Friday, 24 June 2011

Give him a medal, and Shami; shut the fuck up

The following is based on the story running in the press. If it turns out that there's more to meet the eye here, then my view will be different. That said...

Give him a medal. Regular readers know who I mean. That's right, the guy who stabbed the burglar. Disgustingly the police arrested him and his family for murder, instead of shaking his hand, thanking him and praising his service to the community.

I will reiterate; I am speaking on the basis of the story as reported, but my comments can be taken generally. Anyone who breaks into somebody else's home deserves to die. The judiciary may think that such crimes are minor. That's because they've never had to suffer. They look down from their ivory tower and see no distinction between criminal scum and suffering citizens. We're all peasants, as far as they're concerned. That's why the people despise the judiciary and their enablers in the political establishment.

A dead burglar is no loss to society. The valiant defender who sent him to his judgement day has saved many other people from suffering. Sure, the dead man's family will mourn, but the guilt lies on his own head, he brought it on himself.

This case, assuming as above, has come along at just the right time to see if Cameron means what he says about supporting our right to self defence. But of course not everyone sees this matter as cut and dried as it is, namely Shami Chakrabarti, to whom I say:

Hand over the word. You know what word: Liberty. You do not represent Liberty, you don't even know what it means. Her response to Cameron's innocuous reiteration of common law is this:
"Of course people facing intruders can use reasonable force to defend themselves.

‘But saying that “burglars leave their rights at the threshold” is a recipe for vigilante execution and mistaken killings of family members returning home after dark.’"
Here she shows her true attitude to liberty. She pays lip service to our natural rights, but makes clear that ordinary people cannot be informed what their rights are, in case we start murdering people or else, because we're so stupid, start killing our families by accident. Clearly she has contempt for us and feels far more comfortable in the control grid of state power, even though her job is supposed to be standing up against state power on behalf of us citizens, so I say again: give us the word back, change your organisation's name to something more fitting, such 'Velvet Glove', cos that's all 'Liberty' is for.

In summary; whether or not the present case is as reported, we have the right and the duty to use all necessary force to defend ourselves and our property. Criminals who aggress against other people do indeed forfeit their protection under the law. As a libertarian, I would remind the minions of government and state that the same rules apply to you.

UPDATES: It seems the dead man was out on police bail for burglary. Also, I've posted a piece on the same subject over at Orphan of Liberty.


Anonymous said...

You are right.
But I am not sure which course of action would be better from here:
1) for the police to let him go
2) for a prosecution to proceed and for the jury to return a resounding 'Not Guilty'.
Let the citizens say, 'No, we do do not regard the killing of a burglar as a crime.'

James Strong

Anonymous said...

I would also like to read that the accomplices of the dead burglar have been arrested.
Has this happened yet?
If not, why not?
And when can we expect arrests?

James Strong

will said...

The following can be considered completely academic as we do not live in libertopian anarchy but I believe that under voluntary codes of law burglars would indeed “leave their rights at the threshold” as they would have violated their own legal defense agreements. All protection or cover they may have arranged would be voided by their violation of the property rights of another. As today one's car insurance becomes void if the terms and conditions of that cover are not adhered to. The T&Cs of ones protection from murder would include a binding voluntary agreement not to murder any other customer of that insurance agency or the customer of any agency that had mutual reciprocal arrangements (which, as with todays car insurance, would be virtually the entire market, driven by profit motives).
It would be commercially impossible to offer legal cover that protected burglars or any other criminal. Who would sign up to a company that would permit a burglar's insurer to sue you for damages resulting from your own defense of property (including your body)?

I couldnt agree with your final summary more. If only the rules of ethics really did apply to the state. Dont lie, steal or hit. Its easy enough for a child to understand but most adults find the non aggression axiom mystifying.

Budvar said...

"If it turns out that there's more to meet the eye here...."

Unless it's proved the perps had received an invitation to a masked ball and completely got the wrong end of the stick thinking RSVP was latin for "Kick the back door off its hinges to gain entry" here, I'm failing to see anything more that could meet the eye.

It is Manchester of course, but I'm hard pressed to think of any circumstances anyone would pop by for a pot of tea and a chat and feel the need to do it at midnight wearing balaclavas.

Anonymous said...

As the police in america said after finding a burglar shot by a house holder "He picked the wrong house to break into" Some houses in america are protected by Mr Smith and Mr Wesson

Michael Fowke said...

We really need guns, like America.

Trooper Thompson said...

Thanks to all commenters.


I take your point, but I would prefer him to be released without charge, as you can never be sure what juries will do (e.g. Tony Martin's trial).


lol, but I'm just putting the caveat out there, in case it turns out the initial reports are inaccurate.

Michael, agreed. Also it's important to remember we did have all these rights relatively recently.

Longrider said...

I believe the police should investigate. Things are not always what they seem. However, it shouldn't take too much investigation to determine whether it was self defence, whereupon that should be the end of the matter and no charges brought.

Trooper Thompson said...

Agreed. The police certainly have to investigate. However in the past the Crown Prosecution Service seems to have tried its best to curtail self-defence.

To my mind, the state is far more fearful of ordinary citizens taking action than common criminals committing crimes, for obvious reasons.

selsey.steve said...

Seems that the dead one was already on bail for burglary and now the Plods suspect that the failed villains were trying to enter the wrong house. They were after some poor sod who'd won the bingo jackpot a day or so earlier!
Useless onanists!!