Just after posting the last one, this story popped up on my RSS feed.
Also using a cricket bat, but no hitting the robber involved.
Hmm.
Showing posts with label self-defence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self-defence. Show all posts
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Defending the home
Three masked men break into your home. You return, and they take you hostage with knives. One escapes, and you throw a coffee table at them, then chase them down the street, catch them and hit them with a cricket bat.
They violated your home, and various rights. They tried to take you hostage. You fought back. Praise and a police commendation, yes?
No.
The government can tell us to stop making scare stories about the justice system all they like, but just like the Tony Martin case, it is very clear that it is positioned in the favour of criminals. That's not the Daily Mail's line, that's an altogether reasoned line.
At this point I have to avoid going on an all-out swear blog. No, you idiot, the rule of law is collapsing when politically correct prats like you make stupid decisions like this, and let criminals go free to commit their next crime (yes, he committed crimes before). You say this, then don't punish someone for actually committing a crime. Is that justice? Quite clearly not. Mr Reddihough, you are a fool. Just go. Go now. You quite clearly can't uphold the law properly.
This wasn't just a random burglar who had broken in, where the force may have been excessive (though if you shoot a burglar dead in the USA, they'll just come to pick up the body, and good for them), this was a group of yobs who had inflicted psychological suffering on an innocent family. The fact that these yobs haven't been given a prison sentence is beyond a joke.
Hussain then stopped the one criminal with a cricket bat, and beat him up. Seems fair compared to the suffering that the criminals inflicted on the family. In America, shoot the criminal dead, no one would bat an eyelid. It's completely fair, considering (a) what the criminal did and (b) what a joke the British justice system is. If the criminal doesn't want to suffer justice, he shouldn't have committed the crime.
British justice system, once the envy of the world, so much that the USA used common law, has now been reduced to an utter joke. It's about time that it started being a justice system, and not something I'm reduced to swearing at because of its stupidity.
They violated your home, and various rights. They tried to take you hostage. You fought back. Praise and a police commendation, yes?
No.
The government can tell us to stop making scare stories about the justice system all they like, but just like the Tony Martin case, it is very clear that it is positioned in the favour of criminals. That's not the Daily Mail's line, that's an altogether reasoned line.
But had he spared Mr Hussain jail, the judge said, the 'rule of law' would collapse.
He said: 'If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting the criminal justice system take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.'
At this point I have to avoid going on an all-out swear blog. No, you idiot, the rule of law is collapsing when politically correct prats like you make stupid decisions like this, and let criminals go free to commit their next crime (yes, he committed crimes before). You say this, then don't punish someone for actually committing a crime. Is that justice? Quite clearly not. Mr Reddihough, you are a fool. Just go. Go now. You quite clearly can't uphold the law properly.
This wasn't just a random burglar who had broken in, where the force may have been excessive (though if you shoot a burglar dead in the USA, they'll just come to pick up the body, and good for them), this was a group of yobs who had inflicted psychological suffering on an innocent family. The fact that these yobs haven't been given a prison sentence is beyond a joke.
Hussain then stopped the one criminal with a cricket bat, and beat him up. Seems fair compared to the suffering that the criminals inflicted on the family. In America, shoot the criminal dead, no one would bat an eyelid. It's completely fair, considering (a) what the criminal did and (b) what a joke the British justice system is. If the criminal doesn't want to suffer justice, he shouldn't have committed the crime.
British justice system, once the envy of the world, so much that the USA used common law, has now been reduced to an utter joke. It's about time that it started being a justice system, and not something I'm reduced to swearing at because of its stupidity.
Friday, 9 January 2009
Justice for the victims of the armed robbery today
The events in Farfield have shocked us all - this has shown that we will always have armed robberies, but also that our gun control laws are not working.
In 1997, Blair's government and his anti-gun lobby used Dunblane to force through legislation banning handguns. We aren't told much about the gun, but we are told it is a "handgun". All the 1997 law has done has put handguns in the hands of criminals.
The law-abiding citizen is not allowed to own a gun, and criminals know this, and ABUSE it. They know that they can raid a shop and can get away with armed robbery. In the USA it's different - the likelihood is there's a pistol under the counter or someone armed in the backroom, and they could get shot.
What we need is a real right to bear arms in our homes - and I'm not saying AK-47s, but a semi-auto rifle or .22 caliber pistol are fine to defend your home or business against armed intruders. Guns will always be around, and criminals will always get hold of them - when guns are in the hands of citizens, who will only use them in self-defence (and you'd expect training - there's some jobs to relieve the pressure of the recession a bit).
I'm not going to deny we will occasionally get massacres like Dunblane, and armed robberies. They will always happen. But the benefits outweigh the costs; issuing licences locally will mean that it is harder for someone who might carry out the attack, i.e. a convicted felon, the mentally unstable, "loners" and the like.
The point about "loners" is that Dunblane and Virginia Tech were both carried out by them - this instability means that they may not be of the right mind to carry a gun.
The 1920 gun control laws (our first) were actually to stop people taking up arms and starting a communist revolution. Before then the right to bear arms was protected by the 1689 Bill of Rights, which strangely enough is the origin of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
I by no means want to see a gun culture of any sort over here, but Labour have already allowed that to happen in the underworld, so it's just about avoiding the glamorisation of guns. Guns aren't things that should be glamourised, they are just methods of protection - and it's about time that the liberals (who strangely enough tend to be anti-gun) recognised that guns are an excellent method of defence, and that criminals will always get guns.
In 1997, Blair's government and his anti-gun lobby used Dunblane to force through legislation banning handguns. We aren't told much about the gun, but we are told it is a "handgun". All the 1997 law has done has put handguns in the hands of criminals.
The law-abiding citizen is not allowed to own a gun, and criminals know this, and ABUSE it. They know that they can raid a shop and can get away with armed robbery. In the USA it's different - the likelihood is there's a pistol under the counter or someone armed in the backroom, and they could get shot.
What we need is a real right to bear arms in our homes - and I'm not saying AK-47s, but a semi-auto rifle or .22 caliber pistol are fine to defend your home or business against armed intruders. Guns will always be around, and criminals will always get hold of them - when guns are in the hands of citizens, who will only use them in self-defence (and you'd expect training - there's some jobs to relieve the pressure of the recession a bit).
I'm not going to deny we will occasionally get massacres like Dunblane, and armed robberies. They will always happen. But the benefits outweigh the costs; issuing licences locally will mean that it is harder for someone who might carry out the attack, i.e. a convicted felon, the mentally unstable, "loners" and the like.
The point about "loners" is that Dunblane and Virginia Tech were both carried out by them - this instability means that they may not be of the right mind to carry a gun.
The 1920 gun control laws (our first) were actually to stop people taking up arms and starting a communist revolution. Before then the right to bear arms was protected by the 1689 Bill of Rights, which strangely enough is the origin of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
I by no means want to see a gun culture of any sort over here, but Labour have already allowed that to happen in the underworld, so it's just about avoiding the glamorisation of guns. Guns aren't things that should be glamourised, they are just methods of protection - and it's about time that the liberals (who strangely enough tend to be anti-gun) recognised that guns are an excellent method of defence, and that criminals will always get guns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
