate or personal injustice.  Hence, driven to their desperation by what they perceive as outrageous fortune, they believe that any behavior that relieves their emotional tension is justifiable.

So, you ask, where does this information take us?  Unfortunately, to the realization of how little we are capable of comprehending one another’s anxieties or needs.  Obviously, the public sees no advantage to digging deeper into the minds of societal losers and those very losers are incapable of understanding anyone’s pain but their own.

Therefore, despite our righteous and everlasting outrage, we’re all left with the status quo.  In life, even when we change our approach, so much is risky, equally true—sadly, equally tragic.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY