Of Vigilantes and Handguns

A few days ago in a New York subway, an honest citizen used a handgun to defend himself against four young thugs who were armed with large, sharpened screwdrivers. They tried to rob him; he shot them in self-defense.

Perhaps the thugs might only have stuck a few large holes in the citizen. Maybe they’d have murdered him. We’ll never know. But one thing any person with any common sense does know is that it was not incumbent on the citizen to wait until they had plunged their sharp weapons into his body to determine whether they merely wanted his money or his life.

Now, typically, N.Y. Mayor Edward I. Koch and Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, surrounded by their heavily armed bodyguards, are screeching hysterically about the “crime” committed-- not by the four armed thugs--but by the “evil” young man who exercised his right of self-defense as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Ironically, Koch and Cuomo have long been in the forefront of the movement to disarm honest citizens and turn the state of New York over to vicious, brutal criminals. Koch and Cuomo believe that to resist evil thugs is a crime and that honest citizens should be put in prison for attempting to protect themselves. They have done all they can do to make New York safe for murderers, rapists, muggers, robbers and assaulters by denying citizens the right to self-protection.

Koch and Cuomo should be sentenced to giving up their armed bodyguards and having to ride the N.Y. subways each night for a year. If they came through alive--which is doubtful--these two bleeding heart elitists just might screech a different tune.

WILLIAM KEYS North Hollywood The case of Tom Korshak, the 81-year-old gentleman who shot and killed a man trying to rob him and his wife closely parallels the case of the New York subway rider who recently shot four attackers.

Your attitude, expressed by an editorial, that the intended victims were wrong has no base in fact. Was the subway passenger supposed to hand over his money to the poor young lads, thanking them for the opportunity to practice charity? Was Mr. Korshak supposed to present that poor fellow with his wallet and his wife’s jewelry and make afterwards a report to some bored policeman who has seen it all many times and knows darned well that he can’t do anything about it?

The Times and, of course, the American Civil Liberties Union, come eagerly to the defense of those poor, undereducated and underprivileged youngsters and will, once again, decry the “vigilante mentality” of Mr. Korshak--all in the sacrosanct name of the attackers’ constitutional rights.

The alternatives offered by those who are always watchful of the criminals’ rights are: Fight crime by fighting poverty; build better and (above all) more comfortable jails; enact tougher penalties; hire more police. All that would take a long, long time. Waiting for these measures to take effect, I vote for staying alive and in possession of my wallet; and if that costs some subhuman character’s life, that’s tough.

The Judiciary was very quick to cause Mr. Korshak a lot of trouble for staying alive and unrobbed and for having rid the scenery of a piece of human garbage. I say: More power to him, and let’s vote him a medal!

FRANK DESSAYER Glendale The controversy surrounding the New York “Death Wish” vigilante has caused me to rethink my opposition to handguns. The New York police denied this man a permit to carry a concealed weapon because his occupation did not require it. However, it seems that his mode of transportation (the New York subways) did.

The four punks with sharpened screwdrivers in their pockets were able to terrorize other passengers with impunity. I also would carry a weapon if I were in such a vulnerable situation, and I would make darn sure I knew how to use it. I’m sorry, Mayor Koch, the Los Angeles and New York Times and all you other well-intentioned liberals, a person has a right to self-defense.

An old adage has it that a liberal is someone who has never been mugged. Sure, poverty breeds crime, and sure, more severe punishment might have an effect on crime. However, as both the police and muggers will tell you, the most effective deterrent to muggings is the uncertainty of whether the intended victim will fight back. You will notice that four punks accosted a single, seemingly defenseless man. What if large numbers of these vulnerable people started fighting back? I, for one, feel good that these four will not be brutalizing others for a long time, if ever. The tragedy is that the man who shot them will be punished severely. The present laws in New York are making criminals of otherwise law-abiding peopel.

S. ASIMOW Glendale The 81-yar-old man who shot and killed a robber with a gun he carried concealed and loaded committed an illegal act.

So now because he defended himself illegally, he is illegally alive and the would-be robber is illegally dead.

Question: If he didn’t carry the gun, would he be legally wounded or killed by the robber who would have gotten away legally?

M. J. LETTVIN Culver City I can’t help speculating whether so many people would be lauding, applauding, and offering financial assistance to finance bail and legal aid for the N.Y. subway vigilante if the situation were reversed.

Say, for example: If the four young black hoodlums he shot were young white hoodlums harassing him for $5 and if the subway vigilante had been a black man?

I can’t help suspecting a strong component of racism motivated the subway gunslinger, as well as those who are supporting his acts now. . . . Sick, sick!!

ESTHER FREEMAN Granada Hills Your editorial, “Prescription for Anarchy” (Dec. 31), missed the mark by a wide margin, however I’m glad the potential robbery victim didn’t. You have condemned as anarchy and vigilante justice what was in fact an act of self-defense. Your editorial was misleading in that you never mentioned that three of the four young thugs that tried to rob the man on the subway were armed with screwdrivers and that the New York Police Department now regards his shooting of them as an act of self-defense.

Our society is becoming increasingly besieged by youthful hoodlums and it is refreshing to read about victims who successfully defend themselves, especially when they render the perpetrators incapable of repeating their acts.

LAURENCE D. COHEN Glendale Since when is it necessary to identify a person by his or her religion? I have been so pleased with the Los Angeles Times now that the color of a person’s skin is omitted. Suddenly, that “hero,” Mr. Goetz, is identified as part Lutheran and part Jewish. What in heaven’s name does that fact have to do with the story? I am ashamed of you.

MARJORIE L. SCHWARTZ Los Angeles The Los Angeles Times is against the death penalty. The Los Angeles Times is also against a person’s protecting himself. The New York vigilante was minding his own business when the “youths” accosted him. I hope you wimps at the Los Angeles Times come out of your ivory tower and walk around in the real world for a while. The muggers will soon kill you all off and I won’t have to listen to your nonsense anymore.

WILLIAM SERANTONI Manhattan Beach What if the guy who shot the four boys on the New York subway had said:

“Five dollars? Here’s ten. Split it four ways. You fellows are just starting out, I’m halfway through. Life’s short. Hurry up to be kind. Next time you see a stray dog or cat, take it home. My name? It doesn’t matter, but it’s Goetz, Bernie.”

EDGAR A. SHOAFF La Canada