Frit lejde eller tyveri af historiske genstande

JP skriver om de våben som bliver indleveret under politiets “frit lejde”-aktion. Artiklen nævner at langt størsteparten af de våben som bliver indleveret, er gamle genstande fra Anden Verdenskrig, eller endnu ældre. Våben som er gået i arv fra en tid, hvor myndighederne ikke havde kontrol med alt hvad borgerne foretog sig.

Politiet indrømmer selv, at de ikke tror der er nogen med relation til bandekonflikten, som har afleveret noget. Men hvis det kun er almindelige, lovlydige borgere, med gamle våben, som har afleveret, hvor mange liv har aktionen så reddet? Forbryderne er stadig mindst lige så bevæbnede som tidligere.

Der er naturligvis en teoretisk risiko for, at en indbrud betyder at våbnet ender i de forkerte menneskers besiddelse, men hvor mange af de så udbredte skyderier, har mon involveret en antik forlader eller en Luger fra Krigens tid? Svaret er sandsynligvis ingen. Hvorfor skulle man slæbe rundt på en rusten pistol, når man uden videre kan skaffe sig en ny og velfungerende importgenstand med tilhørende patroner?

Om aktionen redder liv er da også uinteressant for myndighederne, de bekymrer sig ikke om vold eller anden kriminalitet og de er bedøvende ligeglade med om gamle fru Jensen bliver overfaldet i sit eget hjem. Det danske system er kun interesseret i én ting: At afvæbne og umyndiggøre borgerne så vidt det overhoved kan lade sig gøre. Hvis de var interesserede i borgernes ve og vel, ville de ikke gå efter lovlydige borgere, men sætte ind hvor det ville være effektivt.

Hvad sker der i øvrigt med disse historiske effekter, som myndighederne har skræmt lovlydige borgere til at udlevere? Bliver de bare destrueret?

Billedet franskmændene ikke må se

Læs om det hos Snaphanen.

Spred det ud over hele nettet!

(Tip: Hodja)

Leg med softguns er en overtrædelse af Våbenloven

To mænd på 27 og 32 år er blevet anholdt fordi de legede krig med deres softguns (som JP fejlagtigt kalder for luftpistoler), de sigtes nu for overtrædelse af våbenloven, fordi “våbnene” blev båret uden for lukkede baner.

Det hører med til historien, at politiet blev tilkaldt fordi de ansatte i den nærliggende 7-11 frygtede at der var et røveri under opsejling. Det kan man jo ikke bebrejde dem, slet ikke i disse tider. Men derfra og så til at sigte dem for brud på Våbenloven, der er edderrådme langt.

Det er jo helt grotesk hvor totalitær den danske stat er blevet. Det er jo softguns, for fanden. De skyder med plastickugler! Nu bliver mændene straffet for brud på en af de skrappeste love i Danmark, fordi de begik den frygtelige forbrydelse at lege krig med plasticvåben.

Jeg brækker mig!

Drabeligt våben (Bemærk de dødbringende gule plasctikugler).

Som en sidebemærkning til de som enten er for gamle eller unge til at have leget krig med softguns, kan det nævnes at jeg brugte en del af mine teenageår på at rende rundt i skoven og pløkke kammeraterne. Det kan godt give et blåt mærke at blive ramt, hvis man står tæt på, og det er vigtigt at bruge beskyttelsesbriller, men det er på ingen måde farligt. Man skal naturligvis være opmærksom på at man ikke rammer uvedkommende, men det gælder også for fodbold, håndbold, rundbold og mange andre aktiviteter. Hvornår har politiet sidst sigtet et fodboldhold for overtrædelse af våbenloven, fordi de spillede udenfor afmærkede fodboldbaner?

Socialistisk propaganda i amerikanske folkeskoler

Der fremvises for tiden en venstreradikal propagandafilm til de amerikanske skolebørn. Filmens titel er “The Story of Stuff” og den er vaskeægte socialistisk had til frihed, kapitalisme og udvikling, i en grad som ville have imponeret Stalin og gjort Goebbels grøn af misundelse. Filmen får små børn til at føle lede ved at være til, det vidner historien om en 9-årig som, var bange får at købe Lego, fordi han troede at det ville ødelægge Jorden, om:

many children who watch it take it to heart: riding in the car one day with his parents in Tacoma, Wash., Rafael de la Torre Batker, 9, was worried about whether it would be bad for the planet if he got a new set of Legos.

When driving by a big-box store, you could see he was struggling with it,” his father, David Batker, said. But then Rafael said, “It’s O.K. if I have Legos because I’m going to keep them for a very long time,” Mr. Batker recalled.

– NY-Times (Som naturligvis fremstiller eksemplet på børnsmishandling som en succeshistorie)

Heldigvis har en intelligent fyr med YouTube-brugernavnet HowTheWorldWorks, udgivet en miniserie på 4 afsnit, hvor han gennemhuller løgnene i “The Story of Stuff”, ved at gennemgå skidtet punkt for punkt. Sidste afsnit af serien er netop blevet udgivet, hvorfor jeg bringer alle fire afsnit herunder. Serien er lidt off-topic, da den ikke handler om våbenlovgivning eller retten til selvforsvar, men jeg synes alligevel den er vigtig at bringe, både pga. HowTheWorldWorks’ intelligente debugging af propagandavideoen, men også for at bringe fokus på hvordan små børn misbruges i venstrefløjens politiske hadekampagner.

Man skyder da på Dansk Folkeparti

En af Dansk Folkepartis kandidater til kommunalrådet i Odense, Karsten Trøjborg, blev i løbet af 2 uger henholdsvis overfaldet og skudt på.
Første episode var 1. maj, hvor Trøjborg blev skudt i benet udenfor sit eget hjem, af en eller flere personer som åbenbart ikke har haft problemer med at få fat i et våben, trods et af verdens skrappeste våbenlove. Intet tyder i øvrigt på, at den sag bliver opklaret.

14 dage senere kørte en bil med fire somaliske mænd op på siden af Trøjborg mens de råbte “så kan du lære det”, hvorefter de steg ud af bilen og slog ham i hovedet. Heldigvis var han mand nok til at slå igen, hvilket åbenbart jagede somalierne på flugt.

Hvor er det et smukt land vi lever i, hvor danske politikere overfaldes og skydes på af udlændinge, mens forbryderne går fri, på grund af politiets inkompetence. Det er vist det som venstrefløjen normalt ville kalde for “amerikanske tilstande”, selvom det mere ligner somaliske tilstande.

Kilde: Uriasposten

Gad vide om der havde været en smulere mere mediedækning, hvis det var eks. Khader som var blevet skudt? Herfra ønskes Karsten Trøjborg i al fald god bedring og al muligt held og lykke i sin kamp at få Danmark tilbage.

Er forbryderne ligeglade med loven???

I Danmark er det forbudt for civile borgere at have skydevåben, for vi har jo politiet til at beskytte os og desuden betyder en liberal våbelov jo flere forbrydelser. Det ved enhver, som ikke har sat sig ind i sagerne.

JP bringer en historie om et ægtepar som blev udsat for et af disse moderne hjemmerøverier, hvorefter de trykkede på en overfaldsalarm og politiet troppede op (miraklernes tid er endnu ikke forbi). Hr. betjentene fangede endda den ene forbryder, men den anden havde en pistol som han brugte til at skræmme de uniformerede borgerbeskyttere til at indstille jagten.

Der er bare noget jeg ikke rigtig forstår. Vidste røveren ikke at det er ulovligt at have en pistol i Danmark, og hvorfor stoppede han ikke, da han fik besked på at overgive sig? Ved han ikke at det sætter statens evne til at beskytte borgerne i et dårligt lys?

Nogle gange får man det indtryk, at forbryderne er ligeglade med loven, kan det virkelig være rigtig?

Om våbenlov i et af verdens mest farlige samfund

Navnet Jamaica bringer billeder af blå badestrande og afslappede ganjarygende rastafarier, men ifølge FNs “Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems” er Jamaica et af de absolut mest mordplagede samfund i verden. Her er historien om en kvinde der voksede op under afvæbningen af den jamaicanske befolkning.

HOW GUN CONTROL “WORKED” IN JAMAICA

by Tina Terry (c) 1998

(Published in THE FIREARMS SENTINEL, the quarterly publication of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) – P.O. Box 270143, Hartford, Wisconsin, 53027 – phone: 414-673-9746; web site: http://www.jpfo.org)

Those who stridently and self-righteously lobby for the seizure of all guns by the government in America, particularly women like Sarah Brady, Barbra Streisand, Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, would do well to study the results of forced disarmament in other countries.

I have personally lived through a government-instigated disarmament of the general public, and its subsequent, disastrous consequences: From 1961 to 1977 my father (who is a white American, as are my mother, sister and I) was stationed with his family and business in Kingston, Jamaica.

Around 1972, the political situation in Jamaica had so seriously deteriorated that there were constant shootings and gun battles throughout the city of Kingston and in many of the outlying parishes (counties). In years past no one had even had to lock their doors, but now many people hardly dared venture out of their homes. This was especially true for white people, and even more especially for Americans, because of the real risk of being gunned down or kidnapped and held hostage by Jamaicans, who had become increasingly hostile towards whites and foreigners. My father took his life into his hands every morning simply driving to work. Going to the market or to do a simple errand was often a terrifying prospect. The open hatred and hostility which was directed at us seemed ready at any time to explode into violence, and indeed did so towards many people on many occasions, often with tragic or fatal results.

The Jamaican government decided that the only solution to this Volatile situation was to declare martial law overnight, and to demand that all guns and bullets owned by anyone but the police and the military be turned into the police within 24 hours. The government decreed that anyone caught with even one bullet would be immediately, and without trial, incarcerated in what was essentially a barbed-wire enclosed concentration camp which had been speedily erected in the middle of Kingston. In true Orwellian fashion, the government referred to this camp as “the gun court.”

My father and all of our American, Canadian, British and European friends, as well as middle class Jamaicans of all colors (locally referred to as “black,” ‘white,” or “beige”) knew that we were all natural targets of this kind of draconian government punishment. The relentless anti-American propaganda spewed forth by Michael Manley, Jamaica’s admittedly pro-Castro Prime Minister, had resulted in the widespread hatred of Americans, British and Europeans by many Jamaicans. Racial hatred of whites and “beiges,” as well as class hatred of anyone who appeared to have money or property, were rampant.

Consequently, we all dutifully and immediately disarmed ourselves, and handed our weapons in at the nearest police station. It was either that or be sent straight to the gun court. Even after we had disarmed ourselves, we lived in deathly fear that the cops, not known for their integrity, and well-known for their hatred of whites and Americans, would plant a gun or bullet on our property or persons.

So there we all were – government-disarmed, sitting-duck, law-abiding citizens and expatriates. Anyone can guess what happened next: the rampant and unfettered carnage began in earnest. Robberies, kidnappings, murders, burglaries, rapes – all committed by the vast populace of still-armed criminals. Doubtless the criminals were positively ecstatic that the government had been so helpful in creating all these juicy and utterly defenseless victims for their easy prey.

We’ve all heard the phrase, “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” I can personally confirm that this statement is absolutely and painfully true, because that is exactly how the Jamaican disarmament worked. At the time of the disarmament order, I was away at boarding school in the United States. However, I remember vividly coming home for the summer. I remember the muted but pervasive atmosphere of tension and terror which constantly permeated our household, affecting even our loyal black servants, who worked for and lived with us, and whom we took care of. (Practically every household in Jamaica, except the very poorest, had live-in servants. There was no welfare or public school in Jamaica, so middle-class families became completely responsible for the well-being of their servants, who were considered to be part of the family, including taking them to the doctor, and helping to educate their children.)

I remember lying awake in bed at night, clutching the handle of an ice-pick I had put under my pillow, and listening to the screaming of car-loads of Jamaican gangs going by our house, praying that they wouldn’t pick our home to plunder. The favorite tactic was for a group of thugs to roar up to a house, pile out, batter down the door and rape, steal, kill, kidnap… whatever they felt like. They knew the inhabitants had been disarmed, and that they would be met with only fear and defenselessness. My pathetic ice-pick seemed incredibly puny, but it was all I could think of. Our family didn’t even own a baseball bat.

I remember lying awake thinking about how our beloved dogs were old and feeble, and that they could not protect us. And that I could not protect them either.

I can barely describe the abject terror and helplessness I felt as both a white American and as a young woman during that time. Jamaica was then about 90% black. Although I was (and still am) an American citizen, my family had lived in Kingston for almost 12 years when this situation occurred, and I considered Jamaica to be my real home. Many of my friends were Jamaican. My first serious boy-friend was Jamaican. For all its faults, I loved this beautiful, suffering island dearly, and I felt like a stranger when I was away at school in America, where I was always homesick for Jamaica.

When we had first moved to Jamaica in 1960, my sister and I (both Blonde and obviously white) had been able to ride our horses up into the hills, and, whenever we encountered local Jamaicans, their salutation to us was open and friendly, as was ours to them. As things deteriorated into the reign of terror, and then the government instituted overnight citizen disarmament, when we ventured outside our home, we almost always encountered hate-filled stares and hostile hisses of, “Eh, white bitch! Eh, look ‘ere, white bitch!” and other unprintable epithets.

Jamaica was, in the 1970’s, a country with at least 50% illiteracy and an illegitimacy rate of over 50%. If a Jamaican girl wasn’t pregnant by the age of 15 or 16, she was often derisively branded “a mule,” since mules, the offspring of horses and donkeys, are almost always sterile. Being a woman, let alone a white woman, in such a climate, especially after the disarmament of the citizenry by the government, was one of the most terrifying experiences one can imagine.

At that time, I had never held or fired a gun. I had rarely ever even seen a gun. No one in my family had ever learned about, used or even talked about firearms, except my father, who had been in the U.S. Army. In our social circle, guns were deemed “unseemly” and “inappropriate” for polite society, and especially for young ladies. I had never given much thought to any of the Bill of Rights, let alone the Second Amendment. Yet we Americans all knew the Bill of Rights did not protect us in Jamaica, just as it hadn’t applied to us at our previous station in Singapore.

My dad had fought in World War II, however, and had brought back a Luger pistol, which he had taken with him to Jamaica when we moved there after having spent 6 years in Singapore. No law had prevented his bringing a gun to Jamaica in 1960. When my dad handed that pistol and all his bullets in to the police, I vaguely realized that he was no longer allowed by the government to protect my mom, my sister or me, or our household.

I was pretty confused at the time. Terrified of being kidnapped, raped, murdered, robbed, at the same time I was still mindlessly anti-gun, because the criminals all had guns, and the government had declared guns to be contraband, and we were all terrified of being hurt by bad guys with guns, all of which somehow meant that guns must be “dangerous” and “bad” and therefore should be banned, just as the Jamaican government had decreed. As white Americans, our status was that of Permanent guests in a foreign and increasingly hostile country. In fact, after 6 years in Singapore, and 12 in Jamaica, we well knew how to strive to be “model guests,” which meant that questioning or challenging the Jamaican government’s authority was unthinkable — even when such government authority decreed that we be made helpless. None of us had any illusions about any “rights” to defend ourselves. We might have been able to do so with the government’s blessing in the good old days, before chaos and violence and racial hatred had taken over. But now it was different. Now we were white, visible, foreign, sitting ducks in a hostile black sea. And I was a white, visible, foreign, female sitting duck.

As obedient as I was to authority, I grasped that our household was defenseless, and that I as a woman was particularly defenseless. And I realized that, had my dad still had his pistol, I would have felt much safer. I even realized that I would be willing to pick up a gun if my life were threatened. For a person who claimed to be anti-gun, these feelings really confused me. At least eleven friends and acquaintances of my family were raped, kidnapped, murdered or robbed within about a year after the disarmament, and I believe it is a miracle that we are all still alive. I am convinced that many of these people would not have been victims had they not been disarmed by the Jamaican government. It was tragically ironic that the government had sold this whole disarmament program to us with the promise that: “We’re here to help you, and this is for your own good and safety.” Because of this horrid and indelible experience, and of my interest in and undying loyalty to the American Bill of Rights, I have made it my personal business to study the history of the Second Amendment. I have studied related topics, too, such as police responsibility to citizens. It is my belief that many people believe that disarmament is no big deal, because it is the job of the police to protect us. Particularly many women seem to believe this. The media and of Government authorities continue to generate pervasive and corrosive propaganda aimed at creating a helpless and disarmed populace. I used to completely believe this propaganda, but I have learned the following realities:

1. The police have no legal duty to protect individual citizens, and cannot be held responsible if they fail to do so. Even if a citizen’s 911 call gets through to the emergency center, the police can simply choose not to show up, and the citizen has no legal recourse against the police. The courts have repeatedly ruled on this. As the court wrote in Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982): “There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” The U.S. Supreme Court, in South v. Maryland, __ U.S. ___, ruled in a similar vein as far back as 1856.

2. The police carry guns primarily to defend THEMSELVES, not to protect us.

3. Because of items 1 and 2 above, we should all consider the police to be, essentially, HISTORIANS. They show up AFTER the crime has been committed and attempt to reconstruct and document the history of the crime. If the history is satisfactorily re-constructed, then the perpetrator is apprehended (if he can be found) and then (perhaps) prosecuted. This after-the-fact law enforcement does little good for the dead or wounded crime victims.

4. Women have a particular stake in preserving the right to bear arms. There is no way to describe the helplessness a woman feels when she is disarmed and made helpless by anyone. Add to that the rage she feels when the agency who is disarming her and leaving her at the mercy of rapists, murderers, goons and thugs, is a sanctimonious government telling her that it’s “for her own good.”

Although there are many serious issues in today’s roiling political And social stew, I believe that preserving and restoring the Bill of Rights in general, and the Second Amendment in particular, is the most pivotal and basic issue to all Americans, and particularly female Americans, even if they don’t yet know it. The consummate idiocy propounded by some folks (including some women) that the Second Amendment exists only to protect sportsmen’s rights is particularly ridiculous and relevant to women, most of whom don’t hunt, and who care more about being able to get a decent hand-gun for self-protection than a hunting rifle to pursue deer or elk.

Anyone who thinks the Bill of Rights is either “out of date,” “hokey” or “needs revising” – all of which I’ve heard from well-meaning but tragically ignorant and complacent Americans – should try living in a country which doesn’t have one. I have been there and done that, and I don’t want to go through it ever again -especially not in my own native nation. So I am dedicated to preventing today’s government nanny from turning, as so often has occurred in history, into tomorrow’s government despot.

Finally, I implore anyone reading this, particularly women, to likewise dedicate themselves to studying this issue carefully, and to likewise taking an active stance to preserve the Bill of Rights in general and the Second Amendment in particular.

Postscript: As of the latter part of August of this year (1998), it doesn’t appear that the situation in Jamaica has changed much for the better. Many Jamaicans of all colors have immigrated to America to start businesses and to escape the hopelessness of the situation in their homeland. I recently spoke with a black Jamaican named Marcus, who has opened a wonderful Jamaican restaurant in Phoenix named “Likkle Montego,” where I can go and eat Jamaican food, and catch the latest news from my long-lost home. When asked how things are today in Kingston, Marcus simply shook his head: “Nottin’ change attahly know. Everyt’ing still de same. Crime is still bad, mon. Gov’ment still de same. T”ings dere is bad and terrible, mon. Bad and terrible.”

And guns are still outlawed in Jamaica. Armed criminals still Terrorize disarmed citizens, since still in Jamaica only outlaws (and the government) have guns. Like the man said: Bad and terrible, mon. Bad and terrible.

==================================================
Please include the following re-publication information with any republishing:

Permission is given to republish this article, as long as none of it is changed, shortened or altered, the author and JPFO are given full credit in any such republishing, and this entire republishing message is included. Author may be reached by writing to:
Tina Terry
c/o JPFO
POB270143

Ligner det noget vi begynder at genkende i vores del af verden?

Prøve i samfundsfag for 8. klasse

Begrebet “failed state” er et udtryk som benyttes af politologer om stater som er ude af stand til at opfylde nogle af de mest basale forventninger. Definitionen af en “failed state” varierer, men grundlæggende er det en beskrivelse af stater som ikke længere kan kontrollere eget territorrie og som ikke kan holde sammen på det samfund som den forventes at styre og forsvare.

Forestil dig følgende scenarie:

Furaha bor i en by hvor han også har sin arbejdsplads. Byen og landet som Furaha bor i, er ledet af inkompetente og korrupte politikere, som er mere interesserede i at tømme borgernes lommer i form af direkte og indirekte skatter, end de er i at opretholde fred og tryghed. Gang på gang er Furahas by blevet angrebet af udenlandske såvel som indenlandske guerillagrupper, som hærger, røver, brænder bål i gaderne og fra tid til anden slår ihjel eller tæsker uskyldige mennesker. Da politikerne har mange våben og meget mere magt end både Furaha og alle hans landsmænd tilsammen, har de gjort det strengt forbudt at bære eller eje ethvert middel, som kunne give Furaha chancen for at overleve en konfrontation med en af guerillagrupperne. Furaha lever nu i fuldstændig afmagt og blottet for ethvert overgreb mod ham eller hans familie. Dagligt må han alligevel cykle gennem byen for at tjene til de høje skattepenge som de korrupte politikere giver videre til guerillagrupperne. Nogle gange er hans arbejdsplads blevet smadret i løbet af natten, så må Furaha vende om og køre hjem. Han har flere gange forsøgt at kontakte politiet, men de lytter ikke til ham, i stedet giver de ham en bøde for at køre uden lygte på cyklen. Nogle gange overvejer Furaha at anskaffe sig et våben, så han kan forsvare sig selv, men han ved at strenge straffe venter den, som vover at sætte sig op mod politikernes regler og love, uanset hvor forkerte de er.

Furahas fremtid ser ikke lys ud, han håber på at nogen vil afsætte de korrupte politikere som har kørt hans land i sænk. Han ved at mange føler som han, og hvert fjerde år sætter han sit kryds ved parlamentsvalget, men alligevel er det de samme mennesker som har magten. Politikerne skændes meget med hinanden og nogle gange vinder et parti over et andet, men Furaha synes ikke der sker nogen forskel. Han mærker bare at livet bliver farligere dag for dag. Furaha har et godt hoved, en god uddannelse og mange udenlandske kontakter. Han overvejer at flytte til et andet land, men han ved at mange andre ikke har de samme muligheder og han ønsker ikke at lade sine landsmænd i stikken.

Spørgsmål:

a. Hvor vil du placere dette samfund på en skala fra 1 til 10, hvor 10 er mest udviklet og 0 er mindst udviklet?

b. Er der efter din mening taler om en “failed state”? Hvorfor, hvorfor ikke?

c. Hvordan ville du foreslå, at man løser disse problemer som borgerne i Furahas land lider under? Hvordan tror du historien vil dømme dette samfund?

d. Tror du der er håb for Furaha og hans landsmænd?

Det syge danske “ret”ssystem slår til igen

Endnu en historie hvor forbryderen bliver belønnet mens ofret bliver straffet. Jeg orker ikke en længere kommentar på sagen, men citeres skal der sgu.

“Det sker med jævne mellemrum ude i de små hjem over det ganske land. En hjemmerøver lægger vejen forbi, mens familien sover, ser tv eller er en tur i Kvickly. I sådanne situationer er det bedste, der kan ske, altså ifølge lovgiverne, at røveren finder hvad han søger og sniger sig ubemærket ud. Så kan forsikringsselskabet tage sig af resten. Ingen kom jo noget til.

Det næstbedste, igen ifølge landets lovgivere, er, at ingen i familien, ikke engang hund, kat eller marsvin, sætter sig til modværge, men næstekærligt overdrager tyven, hvad de sagtens kan undvære. Herregud, det arvede sølvtøj, fladskærmen eller ungernes snoldede mobiltelefoner. Ingen vil savne det jordiske gods. Eller rettere: Vi får bare noget nyt – af de rare mennesker i Tryg eller Codan.

Det værste, der kan ske, er til gengæld, hvis manden eller kvinden i huset modsætter sig gerningsmanden eller forsøger at stoppe ham. Dét kan føre til en sigtelse. Vel at mærke af offeret. En sigtelse for vold – i eget hjem og i selvforsvar – men ikke desto mindre en sigtelse for vold.

Netop det sidste oplevede en 38-årig mand i Aabenraa den 19. april. Hændelsesforløbet er beskrevet i papirudgaven af Politiken dags dato, og jeg skal ikke trætte med unødige detaljer, men det korte af det lange er, at manden overraskes af indbrudstyven en sen aften, bliver slået ned, tager kampen op og overmander det, som viser sig at være en særdeles aggressiv 17-årig mand, der råber og skriger op om, at han vil dræbe ham. Det lykkes heldigvis ikke, og manden i huset viser, hvem der er manden i huset og får den kriminelle pacificeret. Her er sønderjydens egen beskrivelse:

“Jeg er stadigvæk ikke helt vågen, da jeg i døråbningen mellem kontoret og soveværelset får to knytnæveslag i hovedet, og samtidig råber en mand: Jeg stikker dig ihjel, dit svin. Jeg tænker ingenting, men ét eller andet inden i mig sagde, at det her giver du ikke op for uden kamp. Jeg når egentlig ikke at blive bange.”

“Vi ender med at slås nede på gulvet. Der var væltet en stor potteplante, og den fugtige jod lå spredt ud over hele gulvet. Vi gled rundt, og der var blod. Jeg slår sig ihjel, råbte han, Mens Tina ringer til politiet, roder jeg stadigvæk rundt med ham klovnen. Han råber: Jeg har en kniv. Politiet kom meget hurtigt, og det var først, da de var kommet, at jeg havde fået en arm vredet rundt på ham.”

I politiets påhør fortsætter den 17-årige sin råben: “Fuck politiet, fuck Danmark, fuck dig!”

Netop det med “fuck Danmark” kan man så undre sig over, al den stund at Sønderjyllands Politi på vegne af det officielle Danmark har valgt at sigte offeret for vold mod indbrudstyv, hvilket førstnævnte finder dybt krænkende…

Den 17-årige? Nå, ja, han er varetægtsfængslet indtil på mandag.”

Skrevet af Mikael Jalving på JP og Citeret via Uriasposten, med tak til Falkeøje for henvisning.

Manden burde have en medalje, i stedet får han hele systemets vægt ned over hovedet, min medfølelse og sympati går ud til ham og hans stakkels familie. Nu går jeg ud og brækker mig over det syge danske system, dette er tydeligvis ikke resultatet af demokratisk funderede love. FØJ FOR SATAN!

Hvilke rettigheder har forbrydere?

Efter at have fulgt lidt med i selvtægtssagen fra Sabro i Århus har jeg dannet mig nogle tanker omkring dualismen i situationen og om hvordan en dårlig handling giver positive resultater på visse punkter.

For det første var drabet ikke et uprovokeret angreb. Forbryderspireren og hans kumpaner opholdt sig på mandens bopæl med det klare ærinde at stjæle. Meget tyder desuden på, at det da heller ikke var hverken første eller femte gang, at de havde været ude for at tage hvad der ikke tilhørte dem. Set fra et moralsk-praktisk perspektiv har forbryderens bortgang derfor ikke været et tab for samfundet. Tværtimod sparede den tidlige død sandsynligvis samfundet en del penge og fremtidige ofre en del smerte. Hans død var, efter alt at dømme, en nettogevinst for menneskeheden.

MEN fra et moralsk-principielt perspektiv skulle den 35-årig familiefar have tænkt sig om to gange, inden han jagtede tyvene i sin bil. Jeg tror ikke det var hensigten at køre dem ned, men man skal ikke jagte forbryderne når de stikker af, slet ikke når det ikke er lykkedes dem at tage noget med. Det er min klare overbevisning at man har lov at forsvare sig selv og sin ejendom med alle midler, men når man jager en flygtende er det ikke længere forsvar men selvtægt.

Jeg kan ikke bebrejde manden for sin handling, slet ikke i disse tider, hvor kriminaliteten stiger mens politiet hverken kan eller vil reagere på almindelige anmeldelser. At folk begynder at tage sagen i egen hånd er endvidere netop resultatet af vores totalt uduelige retssystem, hvor forbrydere belønnes mens ofre straffes. Det er netop tilfælde som dette jeg ofte advarer imod, og som der vil blive flere og flere af, i takt med at staten undergraver vores tillid til retssystemet. Når det er sagt, så var handlingen alligevel ikke acceptabel. Manden må stå til ansvar for denne fejl, men jeg håber at han bliver idømt en mild dom og snart får mulighed for at fortsætte livet som hidtil.

I øvrigt kunne det være rart at få svar på hvorfor medierne råber så højt, når en somalier bliver slået ihjel. Det er sjældent at selv usædvanligt bestialske mord får samme opmærksomhed. Det skulle da lige være dengang tyrkiske Deniz Uzun blev dræbt ved kølle. Hvorfor får de ekstremt få tilfælde af drab på udlændinge så massiv mediedækning, mens de utallige mord på danskere bliver fejet væk med en lille notits på side 5-8? Racismediskussionen gider jeg slet ikke kommentere på.