I’m not normally one to criticize “the media,” as though such a thing exists as some monolithic, oppressive force. But on one recent issue, I think just such a claim is justified. Mainstream Alberta media has been having an absolute whale of a time with the Brian Knight affair, and it’s high time for a little perspective on the matter.

The main features of the narrative are well established. We are expected to believe that, until a couple of weeks ago, Brian Knight, a central Alberta farmer, was little more than a humble, hard-working homesteader. In the wee hours of March 26, this poor rustic was set upon by a horde of predacious low-lives. But as it turns out, they had picked the wrong guy to mess with. Knight, the story goes, espied the larcenists in the act, and sprang into action, chasing the fiends from his property. When one tried to make a getaway on his ATV, Mr. Knight allegedly pursued him by car, eventually ramming the pirate into a ditch. Then, in the best Dirty-Harry-esque tradition, Mr. Knight descended upon the robber and, the RCMP claim, unloaded on the thief. Twice.

Now we Albertans tend to be very fond of our rugged individualism, our self-reliance, our readiness to deal with our own problems. We also cherish our right to self-defence. But was Knight’s life ever threatened? Apparently not. Were the lives of his family ever at stake? Not even remotely. Would the theft have been a crippling blow to Knight’s financial interests, or would his insurance have covered it? Who knows?

This is by no means an apology for larceny — not by a long shot. But the argument that Knight was acting in self-defence doesn’t hold water, for reasons that are perfectly obvious. At the moment when Knight turned the shotgun on the thief, his life (and the precious ATV) was already secure. Knight wasn’t reacting at this point; he was acting, pure and simple. Now, I’m no lawyer. But shotgunning someone in the back as he’s running away doesn’t sound much like self-defence to me. In fact, it sounds a little like attempted murder. But we’ll leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

Regardless of how it shakes down in court, Knight’s actions shouldn’t be condoned. Just imagine this farmer, careening down the highway in chase, attempting to ram an ATV off the road. It’s a miracle that he didn’t kill another driver on the highway, or himself, or the thief. If you think that the RCMP is ineffective and plagued with bureaucratic inefficiencies, fine — then let’s dedicate ourselves to fixing that problem. But if the goal is to achieve a well-functioning, orderly society — and judging from all the chest-thumping surrounding this debate, it’s not at all clear that it is our goal — then the use of coercive violence needs to be delegated to law enforcement experts. This is not exactly news.

So why has the media’s response to the Knight case ranged from tacitly approving to explicitly celebratory? Why has Premier Ed Stelmach himself expressed his “sympathy” for Knight? I’ve got a suggestion. Not a polite suggestion, but it is a suggestion.

Balls. If we Albertans value one thing (two things?) more than our rugged individualism, our reputation for self-reliance, and our right to self-defense — it’s balls. And I’ll be the first to salute Knight on that score. It takes serious gonads to go on the offensive the way he did, to go after a thief, to take the fight to the bad guys. However, one can appreciate the gravity and immensity of Knight’s ballsiness without condoning the actions themselves. As I mentioned, there is not much about this that looks like self-defence.

There is one other irony about this event which deserves mention. When urban youth gangs engage in this form of violent retribution—i.e. shoot someone who stole their stuff or wronged them in some way — it is considered a disgrace, a tragedy. Task forces are assembled. Academics urge us to address the crippling socio-economic problems endemic to gang members. Pundits talk in earnest tones about the evils of hip-hop and video games. But when a farmer from Alberta executes a little summary justice of his own—well, hell, let’s give the guy a medal.

Knight has given us a little something to admire, along with a great deal to deplore. And we’ve discovered that in a contest between brains and balls, the Albertan media will take the low road every time.