British Man Denied Parole, Ruled "A Threat to Burglars"

[MMMMMM]

Somebody pinch me. 'Ave they lost their bloomin' minds? Here's M's summary, but the actual article is much better:


A middle-aged man in England, who had been robbed in his farmhouse several times (after which incidents police had been very slow in responding), the last time shot in the dark to scare them away, in a panic, and wounded one while killing the other. This time the police respnded quickly. He was arrested and subsequently convicted, even though investigation showed he had indeed fired blindly to warn them off. He served enough of his sentence to be eligible for parole, but the parole board turned down his request because he "showed no remorse" and was "not up to speed in the 21st century"-- they concluded he still poses a threat to burglars. This because he feels he has the right to defend himself in his own home--since the police obviously won't be providing that service.

The backdrop for this scenario: recently British judges were advised to no longer send first-time burglars to prison, due to overcrowding--so aspiring home invaders know that the worst they will get for a first offense is community service. The Metropolitan Police announced they would no longer investigate burglaries unless the perpetrator was obvious and the evidence plenty. Police manpower will now only be used to investigate murders, rapes and hate crimes. And citizens who defend themselves in their own homes run serious risk of being seen, in the eyes of the courts, as being "dangerous to burglars."


Read the actual article:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=5757