Friday, January 05, 2007
The state will protect you or 124D v Luger
The Times tells us of the death of Ms Clare Bernal and the inquest into the same.
Ms Bernal had the misfortune of a violent ex-boyfriend who then went on to kill her. Were there any indications that this might happen? "The former Slovakian soldier had vowed to kill his former girlfriend..."
Aside from the fact that he shot her, even though guns are illegal, thus making them accessible to him (the criminal), but denying them for defence (to the victim). The gun was purchased by the criminal, who whilst on bail managed to travel to Slovakia and smuggle it back into the UK.
It appears there were errors by the police, you might think a failure to provide armed officers or protection or some other activity, no indeed it was a failure to fill in the paperwork specifically a 124D form. In evidence to the inquest the CPS said: "that Pech was charged correctly with harassment and would have been given a community service order rather than a jail sentence.
He said that if police had taken further statements from Ms Bernal it was possible that she would have given evidence to persuade the CPS to charge Pech with making threats to kill her. However, if he was convicted of that offence he would have been jailed only for two or three months, ..."
This is a devious platitude, because it makes it sound that had the procedures been followed, he might have been in jail, but remember he was out on bail, so even though charged, he hadn't been convicted. My view is the chances are he still would have been on bail anyway.
In any sensible analysis, if someone is out to kill you, and they are armed, you will need to be armed yourself or at least have an armed bodyguard. I favour the first option as it is cheaper. A 124D won't be of much use against a Luger.
Still no need to worry as there's plenty more platitudes in the article:
"PC Shah said that she had done everything she could to protect Ms Bernal"
"Georgina Kent, a barrister for the police, [said] there was “nothing to suggest that the case would end so unfortunately”. "
"Nataliya Sarapionova, Ms Bernal’s friend and flatmate, said that Ms Bernal was “extremely naive” and, despite the level of violence used by Pech, did not realise the seriousness of the situation." Good job the state and the police had it under control then.
The only fly in the ointment comes from: "Harvey Nichols’s security manager said that he became “deeply concerned” about Pech and advised Ms Bernal to call police. He then began his own investigation, interviewing Ms Bernal’s friends and scanning any text messages sent to her by Pech. He said that police did not take the evidence the store had gathered."
Like yesterday there's no mention that there might be something wrong with the system. Not even the glimmer of criticising that the state should be the sole provider of our protection, no mention of liability attaching to the state when it falls down on the job. It is irrelevant whether Ms Bernal realised the seriousness of the situation, what she probably thought was that the police would protect her; if perhaps she'd thought they wouldn't she may have taken effective steps to ensure her safety.
There's a double scandal here, firstly the state removes the legal capability for the law abiding citizen to defend themselves and usurps that role for itself; secondly despite taking (with the sanction of the law) the money from the defenceless citizen, when it fails to fulfil its end of the bargain it's no liability and platitudes all round.
Ms Bernal had the misfortune of a violent ex-boyfriend who then went on to kill her. Were there any indications that this might happen? "The former Slovakian soldier had vowed to kill his former girlfriend..."
Aside from the fact that he shot her, even though guns are illegal, thus making them accessible to him (the criminal), but denying them for defence (to the victim). The gun was purchased by the criminal, who whilst on bail managed to travel to Slovakia and smuggle it back into the UK.
It appears there were errors by the police, you might think a failure to provide armed officers or protection or some other activity, no indeed it was a failure to fill in the paperwork specifically a 124D form. In evidence to the inquest the CPS said: "that Pech was charged correctly with harassment and would have been given a community service order rather than a jail sentence.
He said that if police had taken further statements from Ms Bernal it was possible that she would have given evidence to persuade the CPS to charge Pech with making threats to kill her. However, if he was convicted of that offence he would have been jailed only for two or three months, ..."
This is a devious platitude, because it makes it sound that had the procedures been followed, he might have been in jail, but remember he was out on bail, so even though charged, he hadn't been convicted. My view is the chances are he still would have been on bail anyway.
In any sensible analysis, if someone is out to kill you, and they are armed, you will need to be armed yourself or at least have an armed bodyguard. I favour the first option as it is cheaper. A 124D won't be of much use against a Luger.
Still no need to worry as there's plenty more platitudes in the article:
"PC Shah said that she had done everything she could to protect Ms Bernal"
"Georgina Kent, a barrister for the police, [said] there was “nothing to suggest that the case would end so unfortunately”. "
"Nataliya Sarapionova, Ms Bernal’s friend and flatmate, said that Ms Bernal was “extremely naive” and, despite the level of violence used by Pech, did not realise the seriousness of the situation." Good job the state and the police had it under control then.
The only fly in the ointment comes from: "Harvey Nichols’s security manager said that he became “deeply concerned” about Pech and advised Ms Bernal to call police. He then began his own investigation, interviewing Ms Bernal’s friends and scanning any text messages sent to her by Pech. He said that police did not take the evidence the store had gathered."
Like yesterday there's no mention that there might be something wrong with the system. Not even the glimmer of criticising that the state should be the sole provider of our protection, no mention of liability attaching to the state when it falls down on the job. It is irrelevant whether Ms Bernal realised the seriousness of the situation, what she probably thought was that the police would protect her; if perhaps she'd thought they wouldn't she may have taken effective steps to ensure her safety.
There's a double scandal here, firstly the state removes the legal capability for the law abiding citizen to defend themselves and usurps that role for itself; secondly despite taking (with the sanction of the law) the money from the defenceless citizen, when it fails to fulfil its end of the bargain it's no liability and platitudes all round.
Tags: guns, self defence, statism
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: guns, self-defence, statism
