Remember how I told you that the United Kingdom will be a third-world banana republic ruled by semi-cretinous, drooling buffoons before long?
Here’s part of the reason why.
A millionaire businessman who fought back against a knife-wieldingburglar was jailed for two-and-a-half years yesterday. But his attackerhas been spared prison.
Munir Hussain, 53, and his family were tied up and told to lie onthe floor by career criminal Waled Salem, who burst into his home withtwo other masked men.
Mr Hussain escaped and attacked Salem with a metal pole and acricket bat. But yesterday it was the businessman who was starting aprison sentence for his ‘very violent revenge’.
Violent revenge?
Career criminals broke into this man’s home and threatened his family. He did all he could to protect himself and his loved ones, and for that he will spend more than two years in prison.
Is this justice?
Is this moral?
Is it ethical?
It’s repugnant to the very principle of justice, integrity and fairness.
Jailing him, Judge John Reddihough said some members of the publicwould think that 56-year-old Salem ‘deserved what happened to him’ andthat Mr Hussain ‘should not have been prosecuted’.
But had he spared Mr Hussain jail, the judge said, the ‘rule of law’ would collapse.
When victims are punished for defending themselves against armed, violent thugs…
When life and property mean so little in the eyes of the “law,” that defending them becomes a crime…
THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW!
He said: ‘If persons were permitted to take the law into theirown hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on anapprehended offender rather than letting the criminal justice systemtake its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminaljustice, which are hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.’
Is this the same criminal justice system that jails victims for defending themselves without permission of the nanny state, while coddling criminals?
Is this the same nanny state that emasculates its citizens to the point that soon owning a kitchen knife will be illegal unless you’re got a license as a chef?
The same criminal justice system that persecutes parents for purchasing toy guns for their children and makes it a point to remove kids from those “dangerous” homes that don’t allow them enough junk food?
The same criminal justice system that jails a military veteran for turning in a shotgun that he found?
The same country that sees its citizens kill themselves rather than continue to be tormented by violent gangs, as their pleas for help against armed, violent animals are repeatedly ignored by police?
Where police steal from unlocked cars?
Where police take FOUR hours to respond to rape threats?
In the same nation that banned guns and all forms of self defense, and as a result saw 89 percent increase in firearms crime in a decade?
This is what’s called a “civilised society” in the UK?
I would submit that a society that drives its citizens to kill themselves and their loved ones rather than face torment at the hands of violent thugs, while its law enforcement officers commit crimes against the very people they’re supposed to be protecting, as the defenseless people scream for help that never arrives, while at the same time persecuting those who dare take steps to be responsible for their own safety, has ceased to be “civilised.”
I would submit that when a society values life, liberty and property so little that justice is perverted to favor the criminals, while punishing the innocent, it ceases to be “civilised.”
I would submit that repugnant cowards such as the judges who would jail a father for protecting the lives of his children and a husband for defending his wife without permission of the Nanny State have turned the concept of a “civilised society” on its head.
Too bad.
UPDATE
Can New York City be far behind?
Speaker Christine C Quinn, together with Council Member Al Vann, today
announced legislation that would increase penalties for selling a toy
gun by 500 percent. The legislation would also enhance the Department
of Consumer Affairs’ enforcement ability and allow the agency to shut
stores that are repeat offenders of the law. Department of Consumer
Affairs (DCA) Commissioner Jonathan Mintz and Criminal Justice
Coordinator John Feinblatt joined the Speaker and Council Members at
the announcement. The officials also announced a new citywide public
awareness campaign about the dangers of toy guns that look real and
real guns that look like toys.
When local politicians begin to soil their adult diapers over toys and begin legislating accordingly, can knife bans, mandatory suits made of bubble wrap (for your own safety, of course) and health and safety measures dictating how many potato chips you can consume in any 24 hour period be far behind?
Dec 15, 2009 @ 16:00:19
This is just incomprehensible. What is WRONG with these people?!?!? (I seem to be asking that a lot these days.) It just defies logic.
Dec 15, 2009 @ 20:23:13
This is a prime example of PC followed to it’s logical conclusion. I sure hope the American public wakes up to this idiocy before it’s too late.Thanks for this post Nicki; crossposted this on my site too.
Dec 15, 2009 @ 20:26:09
Thanks, Bert!The fact that they have the balls to call this “justice” and “civilised society ” makes me sick to my stomach!I don’t believe for a moment that the American public will wake up. Not until it’s too late, anyway.
Dec 15, 2009 @ 21:33:01
Balls? Balls? You couldn’t find a set in all of the UK. Else lampposts would be adorned with the rotting carcasses of people like this judge and the MP’s who wrote the laws.
Dec 16, 2009 @ 04:57:37
“I would submit that a society that drives its citizens to kill themselves and their loved ones rather than face torment at the hands of violent thugs, while its law enforcement officers commit crimes against the very people they’re supposed to be protecting, as the defenseless people scream for help that never arrives, while at the same time persecuting those who dare take steps to be responsible for their own safety, has ceased to be “civilised.”"There you stated the very crux of it, Nicki, and I couldn’t agree more. That judge’s idea of ‘justice’ offends me to the very core. As BertM said, it is PC followed to its logical conclusion, indeed. Unfortunately, the so called justice system here in Australia is following along in the UK’s footsteps. We’re not quite as bad as that yet, but we’re getting there. Certainly, the cops here routinely advise people not to defend themselves, but to wait for the authorities to show up – nearly always too late but to be a clean-up crew.
Dec 16, 2009 @ 21:10:28
From 1927, a trial where English history/law was quoted in relation to self-defense. Note the last line I quote:{begin excerpt}The Trial of The People of Michigan v. Ossian Sweet et al. (Oct.-Nov., 1925)Opening Statement of Arthur Garfield Hays[This excerpt comes from a book by Hays, Let Freedom Ring (1927).]The defense in this case faces and admits facts which are sometimes subject to equivocation and avoidance. We are not ashamed of our clients and we shall not apologize for them. We are American citizens; you men of the jury are American citizens; they are American citizens. Each juryman said that he conceded equal rights to all Americans. On the basis of the legal rights of the defendants we make our defense. We say this with the full realization of the sacredness of human life and having quite as much sympathy for the bereaved family of the deceased as has the prosecution.We shall first state our theory of the law and then state the facts we intend to prove. The right of self-defense in Anglo-Saxon history is centuries old and is well expressed in the old phraseology of Lord Chatham: “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown; it may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter., the ram may enter; but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of that ruined tenement.”And did we not have this right of self-defense, were the use of arms never justified, we should all be subject to the terrible passions of man who would have no reason to fear mans retaliation. Self-defense is a necessary feature of organized society. It is the dearest right of a free man. Anything less than the right to use the fullest measure of protection when home and life are threatened would be contrary to human nature. No civilized society could survive without the right of self-defense.”{end excerpt}
Dec 17, 2009 @ 01:41:24
I will not take part in a civilized society such as that of “Great” Britain.
Dec 17, 2009 @ 03:57:00
Somehow I feel it most appropriate for these judges to be robbed and beaten to death, or near death….then to let the perp go free. How utterly pathetic, control means so much to these people they will hold your very lives hostage. I despise them. If it were me? A damn good chance I would have gone judge hunting. There is a way to put an end to it……known as revolution.
Dec 17, 2009 @ 17:00:17
I have no sympathy for the criminal. However, something in the article caused me to pause and take a closer look at it. If I read it correctly (and correct me if I’m wrong). The judge stated that the criminal was “apprehended”. Reading the article (and this is easy to miss without careful reading) it seems the sequence of events was that the criminal broke in and was chased out onto the lawn where the victims proceeded to righteously beat the shit out of him.Definitely what he deserved for his choice but if this is what happened then this is the same ruling that would probably be levied in many places in the USA as well as when the perpetrator ceased to be a threat, it was illegal to respond with greater force than was being brought to bear against the victims.I don’t even think the castle doctrine would have worked in this one due to the fact that the attacker was fleeing and had ceased to be an immediate threat. In the USA it would be dependent on the wording of the law in each state.There’s a thin line in the law where you cross from self defending victim to criminal and back again. Unfortunately it seems that the law is falling more on the side of the criminals nowadays than those trying to exercise their right to protect themselves from crime and violence. Massad Ayoob writes about this more than once in his columns and how in defending yourself successfully you can be strung up legally in the modern world of litigious idiocy. A disappointing article but sadly not surprising. Be safe out there.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 02:31:35
I had this same fact pointed out to me by a reader in my own post on this, ARB, I can only respond as I did to her: there is a (at least here in the U.S.)concept of “direct pursuit”. Perhaps the two brothers did merit a “slap on the wrist” for their actions, but allowing the perpertrator to just escape with no consequences is tantamount to saying “sorry,nice try, but please,do try again”. The fact is that this piece of human waste entered the domicile KNOWING it was occupied. At that point, I believe all bets should be off on his continued existence on this planet. Since GB doesn’t allow it’s citizens to be armed to provide themselves protection from scum like this; I don’t feel that they went too far in their actions.Just MHO.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 04:16:19
The fact that the law doesn’t recognize this is self defense is just further proof that the “law is a ass”. This man entered an occupied dwelling, held people against their will and tried to rob them. Providing him with incentive to never return, not even with help would be self defense in reality, if not in the fantasy of what we now call law.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 14:08:23
As I said, I have no sympathy for the robber. We are not in disagreement on that issue or whether this beating was justified or right. The attacker was a scumbag.I was pointing out the idea that this example in particular is not particularly apt for describing the nanny-state attitude that the UK has convinced some of their populace is a good idea.I’m not sorry this guy got broken into pieces, but I wanted to point out that the punishment the defenders were given is sadly not an unheard of result in otherwise justified self defense in the USA as well.
Dec 23, 2009 @ 10:06:33
The left is notoriously soft on crime. They think the death penalty is barbaric when it’s clearly justified in the case of murder. They want to ban people from defending themselves for a number of reasons. One of which is the belief that they’re advancing the civil rights movement since most criminals in Western societies tend to be non-white minorities. Therefore they believe that they’re protecting “persecuted” minorities by disarming the law abiding citizens who are likely to use deadly force when protecting themselves in the middle of an assualt. The reason they’d do that is because they believe racist govenment policies is what caused these minorities to become criminals in the first place by not giving them enough government funding for schools and neighborhood restoration projects. Therefore the criminals are really the victims in all this. They feel the same way about white criminals as well. Lack of support for labor unions and isolationist economic policies ruins communities through job losses which in turn leads to an increase in crime. They also just tend to be squimish in general. They don’t like to eat meat due to the process of killing live animals in order to make it. They don’t feel comfortable around guns or knives because they believe they’re capable of killing people. And they want to blanket ban anyone from owning such self-defense tools simply because they don’t care for them. Classic fascism really. The same thing happened with hunting as well. They personally can’t stand the thought of shooting an animal therefore they just ban it for everyone else, This often ruins entire rural cultures and generations of family traditions. But the left simply don’t care. They’re more enlightened than we are and they know what’s best for us. And if you don’t volunteer to cooperate with them than they’ll force you to through legislation and the courts. The left are Marxists and they simply don’t follow the sacred concept of individual freedom like the right does. They believe individual liberties should be restricted for the betterment of the collective. They also don’t like war as well. Even when it’s clearly justified. They outsource their views on domestic criminals to foreign dictators and terrorists. In their minds they’re really just freedom fighters who are lashing out at our corrupt and racist capitalist foreign policies. Again, the monsters are really the victims in their view. And if our countries were ever invaded most of them would simply run away or argue for appeasment. Apparently they don’t read their own history. They’ve been around for decades and they’ll never see the wide open flaws in their views.
Dec 23, 2009 @ 11:31:47
I sent to TheoSpark at http://www.theospark.net/2009/12/news_23.html
Dec 23, 2009 @ 13:20:15
Thanks, DT. I didn’t even know about the site until you pointed me to it. Good stuff. Fun! Hope your holiday was awesome!
Dec 23, 2009 @ 21:23:58
I agree with you completely. If you read the judge’s summing up he said he had to give a prison sentence as the brothers had used excessive force. The Cricket Bat used as a weapon to hit the Burglar was broken into 3 pieces!Wouldn’t that be the same as emptying a gun of ammo into the burglar?I think the Judge would have let the Brother go free If he had just knocked him out or did less damage. Also most Police station are shut at 5:00 at night in the suburbs. If you call for help the Police can easily have to drive 30 – 40 miles from a large town to get to you! They usually come the next day or two later. The ONLY WAY to get police quick is to say a GUN is on view! BUT they will then give YOU the 3rd degree to be certain there actually WAS a GUN involved.Living in ENGLAND sure can be FUN!!
Dec 24, 2009 @ 12:35:50
I hate to say this but…….in the last U.S. elections, I warned that O’Bama would be elected, and that the U.S. will follow the U.K. towards ruination. You’ll see!