Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » UK police: "please don't harm violent criminals who are raping/killing you"

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: UK police: "please don't harm violent criminals who are raping/killing you"
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/31/uk-police-tell-subjects-not-to-harm-their-attackers-get-a-rape-alarm/

Across the ocean, the British are finding out what helplessness really us is.

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm

quote:
“Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?” Succinctly epitomizing the sad state of natural rights in Great Britain, the first sentence states, “The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm.”

And to add even more insult to human dignity, the statement cautions subjects against the use of nearly any other type of defense product, and reads like an appeal for victims to graciously suffer criminal violence. The answer makes clear “You must not get a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.” So even in the sanctity of one’s home, the statement seems to suggest that care for violent offenders outweighs the rights of potential victims to be safe and secure against attack.

The site even goes so far as to warn people that "marking dyes" used to merely ID perps later must not be used in a way that harms the criminal.
quote:
However, be aware that even a seemingly safe product, deliberately aimed and sprayed in someone's eyes, would become an offensive weapon because it would be used in a way that was intended to cause injury.
You hear that girls? Please be careful not to get the marking dyes in your rapist's eyes, it might hurt him.

If you think this is mere official policy, consider what has happened in practice.


This woman was officially reprimanded by police for brandishing a kitchen knife within her own home when would-be intruders were peering through her window and about to break in.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/10/myleene-klass-knife-intruders

quote:
Hertfordshire police warned her she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon", even in her own home, was illegal.
That's right, you now no longer have the right to defend yourself, even inside your own home, in England.

Another man was jailed for using a cricket bat to beat off a knife-wielding home invader who had tied up his family and was threatening to kill them.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/20/conservative-party-review-rights-householders


Because of the widespread prohibition of self-defense tools, many people in the UK are resorting to cricket and baseball bats for self-defense. Unlike the Korean shopkeepers who were able to defend their businesses and homes from rabid mobs during hurricane Katrina in New Orleans with semi-automatic rifles, some of these British business owners are lucky to be alive after having to face mobs with sporting bats and in hand-to-hand combat for their very lives.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/264680/How-I-fought-off-riot-mob-with-cricket-bat
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20110812/uk-mayhem-leaves-disarmed-citizens-at-t

Lets not pretend this isn't where the anti-freedom nuts in the US want us to eventually be. In my own state a local legislator attempted to pass a bill requiring people to retreat from criminals anywhere and at any time, even from their own homes. And lets not forget NBC's special on how to deal with home invaders: by treating them like royalty.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/14/today-show-tells-victims-treat-home-invaders-royal/

The funny thing is, Americans by and large don't seem to be buying it. Support for gun control has decreased, especially in light of the home grown Islamo-Nazi threats that are now surfacing more frequently on American soil.

[ June 01, 2015, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I get the feeling populations in certain countries have been put through a process of taming, disarming, and monitoring them at all times; kind of like being in prison except you can still go to the Apple Store. The surveillance state is up and running in the UK, and it appears that Canada, the U.S. and the UK are happily sharing resources in this programme to advance it.

Regarding disarming, I think the process of taming is a useful one to then get towards disarming and finally preventing from defending oneself. I've heard in Toronto that it's highly discouraged to defend yourself and to even make an attempt at all to stop crime.

It's very tough to tame Americans as a whole, and so disarming can't yet proceed. Overall Americans seem to believe plenty in defending themselves.

So in this sense I'd say the British are more along the way than are the Canadians and Americans in moving towards this Brave New World where individuals are meant to be helpless followers. Even some civil issues in the UK such as SSM seem to be prosecuted in a more advanced setting than America is seeing yet. Perhaps Seneca is a right that there's a trend and that America may be moving in that direction eventually.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The reaction to a similar event in both countries is quite telling.

In the UK, citizens pulled out their cellphones to numbly record a solider being decapitated on a city street by Islamist butchers, who then delivered a lengthy discourse about it to the watchers.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/19/two-men-convicted-of-british-soldier-beheading.html

In the US, an Islamo-butcher beheaded a lady at a business and when he tried to attack a second woman a company executive shot him.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/justice/oklahoma-beheading-suspect/

[ June 01, 2015, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it boils down to if you believe the authorities CAN protect you. If we universally trusted our police and had faith that their response times everywhere were fast enough, we would be more willing to give up our guns.

As it stands, the gains in safety from a disarmed society do not make a large number of us feel more safe. We are very willing to make sacrifices if we feel we get something of value in return. "Security" just doesn't seem a tangible return for giving up the right to defend yourself.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1