The whole story is at US Concealed Carry: www.uscca.us/news/newsletter/burglars-have-rights-terminal-stupidity/
In an article titled "Burglars have rights too, says [British] Attorney General," Melissa Kite and Andrew Alderson discuss the rights of British householders and their governments defense of the rights of burglars.
The British Prime Minister had pledged to look again at British law with a view to giving homeowners more rights to protect themselves.
Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, said that criminals must also have the right to protection from violence.
Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, denied that a change in the law, which currently gives homeowners the right to use “reasonable force” when tackling intruders, would encourage burglars to become more aggressive.
Sir John - in favour of the Right to Fight Back campaign said: “I am convinced that enabling householders to use whatever force is necessary will discourage burglars.
Lord Goldsmith, said “We must protect victims and law abiding citizens; but we have to recognize that others have some rights as well. They don’t lose all rights because they’re engaged in criminal conduct.”
Sir John spoke of his regret about the repercussions over the verdict on Tony Martin, the farmer who shot dead one burglar and seriously injured another during a break-in at his farm in August 1999.
There was a public outcry when Martin was found guilty at Norwich Crown Court and sentenced to life in prison. The charge and sentence were later reduced to five years for manslaughter.
Sir John did not suggest that the jury had reached the wrong verdict, but added: “The Tony Martin case is unfortunate because it has skewed the debate [on the public’s right to protect their home]. But it is a fact that burglars have acted with greater confidence since the Tony Martin verdict and that has to be a matter of regret.”
Lord Goldsmith, however, warned of the dangers of using the Martin case to make bad law: “There are very few cases that have given rise to this problem. Besides Tony Martin, there’s only one I know about."
Soap Box Ravings says Tony Martin plus one equals two. It really sucks to be them. This is the condition a lot of folks in this country would like us to be in and I am disregarding the burglars and others who commit the crimes. I am only talking of our "Gun Free Zone" neighbors.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Freedom Of Speech Carries Certain Responsibilities
From The Patriot Post, 01-18-08, http://patriotpost.us/
’Non Compos Mentis’: Deep-fried radio
A public radio station in Utah is under fire this week after the “Fair Game with Faith Salie” program ran a skit called “Huck and the Eucharist,” which mocked Mike Huckabee’s “family recipe.” The particularly offensive part of the transcript talked about deep-frying the Eucharist, which Catholics consider to be the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Part of the transcript read, “Try this Huckabee family favorite. Deep-Fried Body of Christ—boring holy wafers no more. Take one Eucharist. Preferably post transubstantiation. Deep-fry in fat, not vegetable oil, ladies, until crispy. Serve piping hot.” Of course, the uproar was immediate and Faith Salie issued an apology several days later, but it should have been obvious that the skit was over the top before being aired. Note also that this was public radio. In other words, this skit was brought to you by the $393 million in taxpayer money that went to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal 2008. As Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, pointed out, “It would have been regarded as positively intolerant if it had been written about blacks, Jews or Muslims.” In that case, no doubt Ms. Salie would be unemployed.
’Non Compos Mentis’: Deep-fried radio
A public radio station in Utah is under fire this week after the “Fair Game with Faith Salie” program ran a skit called “Huck and the Eucharist,” which mocked Mike Huckabee’s “family recipe.” The particularly offensive part of the transcript talked about deep-frying the Eucharist, which Catholics consider to be the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Part of the transcript read, “Try this Huckabee family favorite. Deep-Fried Body of Christ—boring holy wafers no more. Take one Eucharist. Preferably post transubstantiation. Deep-fry in fat, not vegetable oil, ladies, until crispy. Serve piping hot.” Of course, the uproar was immediate and Faith Salie issued an apology several days later, but it should have been obvious that the skit was over the top before being aired. Note also that this was public radio. In other words, this skit was brought to you by the $393 million in taxpayer money that went to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal 2008. As Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, pointed out, “It would have been regarded as positively intolerant if it had been written about blacks, Jews or Muslims.” In that case, no doubt Ms. Salie would be unemployed.
Wind Off Nantucket
From The Patriot Post, 01-18,08, http://patriotpost.us/
To a liberal, no sacrifice is too great for someone else to bear, unless you are one of the elite such as Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy:
One of Ted Kennedy’s most hated projects is about to come to fruition: The wind farm in Nantucket Sound off the Massachusetts coast. The U.S. Minerals Management Service declared that the 130 turbines could be built by Cape Wind at a cost of more than $1 billion, to be operational by 2011. The president of Cape Wind, Jim Gordon, said, “Any rational observer will understand that this project is not going to produce a negative environmental impact... This report validates that this is the right project in the right place at the right time.” Well, no one ever accused Ted Kennedy of being a rational observer. On the contrary, Kennedy suffers from NIMBYS—Not In My Back Yard Syndrome—and was vehemently opposed to this environmentally friendly solution for energy because the turbines would be (barely) visible from Kennedy’s Hyannis compound. Pity, that. On the whole, we find the whole fight between Kennedy and one of the Democrats’ most important constituent groups, environmentalists, quite amusing.
To a liberal, no sacrifice is too great for someone else to bear, unless you are one of the elite such as Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy:
One of Ted Kennedy’s most hated projects is about to come to fruition: The wind farm in Nantucket Sound off the Massachusetts coast. The U.S. Minerals Management Service declared that the 130 turbines could be built by Cape Wind at a cost of more than $1 billion, to be operational by 2011. The president of Cape Wind, Jim Gordon, said, “Any rational observer will understand that this project is not going to produce a negative environmental impact... This report validates that this is the right project in the right place at the right time.” Well, no one ever accused Ted Kennedy of being a rational observer. On the contrary, Kennedy suffers from NIMBYS—Not In My Back Yard Syndrome—and was vehemently opposed to this environmentally friendly solution for energy because the turbines would be (barely) visible from Kennedy’s Hyannis compound. Pity, that. On the whole, we find the whole fight between Kennedy and one of the Democrats’ most important constituent groups, environmentalists, quite amusing.
Should Profs Pack Pistols?
My comments are referring to an article entitled, "Should Profs Pack Pistols?Virginia Tech Massacre Brings Campus Safety Duel To The Fore" By Pete Delea, 01-18-08. The complete article may be found at: www.dnronline.com/news_details.php?AID=14449&CHID=
After the Virgina Tech shootings many colleges have beefed up their security and communications procedures. Legislators, including some in Virginia, are proposing legislation to allow faculty members to carry weapons on state college campuses as long as they meet state requierements for concealed carry.
Across the country, many police officers have concerns on colleges abilities to protect students.
In Virginia, James Madison University is another college whose policies prevent anyone, staff or student from carrying guns on campus and officials want to keep it that way. JMU feels that their 36 member police department, which reviewed their polices after Virginia Tech, is adequate.
Soap Box Ravings points out that when you take a 36 person force, subtract management and then divide the bodies to cover the campus 24/7 there really is not many officers available at any given moment. SBR feels that Virginia Tech also felt their police department and procedures were adequate before the shootings.
JMU did install a new speaker system, upgrade their mass e-mailing capabilities to allow officials to send out 20,000 e-mails in a few minutes, and implement a new cell phone alert system to reach students, faculty and staff.
Soap Box Ravings says lets look at a scenario:
A pistol is pulled in a lecture hall and shooting starts. People in the area have to realize what is actually happening and call for assistance. Many 911 calls are made, the locations of the caller vary and each caller is trying to explain what they are hearing, the shooting and screaming they hear and where it is coming from. Almost immediastely the 911 operator is overwhelmed by the volume of information. All this information has to be forwarded to someone to input into e-mail and to initiate the cell phone calling procedures. If their info is not accurate people may be directed into the shooter or help may be directed away from the shooter.
By the way, Fire-Rescue does not enter a shooting scene until police have ensured the scene is safe for them.
Since the police have no idea how many shooters are involved, they have to stage themselves and prepare to enter the scene with backup to ensure officer safety. A 36 member police department is marginal in this situation if it happened when they are all at work. I can almost guarantee a 36 man department does not have 36 officers trained to work together in concert in the midst of a shooting spree. It is more likely that when the next largets department, for example the Sheriff's Office arrives, wil take over the sxcene and use their own officers to enter. Available JMU officers would most likely be used for scene confinement.
How many minutes do you guess have passed since the pistol was drawn and the first shot was fired; before police are staged and ready to enter the scene.
You pick the number of minutes. During those minutes, how many shots can be fired from a semiautomatic pistol? How much blood can a wounded person lose during this period of time. How much of the "Golden Hour" (a limited time period that a physician has to restore life functions quickly to a trauma patient. If that window of opportunity is missed, fatal brain damage or irreversible shock will occur.)
Many bureaucrats and administrators show more concern that arriving officers may accidently shoot the "Responding Citizen" when they arrive. Therefore they believe that those under fire should just wait for help to come and save them. To see how ridiculous that is ask yourself what you should do if the campus building is on fire. Is a "Responding Citizen" allowed to help put out the fire or do they all sit in the classroom and wait for direction from the Fire Department.
State concealed weapons permits are not handed out willy-nilly in any states except New Hampshire and Alaska. They don't hand them out willy-nilly, they allow everyone with no permit required to carry a concealed firearm except those prohibited by law.
After the Virgina Tech shootings many colleges have beefed up their security and communications procedures. Legislators, including some in Virginia, are proposing legislation to allow faculty members to carry weapons on state college campuses as long as they meet state requierements for concealed carry.
Across the country, many police officers have concerns on colleges abilities to protect students.
In Virginia, James Madison University is another college whose policies prevent anyone, staff or student from carrying guns on campus and officials want to keep it that way. JMU feels that their 36 member police department, which reviewed their polices after Virginia Tech, is adequate.
Soap Box Ravings points out that when you take a 36 person force, subtract management and then divide the bodies to cover the campus 24/7 there really is not many officers available at any given moment. SBR feels that Virginia Tech also felt their police department and procedures were adequate before the shootings.
JMU did install a new speaker system, upgrade their mass e-mailing capabilities to allow officials to send out 20,000 e-mails in a few minutes, and implement a new cell phone alert system to reach students, faculty and staff.
Soap Box Ravings says lets look at a scenario:
A pistol is pulled in a lecture hall and shooting starts. People in the area have to realize what is actually happening and call for assistance. Many 911 calls are made, the locations of the caller vary and each caller is trying to explain what they are hearing, the shooting and screaming they hear and where it is coming from. Almost immediastely the 911 operator is overwhelmed by the volume of information. All this information has to be forwarded to someone to input into e-mail and to initiate the cell phone calling procedures. If their info is not accurate people may be directed into the shooter or help may be directed away from the shooter.
By the way, Fire-Rescue does not enter a shooting scene until police have ensured the scene is safe for them.
Since the police have no idea how many shooters are involved, they have to stage themselves and prepare to enter the scene with backup to ensure officer safety. A 36 member police department is marginal in this situation if it happened when they are all at work. I can almost guarantee a 36 man department does not have 36 officers trained to work together in concert in the midst of a shooting spree. It is more likely that when the next largets department, for example the Sheriff's Office arrives, wil take over the sxcene and use their own officers to enter. Available JMU officers would most likely be used for scene confinement.
How many minutes do you guess have passed since the pistol was drawn and the first shot was fired; before police are staged and ready to enter the scene.
You pick the number of minutes. During those minutes, how many shots can be fired from a semiautomatic pistol? How much blood can a wounded person lose during this period of time. How much of the "Golden Hour" (a limited time period that a physician has to restore life functions quickly to a trauma patient. If that window of opportunity is missed, fatal brain damage or irreversible shock will occur.)
Many bureaucrats and administrators show more concern that arriving officers may accidently shoot the "Responding Citizen" when they arrive. Therefore they believe that those under fire should just wait for help to come and save them. To see how ridiculous that is ask yourself what you should do if the campus building is on fire. Is a "Responding Citizen" allowed to help put out the fire or do they all sit in the classroom and wait for direction from the Fire Department.
State concealed weapons permits are not handed out willy-nilly in any states except New Hampshire and Alaska. They don't hand them out willy-nilly, they allow everyone with no permit required to carry a concealed firearm except those prohibited by law.
Police: Tiger Attack Victim "Taunted" Tiger
Soap Box Ravings has to wonder if the word "Taunting" is even in a tigers vocabulary. When food of any type exhibits itself to a tiger, is the food "taunting" the tiger. This is a tiger, DUHHH!
Did the attendant that was mauled earlier while feeding that same tiger "Taunt" the tiger?
Regardless of what those kids did to "Taunt" the tiger' except for actually entering the tigers lair, the zoo should have ensured the cage was secure. And the more viciousness the tiger had exhibited previously, the more secure the cage should have been.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but believe that any wild animal, and particularly tigers, can't help evaluate each "meal" that passes their cage on two or more legs. Regardless of the behavior exhibited by the injured members of the public, the zoo was responsible for the security of the tiger.
Did the attendant that was mauled earlier while feeding that same tiger "Taunt" the tiger?
Regardless of what those kids did to "Taunt" the tiger' except for actually entering the tigers lair, the zoo should have ensured the cage was secure. And the more viciousness the tiger had exhibited previously, the more secure the cage should have been.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but believe that any wild animal, and particularly tigers, can't help evaluate each "meal" that passes their cage on two or more legs. Regardless of the behavior exhibited by the injured members of the public, the zoo was responsible for the security of the tiger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)