London: elderly man arrested on suspicion of murder for defending home against thieves
By Jon Rappoport
In the midst of London's rising crime wave, a 78-year-old
man, Richard Osborn-Brooks, has been arrested on suspicion of murder,
after defending his home against two thieves.
The Daily Mail offers this statement from Scotland Yard: "At
00:45hrs on Wednesday, 4 April, police were called by a homeowner to
reports of a burglary in progress at an address in South Park Crescent,
Hither Green SE6, and a man injured."
"The 78-year-old resident found two males inside the address.
A struggle ensued between one of the males and the homeowner. The man,
aged 38, sustained a stab wound to the upper body."
"London Ambulance Service took the injured male, who was
found collapsed in Further Green Road, SE8, to a central London
hospital. He was pronounced dead at 03:37hrs."
The Telegraph states: "Police arrested him [the homeowner,
Osborn-Brooks] on suspicion of grievous bodily harm before then
arresting him on suspicion of murder."
Arresting Osborn-Brooks on what grounds? Defending his home? Defending his life? Defending his wife, who was sleeping upstairs?
Since when is it murder, when a person fights off a thief?
Was Osborn-Brooks supposed to sit quietly in a chair, tell the thieves
(one of whom ran away) to take everything they wanted, and ask them not
to harm him or his wife? Is that proper behavior? Is that what the
government demands of its citizens?
If the facts of the story are what Scotland Yard reports to
the press, for what possible reason is Osborn-Brooks sitting in a jail
cell?
Why aren't the police thanking him for defending his home and family?
The Daily Mail: "British law allows homeowners to use
'reasonable force' against intruders to protect themselves or others in
their home."
"Guidelines introduced in 2005 allow people to protect
themselves 'in the heat of the moment' - including using an object as a
weapon. They can also stop an intruder running off, for example by
tackling them to the ground."
"There is no specific definition of 'reasonable force' and it is said to depend on the circumstances."
So a person is permitted to defend his home with force "in
the heat of the moment." But not if he uses force in a calm, cool, and
rational state of mind?
The government presumption is biased against a citizen's
right to self-defense. Thieves' motives are clear and easily understood,
but targets of thieves have ambiguous motives that must be sorted out
before a decision is made about whether to prosecute them or release
them. In the meantime, lock them up.
This is backwards.
But many people would call it "progressive."
You see, the thief is really the victim, and the victim is
the perpetrator. Once you digest that formula, you're ready to enter the
New Society.
Any person who owns property is automatically suspected of
having committed a crime. Property IS theft. A thief would never steal
unless he had been "oppressed."
Got that?
Congratulations. You're now a card-carrying liberal.
A word of caution: when you see some of your liberal LEADERS
moving about with armed security teams, don't fret or ask questions.
They have special rights. Because they're in the vanguard, flying the
banner of new revolutionary values. They need whatever they say they
need. It's all in The Memo.
Which you didn't receive.
Because you're an unknowing dupe. The rich and privileged
people you think you're fighting against are the rich and privileged
people who are leading you.
No comments:
Post a Comment