The Backwards British

All right, I changed my mind about not posting again today after I saw this. It's about the British policy that says you can't use more than proportional force to defend your home, and it's mind boggling to read. First of all, let's examine the bias of the headline writer:

"I'd do it again, says killer farmer"

Killer farmer? The guy killed a burglar who BROKE INTO HIS HOME. That's called defense. It's still killing, of course, but why is the farmer a "killer" for defending his home?

The farmer jailed for shooting dead a burglar who broke into his isolated home has declared that he would do the same thing again in similar circumstances.

He was jailed for shooting a burglar who broke into his home. Ladies and gentlemen, this is just one of the many reasons why America is better than other countries.

Tony Martin was commenting after listeners to BBC Radio 4's Today programme gave their backing to the idea of legislation which would authorise home-owners to use any means to defend their property from intruders. The home protection idea topped a poll of five proposals for new legislation, with 37% of those who voted giving it their support.

37%? That's it? What are these people smoking?

Martin, whose fatal shooting of a burglar in 1999 sparked a national debate about people's right to defend their property, welcomed the outcome. He told the programme: "I think, basically, people now know what is going on and they are taking notice. "This is wrong, heinously wrong, that you should actually live in fear in your home that if somebody breaks in that, basically, you are going to have the law jump down on you. It is just not right."

I don't know why someone should have to say that. It should be so obvious that a child could figure it out. If someone breaks into your home, you have the right to get rid of them by any means necessary. Do they think the burglar is only going to use the necessary means to rob you? Criminals don't play by the rules!

Asked whether he would do the same thing again, he said: "In the same circumstances, yes, if I am terrorised. People are highly jeopardised in this country. I personally think we are looking bloody stupid in the world."

At this point, I'd have to agree.

Martin's MP Henry Bellingham, the Tory who represents north west Norfolk, told the programme: "I think the law at the moment is totally confused. The current test of reasonable force is discredited ... there appears to be a presumption of guilt against the householder, and I think what we need is a presumption of innocence in favour of the householder."

I still don't understand why it's taken them so long to realize what should be the only logical conclusion here. How far can political correctness go before it kills us all?

But leading criminal barrister John Cooper warned that the idea was dangerously flawed. He said: "The law as it stands at the moment, despite its critics, is functioning. If you are in your house and you are attacked by someone or threatened by someone, you can use proportionate force. We do not live in the wild west. This legislation that is proposed effectively may well turn us into that."

Oh, I get it. They don't want to be like the barbaric, uncivilized Americans. How dare they assume that they have the right to defend their property against lowlife scum who have been victimised (gotta use the British spelling) by the system?

Also, I love the whole idea that they're allowed to use "proportionate force." By that logic, you can't kill a murderer until he kills you. Oh, but wait...

YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY IF HE KILLS YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Proportionate force" means that you can never use lethal means to defend yourself. Ever.

Remind me never to leave this continent.

Posted by CD on January 1, 2004 07:54 PM
Category: