I see another man has been arrested for the heinous crime of interfering with a criminal in the course of his employment.
Four men broke into his house at night. He had a shotgun (legal). He shot, but did not seriously injure them. So he has, naturally, been arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm. He is unlikely to have a shotgun licence ever again, assuming he manages to avoid prison, because he has used it to interfere with the Government’s preferred occupation of thievery. Hardly surprising this government supports the criminals, when you look at them.
Let that be a lesson to you all. If someone attacks you in your home and you damage them, finish them off and dump the body in the woods. Under no circumstances call the police. Defending yourself is illegal, no matter what the succession of empty-suits in office keep spouting. If you try to stop a gang of criminals in your own home with a legal weapon, the police will arrest you.
No, I do not accept that it was excessive force. Four burglars in your house in the middle of the night? Setting about them with a chainsaw would not be excessive. Very messy, but not excessive. As for the idiots in the Mail, all they can do is head the story ‘shooting horror’ (not ‘home invasion horror’, you notice) and keep harping on that this man’s gun was legal, with the implicit assumption that no guns should be.
The Mail supports antismoker hatred, anti-fatty hatred, Government control of the internet and the total disarmament of the population. I seem to remember a time when they were referred to as ‘right-wing’ but they are Communists to the core now. The whole article portrays the burglars as victims of the man with the gun.
I’ve never owned a live-round gun. I used to have an air rifle but sold it. Guns are noisy and need proper maintenance or they’ll blow up in your face. They can be rendered useless in legal hands simply by stopping the supply of ammunition.
If there’s one thing I learned from that time on the streets, many years ago, it’s that those who fight fair always lose. So I won’t be facing any burglars nor will I engage in conversation of any kind. I’ll garotte them from behind with a guitar string or belt them over the head with the nearest heavy thing. Call the police? They now wear black, same as the criminals. The police would arrest me and the criminals would sue for lost earnings.
When the last gun has been rounded up and locked away for the Government to use on you, it will make no difference to me. I’ve never used one anyway and probably couldn’t hit a barn door if I did.
But give me a set of darts or a good hefty pebble…
It has gone beyond farcical when a man is arrested for defending his home and family from a gang of intruders. It’s not as if it’s the first such case either.
Will the Mail try for a shotgun ban now? They’ve been quietly pushing for an airgun ban for a long time so I suppose it’s inevitable. Soon there won’t be a legal weapon in the land.
The criminals, of course, will still have loads of illegal ones. Nobody seems to mind about that.
l sincerely hope that this couple did not talk to the police at all without seeing a lawyer first. Under no circumstances ever try to ‘explain’ to the police if they come to arrest you. They are not your friends … period! Demand a lawyer, say nothing until you’ve spoken to the lawyer.
My home was burgled at 4.00am in the morning. At the time, the other occupants were then my 2 preteen daughters. The burglar ended up in hospital.
All you need is for your daughters to say ‘The burglar tried to…’ and wallop! Even the Daily Mail wouldn’t dare support him.
This is why I have innumerable sharp items about the gaff and NEVER go out to investigate the ‘funny noise’ without being seriously tooled up. Come to rob me Mr Shithead and be prepared for a hospital stay.I tend to go with the American aphorism; Shoot, Shovel, Shut Up.
Oh yes, take full advantage of your right to say fuck all!! How many shotguns were involved? I note both he and the wife were both arrested.
Leggy old son, disposing of bodies is a pretty poor course of action, even hypothetically saying so could be construed as both “Pre-meditated” and “Malice aforethought” in the event of you ever collaring burlars in your house. That’s what got Tony Martin a spell in the pokey, shooting (no pun intended) his mouth off down the pub.
Ah, but we smokers aren’t allowed in pubs any more
Also, we don’t yet know if said burglars were still in the house when fired upon. If they were legging it up the road (for example) when they received birdshot up the arse, said farmer is up shit creek.
If it was in the house, I suspect that when confronted with a possible GBH charge, said farmer replied “Too fucking right I did”. Not a total loss though as if it comes to court, this can easily be dismissed as an off the cuff remark whilst wired on adrenaline.
Perhaps he stumbled and the gun went off accidentally
l like messing about playing baseball. Because l don’t want to be caught out if l ever decide to ‘play’, l have 2 baseball bats … one in the home and one in my vehicle … along with a baseball and baseball gloves of course.
The problem for the Government is that after they get through with banning guns, there is still a whole cornucopia of reasonably-easily made weapons which at ranges under fifty yards are as deadly or more deadly than are guns, and which are not readily restrictable.
Bog-standard slingshots (catapults to you and I) can be loaded with lead balls; these are fairly easy to get hold of and if unavailable pebbles will do. A full-force hit at close range from one of these packs a fair old punch; odds are Mr Burglar wouldn’t be laughing that one off.
Moving up a notch, crossbows are still available, very effective and don’t need all that much training to use. In the medieval period, as soon as a decently-cheap method of mass producing crossbows had been developed they revolutionised warfare as they are relatively simple to learn; one no longer needed expensively trained and skilled longbowmen to outfit an army; conscripted peasants would do the job almost as well with the benefit of expendability and ease of replacement.
It is also still quite simple to import American hunting longbows. The old English longbow over there has been transformed into a very, very efficient killing machine which whilst it doesn’t look remotely like an old-fashioned bow, is much easier to use. US-made arrowheads are also available, and are much deadlier than target points.
As every farmer knows, a few dogs are also a useful investment. What you don’t need here are pit-bulls or anything that is overly aggressive or outright illegal; if the buggers get loose you don’t want to have a problem rounding them up again, plus pure-breds tend to have all manner of ailments. No, give a few ugly strays a home and humanely dispose of those too stupid to respond to a decent amount of training (which in truth will be very few). Choose terrier-crosses; they’re smart and don’t take much feeding. What you’re aiming for are dogs which see you as pack leader, benefactor and all-round fair, nice bloke; you also want them to see your home as their home turf too.
The general rule here is simple: when eating a meal, you eat first, dogs get fed after (easy way to demonstrate who’s boss round here). Secondly, the dogs sleep downstairs, preferably in the house but if they have to be outside, a nice warm waterproof kennel with an electrically-heated bed, raised off the ground surface and kept clean is the rule. If you chain the dogs up, give ‘em a nice long length and don’t keep ‘em chained all the time or they’ll go bonkers and yap all the time. You don’t want lunatic yapping morons; you want sane sensible animals that only make a noise if there’s trouble about the place.
Oh, and final trick: leave a few cash-boxes and safes knocking about in out-buildings and so on. Put nothing much of value in ‘em, only a few tens of kilos of scrap lead or somesuch; that’ll give the average scrote a hernia lifting it and no payoff at the end.
I wonder if you could tape a crossbow to a dog? Trigger attached by string to the tail, teach said dog to wag at scrotes: Hello Mr Scummie, Wag, *twang*, oops.
If your house is being invaded the best course of action is to set the place on fire. Nobody likes hanging round in a burning building and when the police arrive you can say the burglers did it. Pull it off right and you’ll be looking at a nice insurance payout, some victim of crime compo and assuming plod catched him, Mr Burgler gets sent down for agravated burglary and arson which actually carries a real prison sentence. Sure he’ll protest that it was you what did it, but like anybody is going to believe you’d do something as crazy as that.
Just to add, I noticed in the Mail pics that the house was crawling with plods and forensics. One can’t help but wonder if they were to put this much effort into catching burglers there would be less of them around to shoot in the first place.
A police officer, on the QT advised using a hefty torch to bludgeon them, as something like a crowbar would show prior intent, whereas you could say you went down in the dark with the torch, problem solved.
I have a wide selection of crowbars but as you say, selecting the appropriate one (the one with a spike) would be a bit obvious. I also have a three-D-cell aluminium torch, which is a much better bet.
As long as the bugger’s head doesn’t dent it.
Of course, if you are an important person – or even an unimportant one likeTony Blair – you are surrounded by men with guns who will shoot someone who attacks you.
The bullets they fire, as of last year, will not be shotgun pellets. They will be hollow point, soft nosed expanding bullets (they used to be called “dum-dum bullets, so quite apt for Blair). The damage these cause to human tissue is so appalling that they are banned by the Geneva Convention.
The British Army can’t use them in war, but they’re just the job to protect Important People from the citizens they serve.
There’s a loophole that’s been coming to light. The banned weapons cannot be use on an enemy but if you want to use them on your own people, that’s just fine.
Apparently more and more governments are noticing this.
Leggers,
You may or may not be familiar with the work of Richard Horton, a serving detective and winner of the Orwell prize for blogging, who, before his (illegally achieved) unmasking wrote under the pen name Nightjack.
This is a cut and paste of a post which helped to get him into deep trouble professionally for having the temerity to tell the simple, unvarnished truth:
A Survival Guide For Decent Folk
**04/08/08 Moderate Sarcasm Warning **
Paul has posted a number of lengthy replies on the “Modest Proposal” thread. In these days of us increasingly having to deal with law abiding folk who have fallen foul of the “entitled poor” and those who have learned how to use us to score points and exact revenge, I thought it would be a good idea to give out a bit of general guidance for those law abiding types who find themselves under suspicion or under arrest. It works for the bad guys so make it work for you.
Complain First
Always get your complaint in first, even if it is you who started it and you who were in the wrong. If things have gone awry and you suspect the cops are going to be called, get your retaliation in first. Ring the cops right away and allege for all you are worth. If you can work a racist or homophobic slant into it so much the better.
Make a counter allegation
Regardless of the facts, never let the other side be blameless. If they beat you to the phone, ring anyway and make a counter allegation against them. Again racism or homophobia are your friends. If you are not from a visible minority ethnic culture, may I suggest that that the phrase “You gay bastard” or similar is always useful. In extremis allege sexual assault. It gives us something to bargain with when getting the other person to drop their complaint on a quid-pro-quo basis. This is particularly good where there are no independent witnesses. When it boils down to one word against another and nobody is ‘fessing up, CPS run a mile and you, my friend, are definitely on a walk out
Never explain to the Police
If the Police arrive to lock you up, say nothing. You are a decent person and you may think that reasoning with the Police will help. “If I can only explain, they will realise it is all a horrible mistake and go away”. Wrong. We do want to talk to you on tape in an interview room but that comes later. All you are doing by trying to explain is digging yourself further in. We call that stuff a significant statement and we love it. Decent folk can’t help themselves, they think that they can talk their way out. Wrong.
Admit Nothing
To do anything more than lock you up for a few hours we need to prove a case. The easiest route to that is your admission. Without it, our case may be a lot weaker, maybe not enough to charge you with. In any case, it is always worth finding out exactly how damning the evidence is before you fall on your sword. So don’t do the decent and honourable thing and admit what you have done. Don’t even deny it or try to give your side of the story. Just say nothing. No confession and CPS are on the back foot already. They forsee a trial. They fear a trial. They are looking for any excuse to send you home free.
Keep your mouth shut
Say as little as possible to us. At the custody office desk a Sergeant will ask you some questions. It is safe to answer these. For the rest of the time, say nothing.
Claim Suicidal Thoughts
A debatable one this. Claiming to be thinking about topping yourself has several benefits. If you can keep it up, it might just bump up any compensation payable later. On the other hand you may find yourself in a paper suit with someone watching your every move.
Always always always have a solicitor
Duh. No brainer this one. Unless you know 100% for sure that your mate the solicitor does criminal law and is good at it, ask for the Duty Solicitor. They certainly do criminal law and they are good at it. Then listen to what the solicitor says and do it. Their job is to get you off without the Cops or CPS laying a glove on you if at all possible. It is what they get paid for. They are free to you. There is no down side. Now decent folks think it makes them look like they have something to hide if they ask for a solicitor. Irrelevant. Going into an interview without a solicitor is like taking a walk in Tottenham with a big gold Rolex. Bad things are very likely to happen to you. I wouldn’t do it and I interview people for a living.
Actively complain about every officer and everything they do
Did they cuff you when they brought you in? Were they rude to you? Did they racially or homophobically abuse you? Didn’t get fed? Cell too cold? You are decent folk who don’t want to make a fuss but trust me, it pays to whinge and no matter how trivial and / or poorly founded your complaint there are people who will uncritically listen to you and try and prove the complaint on your behalf. Some of them are even police officers. Nothing like a complaint to muddy the waters and suggest that you are only in court because the vindictive Cops have a grudge against you. Far fetched? Wait until your solicitor spins it in court and you come over as Ghandi.
Show no respect to the legal system or anybody working in it
You think that if you are a difficult, unpleasant, sneering, unco-operative and rude things will go badly for you and you will be in more trouble. No sirree Bob. It seems that in fact the worse you are, the easier things will go for you if, horror of horrors, you do end up convicted. Remember to fake a drink problem if you haven’t developed one as a result of dealing with us already. Magistrates and Judges do seem to like the idea that you are basically good but the naughty alcohol made you do it. They treat you better. Crazy I know but true.
So there you go, basically anything you try and do because you are decent and staightforward hurts you badly. Act like an habitual, professional, lifestyle criminal and chances are you will walk away relatively unscathed. Copy the bad guys, its what they do for a living.
He wasn’t wrong when he wrote and published it, and he isn’t mistaken now…
I remember Nightjack, and the Times using disgusting methods to ‘out’ him. He had a lot of sensible things to say.