In the US, we have the “Castle Doctrine” (at least in most states) which means that if someone breaks into your home and poses a threat, you can use deadly force to defend yourself, without first having to resort to running away and cowering in the furthest corner. Britain, on the other hand, does not seem to have that. When even millionaires can’t buy themselves some justice, you know the legal system is well and truly screwed. Witness the case of Munir Hussain:
Mr Hussain’s nightmare began on September 3 last year when he, his wife, 18-year-old daughter and two sons aged 18 and 15 returned from their mosque during Ramadan to find three intruders in their home in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire.
They were tied up and told to get on the floor if they did not want to be killed. One of Mr Hussain’s sons managed to escape and alerted Mr Hussain’s younger brother Tokeer, 35, who lived a few doors away.
Mr Hussain made a break for freedom by throwing a coffee table at his attackers. He and Tokeer chased the gang and brought Salem to the ground in a front garden.
Reading Crown Court heard how Mr Hussain and his brother then beat Salem while he lay on the ground, using a cricket bat, a pole and a hockey stick – leaving him with a fractured skull and brain damage following the ‘sustained’ attack.
Alright, so far I imagine that most readers of the Unwanted Blog would have a reaction that is essentially “good job Mr. Hussain.” Violent criminals assaulted his family and presented them with terror and the immediate threat of death; when the opportunity came to turn the tables, Munir and his brother did so and laid a beatdown on a man who posed a clear and present danger to him, his wife and his *children.* Now, the proper response of society at large would be a handshake from the chief of police, a pat on the back from the mayor, and a loud “thank you” from a grateful public. But what actually happened?
Judge John Reddihough said some members of the public would think that 56-year-old Salem ‘deserved what happened to him’ and that Mr Hussain ‘should not have been prosecuted’.
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.’
Munir Hussain has been sentenced to 30 months in prison, and his brother to 39. Waled Salem, the man who broke into Hussains home, threatened the family, then got his ass handed to him, has been given a “non custodial sentence.”
The article includes this helpful sidebar:
If you use force which is ‘not excessive’ against burglars then the law is on your side.
Last year’s Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill contained clauses to protect people from prosecution if they act instinctively and out of fear for their safety.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw said:
‘Law-abiding citizens should not be put off tackling criminals by fear of excessive investigation.
‘For a passer-by witnessing a street crime or a householder faced with a burglar, we are reassuring them that if they use force which is not excessive or disproportionate, the law really is behind them.’
The problem is that the British Nanny State does not seem to understand what “excessive” is in this context. Using a flamethrower or a heavy machinegun or an RPG against someone who has tried to kill your family is excessive, because the weapons themselves very likely will cause collateral damage to your neighbors and their property. But in this case, the weapons used were a pole, a hockey stick and a cricket bat. These will *not* cause collateral damage to innocent bystanders; they are in fact extremely short-ranged weapons. And since the threat posed was “death,” then no amount of force, so long as it is reasonably precise and focussed solely on the criminal, can be excessive. It’s not like you can kill the man twice.
So, for me there are two lessons to take from this:
1) The Founding Fathers knew what they were doign when they dragged us away from this sort of horrible governance
2) Always remember the the Rule Of SSS:
A) Shoot
B) Shovel
C) Shut up
————————
One other reason to be glad for the separation from Mother England:
Mother’s fury at Tesco Christmas card that pokes fun at ginger children
The actual story is not terribly important, but it is just another in a long, incomprehensible line of items that show that in Britain, redheads seem to be seen as lesser people or some such. While in the US, redheads – barring recent showings of a certain episode of South Park – are not seen the same way. We see them… somewhat differently (go ahead and do a Google image search for “redhead” and try to find something that’s safe for work).
Any culture that responds instinctively to the word “readhead” with “ewww,” well, that just ain’t right.
