A young local businessman had gotten wind of apparent indiscretions between his wife and a young man contracted to work on the road from Sylva to Balsam who had recently arrived in the area. He’d apparently become quite worked up, and on a quiet Friday morning in Sylva the alleged suitor pulled up in front of the Woman’s Shop on Main Street.Before he had a chance to get out of his vehicle, the husband stepped from the sidewalk, pulled a revolver and began shooting, striking the man in the face and twice in the right lung. The man emerged from his car and began running, the husband still firing, hitting him once more below the right shoulder.
The husband then went into Hooper’s Drug Store and handed his gun to a town alderman, then on to the jail with a deputy. The shooting victim was rushed to the hospital in Bryson City.
In October of 1927 the Journal reported prayer for judgment for the shooter was continued for two years by Judge W.F. Harding. The paper reported Harding remarked from the bench, “Mr. Solicitor, you may get some judge to pronounce judgment in this case; but you will never get this one to do it.”
The shooter, who entered a plea of guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon, offered testimony of his good character and witnesses who testified to the affair, in addition to letters the wife had written to the suitor. The latter lead the judge to remark “it appeared the wrong man was on trial.”
The judge opined there was no statute the suitor had violated, but said the legislature should make provisions for such cases, as, the Journal reported, “as the law stands there is little left for an injured husband to do except use a shotgun. (The judge) asserted that this is one place in which our law falls down, and that he would like to issue a bench warrant for (the suitor), if there were a law under which be could be tried.
It’s certainly been a long time since shots rang out on the streets of downtown Sylva, but given the drumbeat of other acts that flicker across our screens daily, the question often comes up if we’ve become a more violent society over time.It is worth noting that the front pages relating the above incident also carried stories about a fight and shooting at the Glenville polling place, the murder of a man in the Southern Railway waiting room in Dillsboro, and an assault with a pistol with intent to kill Sylva Police Chief Allen Sutton.Given that, the aforementioned question is one we’ll leave for sociologists and other experts to answer.
UPDATE: I related this story to my wife, who expressed her opinion that the judge showed excellent sense and that the young businessman's conduct was entirely understandable. "Of course he has a genetically predisposition to react badly to another man stealing his mate," is how she put it.
The story reflects what may be a culturally Appalachian or Scottish/Scots-Irish sentiment that such cases call for violence against the other man, but none against the woman. Violence by men against women is always wrong, I was taught when I was raised, almost regardless of provocation. Women could slap a man across the face to demonstrate displeasure, not in self defense against an actual threat; a man was not to respond in any way. I remember that I was quite shocked when I first heard Willie Nelson's Red Headed Stranger and discovered that the protagonist -- a preacher at that! -- actually killed both his wife and her lover. Yet I think that is a more common standard globally, and the restriction a cultural artifact that is probably fading as we move to emphasize the concept of equality in everything.
15 comments:
The judge might have ended the particular matter and forced action by the legislature (or at least added pressure to act) by issuing outright a directed verdict acquitting the shooter.
On the other hand, it seems to me that while it's a man's duty to protect the woman, this flows from the obligation of the stronger to protect the weaker, not because the protectee is a woman. On the other hand, to hold harmless the woman, at least in outcome of not sanctioning her, it seems to me, is to denigrate the woman as less than thinking adult, one who is incapable of seeing to her own behavior, moral or otherwise.
Eric Hines
That rationalist approach is very Enlightenment, and natural enough given your philosophical attachment to the principles of the revolution and Constitution. It is also similar to the Platonic tradition that I mentioned Averroes citing re: jihad in the comments to the post about enemies.
The old way is informal and folk, but I think it's more defensible on Aristotelian terms. The Enlightenment ideas about social formation, which are well known to you, come at the idea from a perspective of individuals forming a contract. Aristotle's political philosophy begins from the assumption that it is not individuals but families that do, and these families have a nature of their own that is humane because it is what gives rise to human beings. Politics is about making it possible for different families to live together in peace, but because the family is the foundation of society, society must protect inter alia the family from harm -- including from itself.
Thus, an Enlightenment state -- like Plato in his Republic or Laws, but also like modern fascist and Communist states -- might try to do away with the family and its natural order insofar as it conflicts with the philosophical considerations of the state. The Aristotelian order would not, but would recognize that the art of politics lies in protecting and perfecting the natural order. Equality then means something like, "Regardless of which family you come from, the rules are the same." It doesn't mean "there is no difference between father and son, mother and daughter, man and woman, husband and adulterer: all those pre-political differences must wash away."
I believe the Crossroads Chronicle covers the Tuckaseegee area, as well as Glenville, Sapphire and Cashiers. Interesting story, though.
It does, but not Little Canada. I've tried to get VFD stories into the papers, but we're too remote to be of interest. If someone from somewhere else gets murdered up here, they'll cover that, though. That happened last year to some poor woman; we helped the state police get down the gorge to her, recover her body, and investigate the scene. They don't know from rope work, but it's one of our specialties given all the gorges and such.
Individual or family, the principle, for me, is universal: it remains the obligation of the stronger to protect the weaker; the principle is gender agnostic. Too, whether it's the individual or the family as the basic unit, if there's to be a government--a necessity for a society above some threshold size--that government is best constructed from a social compact voluntarily agreed among those basic units.
Thus, "Regardless of which family you come from, the rules are the same" applies to men and women in particular and does not require that difference[s] between father and son, mother and daughter, man and woman, husband and adulterer: all those pre-political differences must wash away. Biology in no way is affected, and where any pre-political difference between husband and adulterer--or between wife and adulterer--and father and son and mother and daughter existed, they still can exist in that social compact; if no such distinctions existed, the strictures of the social compact can create some, or not.
In those intra-family relationships--which exist where the basic unit is the individual, also--some questions still need to be answered, either tacitly or explicitly: when does the child become an adult? What are the obligations of the father to the son and the mother to the daughter? What are the obligations of the father to the daughter, of the mother to the son? Sibling of either gender to sibling of the same or the other gender? When, if ever, do the obligations reverse and become those of the son to the father, the daughter to the mother? Son to mother, daughter to father? What constitutes abuse in any of the above? When does it become appropriate for a non-family member to act to protect the weaker and intervene in a matter of abuse?
Between individual and family as the basic unit, the details of execution of those answers will differ, but the thrust of those answers will not.
Eric Hines
I think it's a good general rule, but with many exceptions. I think of a video I've seen of a deranged homeless woman attacking a family with a knife, and that Father's obligation to attack that woman in defense of his family. Or of a woman who is flagrantly abusing the protection of the rule (not restricting to a symbolic single slap) and attacking a man to the point of risk of injury. I would say a man was justified in some defense at that point (but perhaps not the same measure as he would against a man in similar situations).
Mr. Hines,
I just don't think those formal models work. I love Plato, but one place where Aristotle genuinely improves upon him is in noting that nature matters. You can't walk away from it; there's ultimately no way to get to anything like gender agnostic nor neutrality without injustice because it violates that recognition of natural difference. Maybe women don't need their own sports leagues, but if they don't get them they won't be much active in sports. Maybe they don't need their own bathrooms, but if they don't have protected spaces there will be more sexual assault. Maybe nobody needs prison, but if there are going to be prisons, it's wise not to put men in women's prisons even if they insist they are women and have a political lobby on their side.
Families can differ, as you say; but it's their business how they do. Minding your own business is a key ethical duty much neglected by the literature. I should find time someday to write a book about it.
I'm not sure I see your point. I did say Biology in no way is affected, and where any pre-political difference between husband and adulterer--or between wife and adulterer--and father and son and mother and daughter existed, they still can exist in that social compact; if no such distinctions existed, the strictures of the social compact can create some, or not.
If a woman attacks, she's forfeited her right of protection by any man and canceled any man's obligation to protect her. The man's response may well (and in most circumstances probably ought) differ from the one he'd apply to a man effecting substantially the same attack--that's where biology enters. The rules, though, must be the same for everyone, or very quickly they cease to be effective for anyone. Where differences matter is in the sanctions to be applied for violating the rules.
I'm also unclear on the relevance of either Plato or Aristotle, other than a superficial similarity between some of their descriptions and some of mine.
Eric Hines
I suspect the resolution to this issue could be the principle of proportionality. A woman attacking a man is - in most cases - not substantially equivalent to a man performing the same attack. As such, a just response will change depending on whether one is fighting a man or woman.
A comparable situation would be with the elderly. If an elderly, frail man in a nursing home ineffectually tries to punch a nurse, that nurse should not punch the man into submission.
Douglas's example of a homeless woman with a knife also demonstrates where a violent response to a woman is proportional. That knife is a deadly threat, just as a man with a knife would be.
Patrick Johnson
Mr. Hines, you deserve a courteous response. If you don’t see the point or the relevance, you should reflect on it further, if you like. If you do and when you do, we might discuss it further. Otherwise we may as well not.
Mr. Johnson, welcome. I’m not looking for philosophical justifications for men to use violence against women; I was just reflecting on my own culture having a special refusal of it. If more violence against women is wanted, I am fairly sure that is where our society is headed anyway.
Grim,
I apologize; it seems my comment was unclear. Your custom is logical and just from an Aristotelian standpoint - a lesser threat merits a more limited response. At very low levels of threat, it can be best not to respond at all. However, much like the "preferential option for the poor," it can be taken to an unjust extreme.
Patrick Johnson
Ah, I misunderstood you. Thank you for the clarification. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Grim,
You seemed to be insisting that biology couldn't be avoided, and I was saying much the same thing, so yes, I missed your point.
As to the relevance of Plato and Aristotle, one's ideas--mine included--must stand or fall on their merits, and those should be celebrated from the rooftops or ripped to shreds and burned. Whether someone else agrees or disagrees with the ideas themselves seems unimportant. I've not read Plato or Aristotle at all extensively; any overlap or disconnect of my ideas with them is purely coincidental.
Withal, you pointed out to Mr Johnson that you were not looking for a philosophical discussion in this thread, and that's what we were drifting into. So, I withdraw from the field.
Eric Hines
I only wish to express my disagreement respectfully in this case. I don’t want you to feel dismissed, I just see nothing further to discuss on this point. But you are always welcome and no such disagreements affect that.
I've never felt dismissed, and not this time either. We did seem, though, to have reached both something of an impasse and a point at which we were talking past each other.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment