how??? with the stroke of a pen... sometimes the pen IS mightier than the swordBuried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day’s headline says it all:
“Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”
The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..
As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.
After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.
When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..
Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison. This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.
In April, 2000, he was convicted to a life term.. with a recommended minimum term to serve of 9 years, reduced to 8 years by the Lord Chief Justice. Martin was imprisoned in Highpoint Prison, Suffolk.
When he became eligible for parole and early release in January 2003, the Parole Board rejected his application without stating a reason.
The chairman of the parole board, Sir David Hatch, in an interview with The Times described Martin as “a very dangerous man” who may still believe his action had been right.
Martin challenged the decision in the High Court, where the parole board’s decision was upheld.
Probation officers on Martin’s cases said there was an “unacceptable risk” that Martin might again react with excessive force if other would-be burglars intruded on his Norfolk farm.
How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.
This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.
Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.
When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland ,Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.
The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”
All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.
Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.
The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.
Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
“…It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..” –Samuel Adams
You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done.
And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him."
Already happening here: See George Zimmerman vs. Trayvon Martin.
Old news. I have been talking about this since at least 1981, especially the ‘registration’ lunacy. No-one listened then, and I am afraid it has become much worse over the intervening years.
how??? with the stroke of a pen... sometimes the pen IS mightier than the swordstat ridiculing ANYONE that tries to push for more gun control
and remind them the power of the weapon is irrelevant. the founders didn’t restrict cannon ownership... and a revolutionary war cannon can still thru a house
The U.K. has at least taken a big step in the right direction by recently passing law authorizing the use of “disproportionate force” to defend against home invasions. I would think that would bring and end to these kinds of lawsuits and hopefully prosecutions as well.
Quite logical really.. The British love Monarchy and they love democracy..
Since Monarchy and Democracy are really the same thing it is logical..
Both are MOB Rule.. just with different MOBS..
The British love Mob protection schemes..
They want to pay the givernment to protect them from the givernment..
The old protection racket... socialism surely must be a mental disease..
IF... the Brits were actually well armed.. things would start blowing up.. i.e. IRA...
MAN.. are these people brain washed.. almost like “Logans Run”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run_%28film%29
Thanks for posting; rl
Remember the old saying “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
“Probation officers on Martin’s cases said there was an “unacceptable risk” that Martin might again react with excessive force if other would-be burglars intruded on his Norfolk farm.”
Do you realize just how pathetic things are when people are deciding to keep innocent people in jail, just to protect the safety of burglars?
That's Orwellian. If he'd just change his thinking he'd be a free man.