Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. -- MaxedOutMama

I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. -- Kim du Toit

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.-- Moshe Ben-David

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem. -- Sultan Knish

All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war. -- Billy Beck

Friday, November 16, 2007

Boy, It's a Good Thing Britain's Banned Guns for Self Defense!

Somebody might have gotten hurt! Oh, wait...
Father killed for challenging gang of youths

A young girl watched helplessly as a gang of drunken youths kicked and punched her “courageous” father to death after he tried to remonstrate with them for making his family’s life a “misery”, a court has heard.

Amy Newlove, 12, saw the teenagers knock her father, Garry, 47, a sales manager, to the ground in the street outside their home after he went out to confront them over damage to his wife’s car.

They closed around him and broke into laughter as each started to kick him “as hard as they could”, especially in the head, as though “they were kicking a football”, the court heard.

One connected so violently with his victim’s head that his trainer flew off and became lodged beneath Mr Newlove’s prone body.

Amy’s sister, Zoe, 18, grabbed one of the alleged killers but was unable to restrain him, the court was told.

He and the rest of the gang then walked away, leaving the two sisters to tend their unconscious, dying father and to try to comfort their distraught mother, Helen.

The court heard how Mr Newlove’s street had been “plagued” by gangs of youths indulging in anti social behaviour fuelled by cheap alcohol.

Five teenagers, two of them brothers, now deny murder.

Only one of the alleged killers, Adam Swellings, 19, from Crewe, can be named.

He has pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

Two of Swellings’ co-defendants are aged 17, the others 16 and 15.

The 15-year-old, wearing smart black trousers, a shirt and a tie, took his seat in the second row of the dock, just behind his fellow accused.

Michael Chambers, QC, prosecuting, told a jury at Chester Crown Court that on the night of August 10 this year all five defendants acted as “an abusive and violent gang”.

Mr Newlove’s quiet residential street in Warrington, Cheshire, had been “plagued” for some time “by gangs of youths indulging in anti-social behaviour fuelled by cheap alcohol”.

They caused disturbances and vandalized parked cars, particularly on weekend nights.

In the past Mr Newlove had gone out to try to reason with them.

On August 10 he “had the courage” to face them again.

Tragically for him, they were “in no mood to be challenged” and he was no matched for their combined assault.

Mr Chambers described the defendants as “an established gang”.

He said on the night Mr Newlove was attacked the defendants had gathered with other youths and had been “drinking heavily”.

A few minutes before the “unprovoked and unjustified” attack the father-of-three had been watching television in his lounge.

Upstairs in her bedroom, Amy heard the sound of a street digger being smashed up and looked out to see a youth landing a kick on her mother’s Renault Scenic.

The teenager alerted her parents to the commotion, and a few moments later Mr Newlove, barefoot and wearing spectacles, rushed out to confront the gang.

Amy followed him. So, too, did her elder sister and Zoe’s boyfriend, Thomas Sherrington.

None of them was able to save Mr Newlove from his assailants, and Amy watched the entire scene unfold, the court was told.

Mr Chambers told the jury: “She saw one of the lads kick or knee her father in the back and he fell to the floor.

"She then saw all the lads, about six of them, kicking her father while he was on the floor.

"They were all kicking her father as hard as they could, all over his body, especially in his head. It was like they were kicking a football.

"Her father was curled up and the group of lads were all laughing as they were kicking him”.

Once the gang had moved away Mr Newlove was taken by ambulance to Warrington General Hospital where a CT scan revealed large-scale bleeding around his brain.

Surgeons were powerless to act and he died 36 hours later without regaining consciousness.

It later emerged that the critical blow was likely to have been a kick to the upper neck.
Well, assuming they get a conviction, I'm sure they'll all receive nice long three year sentences for the murder. And this isn't a single, isolated incident, either:
Public should stand up to yobs, says top officer

A police officer is insisting the public should stand up to yobs, even though two men have been killed in the past week for challenging unruly youths.

Detective Chief Inspector Cliff Lyons said people are "entitled to challenge bad behaviour" as we live in a "free and democratic society", despite official Home Office advice that victims of crime should never take the law into their own hands.

On Sunday, father-of-three Garry Newlove, 47, died after allegedly being attacked two days earlier by a gang who were throwing stones at a mechanical digger.

Evren Anil, a 23-year-old science graduate, was killed when he challenged two teenagers who allegedly threw a half-eaten chocolate bar into his sister's car.

Both incidents have added to fears that the risks of confronting drunken or aggressive youths is now too great.

Commentators have claimed that law-abiding citizens are no longer willing to defend themselves or their property in case the police charge them with attacking the criminal. Last week Patrick Walsh, a homeowner, was arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm after a burglar fell 30ft from a window at his flat, although police have now told him no further action will be taken.
(My emphasis.) NO! You don't say! I thought it was just "gullible gunners" who believed this!
Yet the terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport has shown that the public still admires those who put their own safety at risk.

John Smeaton, a baggage handler, became a hero when he confronted two terror suspects, and was warmly received by Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week.

Mr Lyons, leading the investigation into Mr Anil's alleged murder by litter-throwing yobs, said: "I would say Mr Anil was quite entitled to challenge their behaviour.

"People are entitled to challenge bad behaviour. We live in a free and democratic society.

"My advice is to assess where you are, the circumstances of the incident and whether the incident may result in a threat to you or others - which is exactly what Mr Anil did."

The Home Office warned the public against taking any action against criminals that could result in them being injured or facing assault charges themselves.

A spokesman said: "The public should not intervene directly in any situations of criminal activity - they may put themselves in danger or exacerbate the situation.

"Ultimately, they may be acting on the wrong side of the law." The Association of Chief Police Officers said members of the public should call the police to report criminal behaviour.

David Green, director of the think tank Civitas, believes the public must be allowed to challenge criminals.

He said: "You can't maintain any sort of decent society unless all the people take responsibility for discouraging wrong-doing." He added it was down to the police to ensure that members of the public are not at risk of being prosecuted for taking a stand against yobs.

"The police should back the victim and not ask whether they used reasonable force.

"And the police also need to be much clearer. In some cases they are giving people bravery awards for tackling criminals, and in others they charge them with assault or kidnap."
Nothing like a mixed message to chill the willingness to act.

Here are some of the 96 comments recorded when the paper asked Would you risk being a 'have a go hero'?
Facing up to yobs is always difficult. How can you asses the situation properly when you can't see if they are carrying weapons or know if they are on drugs or not?
It depends on circumstances. If I saw a couple of yobs breaking a bench or throwing stones at something for example, I would most likely walk on. If, however, there was another human being or animal being attacked or intimidated, I would of course step in. The first thing to do is call the police and then step in; because if you call the police first they will be on their way when you start getting your head kicked in, which is a comfort I suppose! But unfortunately they take so long, so maybe it isn't a comfort!
Carrying weapons! They wouldn't do that, it's illegal! And now the government wants to make it illegaler! At least this respondent recognizes that when you need help right now, the police are only (tens of) minutes away!
Yes I would on the understanding I had a gun. It would not matter a jot if i was charged and then put in prison because I am 75 years of age and therefore for the few years I have left on this planet being kept warm, well fed, free access to dentistry and plenty of books to read will do me very nicely thank you.
Another example of the Greatest Generation remembering what it was like to still be free.
Keith Manton says it all. In my younger days the fear of the death penalty kept the murder figures down. The fear of corporal punishment at school, or at home, kept the majority in check. These were the boundaries most of us recognised. Because a minority went on to murder and some took little notice of the cane, the 'do-gooders' removed the boundaries assuming that always being 'kind' would be reciprocated by everyone. However, they do not advocate closing the prisons even though a majority of inmates reoffend on release. Who says present day prisons work? Feral mobs of today do not know where the boundaries are but they know their 'rights' and that there is a chance their victim will be prosecuted in their place if there is a fracas. It's a topsy-turvy world and not as nice as that created by Gilbert and Sullivan. So, no, I would not intervene unless it were a family member. The law is not always on my side.
I wonder if that guy has ever read Heinlein? He damned near quoted him.
The question and the reason for the question evidence that Britain is now the sickest most evil and stupid post Christian society on earth. If anyone hurt an immediate family member and I had the means to render that person or persons unconscious or dead I would. But it is preferable to emigrate and live in a civilized society. No I would not intervene for anyone else as the sickko Communist Marxist filth running the police and the courts are on the side of evil now. Unless the British get rid of the present parties they will die in a welter of laws and regulations made for an alien culture. In the meantime 4000 a week emigrate to less violent and less evil nations of the earth.
Well, that helps explain Britain's current mass exodus.
Yes - we should all stand up to the yobs. There are more of us than they are of them. I (a 60+ female)have twice recently challenged anti-social behaviour - with success on both occasions. What are the police doing? Nothing. They don't even support those decent police officers who do carry out their duties with diligence. They don't want police who have moral courage, they just want "touchy-feely pink and fluffy" who are only interested in political correctness. Ask the police how they treat officers with an exemplary record who, in a threatening situation, defend themselves. They drop them in the sh*t. Scumbags rule. The law abiding have their lives made hell. Time for the morally courageous majority to take action. If the police and the low-life politicians won't take a firm grip, we will have to do it ourselves.
Another elder with her head on straight.
No, I would not 'have a go' unless I, a member of my family, or someone I knew well were facing direct attack.

Even then under the Criminal (Human) Rights Act and the inverted Cultural Marxist values and norms of the Crown (read NuLab) Prosecution Service I will be the one arrested for violating my assailant.

The only sensible response to attack is to flee if possible, or if not, to kill at least one attacker. As Churchill put it, "you can always take one with you".
Hmmm... Must be one more "gullible gunner."
I like to say yes - but I am sorry to say I would walk away.
Either you become a victim (in which case the Police are unlikely to act unless the press show an interest), or you are successful (and then the Police take the easy option and you become the criminal and get charged with assault).
In the last century the Police made a fundamental contract with us the public, if we gave up our arms they would protect our property and persons. They have broken the contract!
And another...
'have a go hero'
Am I the only one who spots the cynicism (or even sarcasm) in this terminology? As in: "Yes, you pathetic 'have a go hero' law-abiding citizen who thinks he/she can stand up against the mighty thugs and criminals! And let me remind you, even if you can, we 'da police' or 'da government' will make you pay for it!"
Case closed.
I detect some bitter cynicism there.
As us country boys used to say (doubtless as male chauvinist bravado), if you happen put down some thieving miscreant, don't even think of calling the police. Rather check the JCB for diesel. Problem is, you can't risk moving home and leaving an incriminating souvenir. So doesn’t emigrating sound the far better, safer option?
Another vote to abandon the sinking ship.
DCI Cliff Lyons is a police officer for whom I have a great deal of respect but it must be remembered that what he said was merely his opinion - not Government policy.
The line between getting a George Medal and five years' imprisonment, when one 'has a go' is very thin, indeed.
Until the time comes when it is quite baldly stated by the Government that any violence used against a mob confronting the ordinary man in the street will be accepted as reasonable, with no question of prosecution, so the violence and the murders will continue.
But speaking as a former police officer who knew that the only way to deal with yobs was to go into them, hard, I can say this, without fear of contradiction. If you go in alone, do not expect any help whatsoever from today's police officers. The yobs are too much trouble. So are you, of course, but you're an easy target. It's you who'll be arrested to help fill a quota - after all, you're not going to cause the arresting officer any trouble, are you?
There it is, straight from the horse's, err, mouth.

Read the whole thread.

"England can do it! Australia can do it! We can too!" - "Million mom" chant.

Like hell.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.