Shot for being at home

I’ve written before about America’s police being way too aggressive and trigger-happy, resulting from poor training, low standards, and outright cowardice. Now we have this story:

A white Dallas police officer who says she mistook her black neighbor’s apartment for her own when she fatally shot him has been arrested on a manslaughter charge.

It’s worth bearing in mind that she’s only been arrested after several days of public outrage at her having been initially merely suspended. I imagine if any non-police officer walked into someone else’s house and shot the owner dead, they’d be treated rather differently.

Lawyers for the family questioned why it took three days for Guyger to be charged. One said Guyger should have been in handcuffs the night of the shooting, but she was only booked on a manslaughter charge Sunday night.

Indeed.

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings says an off-duty police officer charged in the shooting death of a neighbor had parked on the wrong floor of their apartment complex’s parking garage.

Rawlings said Sunday that the 30-year-old officer , Amber Guyger, drove to her apartment complex Thursday night after her shift. Authorities say the four-year veteran of the police force told officers after she shot 26-year-old Botham Jean that she had mistaken his apartment for her own.

Was she drunk? Was she high? We don’t know, because the police aren’t saying. Got to protect their own, you see.

Authorities say a Dallas police officer said she shot a neighbor whose home she mistakenly entered last week after he ignored her “verbal commands.”

Why should a man going about his business in his own home react to the “verbal commands” of a policewoman who has no business being there?

David Armstrong of the Texas Rangers wrote in an arrest affidavit released Monday that Officer Amber Guyger said she didn’t realize she was in the wrong apartment until after she shot 26-year-old Botham Jean and went into the hallway to check the address.

Again, it must be asked: how drunk was she?

An investigator says a Dallas police officer who shot and killed her neighbor after mistaking his apartment for her own said that when she inserted her key in his door, it opened because it had been slightly ajar.

The affidavit says Guyger was on the phone with 911 reporting the shooting when she turned on the apartment lights and discovered she was in the wrong apartment. It says Jean’s apartment was the one right above Guyger’s and the apartment layouts and exterior hallways were nearly identical.

There is an old Soviet film called Ironiya Sudbii, which is based around a man from Moscow getting completely drunk and dumped on a plane to Saint Petersburg. When he arrives he assumes he’s still in Moscow, takes a taxi to his address where he finds an identical building – and an identical apartment whose door can be unlocked by his own key. The owner returns and hilarity ensues but – unlike the story in Dallas – nobody winds up dead.

It’s one thing for police to be heavy-handed when carrying out their duties; they have a difficult job after all, and America is full of violent criminals carrying guns. However, there is absolutely no excuse for a policewoman to mistake a neighbour’s apartment for her own and shoot the occupant dead. She needs the book thrown at her, just the same as if she was an ordinary citizen. The fact the police are dragging their feet and seemingly protecting her while an innocent man lies in the morgue is indicative of how badly things need to change.

Share

The Shamelessness of South Yorkshire Police

From the BBC:

Ministers do not know the impact funding cuts have had on police forces, the UK’s public spending watchdog says.

According to the National Audit Office, the Home Office does not know whether the police system in England and Wales is “financially sustainable”.

It calls the approach to police funding “ineffective” and “detached” from the changing demands faced by officers.

Changing demands, eh? Such as dealing with reports of non-crimes sent in by the public at the behest of the police themselves?

Now it may be the police are understaffed and underfunded, but one thing is for sure: the allocation of existing money and human resources in British police forces is an absolute disgrace.

But put that aside for a minute and consider what South Yorkshire police are saying here. Not content with prosecuting people under the dangerously vague and arbitrary definition of “hate crimes”, they now see fit to hound the population for expressing unapproved opinions which don’t even fall under that category. In other words, whatever you say is Plod’s business. Lest you think I’m reading it wrong, here’s how they clarified their position in a later Tweet:

This has gone viral and many people are outraged, but the tin ears of the British police and whoever in government they take their orders from are legendary; shame isn’t a word in their vocabulary. Proof of this comes in no better form than the fact that South Yorkshire police, by refusing to take complaints seriously through fear of being called racist (or perhaps out of ethnic solidarity with the perpetrators), were complicit in allowing Pakistani rape gangs to abuse dozens of underage girls in Rotherham for years. And here they are, smug as ever, trying to bully into silence ordinary citizens who they happily admit committed no crime.

The British police are rotten to the very core; scrap the whole lot of them and start again.

Share

African gangs and racist stubby holders

The incomparable Steve Sailer brings us news from Melbourne:

According to the Australian Establishment, Melbourne has two African gangs problems: the African gangs of street criminals themselves, and, far worse, the Australians who have noticed and even talked about this new problem that the politicians have imported for them to endure.

How can Australia be a democracy when rifts are turned into election issues? The essence of democracy is that elections shouldn’t decide anything.

I understand a good portion of those African gangs are Sudanese, whose presence in the city I heard about during the first week of my arrival. I was in the gym at the astoundingly expensive and very average Novotel watching the news, and a story came up about how a bunch of policemen in the Melbourne suburb of Sunshine had been distributing racist stubby (drinks) holders. They then showed a picture of one of  the offending items:

At which point I stopped the treadmill and said, “Eh?” Apparently, the above image was so racially aggravating to local Sudanese that three police officers were eventually sacked, because:

“Mudfish” is a type of fish and is a common food in many African countries. It is used by some people as derogatory slang for Africans.

Is that cartoon fish with human arms and hands unmistakably a mudfish? Judging by the photos, mudfish don’t even have barbels; it looks more like a catfish to me. And a Google search of “mudfish Africans” brings up several pages of how to catch one but not a single item which might indicate who these “some people” using it as derogatory term might be.

At the time I assumed this would be laughed out of the police complaints office, but oh how naive I was! Now bear in mind I’d spent the previous 10 years living in Kuwait, Dubai, Russia, Thailand and Nigeria where political correctness of this sort simply doesn’t exist. Certainly, in none of those countries is the local police going to find themselves in trouble over complaints made by foreigners, let alone refugees complaining about drinks coolers. I didn’t realise it at the time, but this was my first real exposure to how utterly craven the ruling classes in the west had become. Take this statement:

Chief Commissioner Ken Lay said the police force would not tolerate racist behaviour in any form.

“There is large numbers in the African community that were enormously disturbed by what has happened,” he said. “It sent a very bad message to the broader community that police were not tolerant.

You’ll not tolerate racist behaviour in any form, but you’ll invent it where there is none. Now the Sudanese would have learned from this. They tested the water and found they could get policemen fired in their new home simply by making the most silly of complaints, and now – five years later – they’re running riot around Melbourne confident that the ruling classes who took their side previously will continue to support them. The rot set in a long time ago, and nothing is going to change until those in charge are run out of town on a rail and left to die of thirst in the desert.

Share

Ineffective policing brings forth vigilante justice

In March 2017 I wrote a post centred around this remark left by commentator Duffy:

Here’s what many people often seem to forget. Police are there to protect us from criminals. But they are also there to protect the criminals from mob justice.

I referenced cases in Nigeria and Argentina where ordinary people, utterly fed up with the police being unwilling or unable to deal with miscreants, took matters into their own hands and I speculated we’re probably not far off such vigilante justice appearing on the streets of Britain. Then yesterday, via Natalie Solent at Samizdata, I discovered this story:

This shocking footage reveals the moment a gang of vigilantes beat a man in street after he tried to attack people with acid.

The suspect is shown being kicked to the ground outside Maryland train station in East London and battered with a plank of wood before having milk poured over him.

A mob claim to have caught him shortly after he had thrown acid inside a shop after someone refused to hand over some change.

Well, if useless fools like Cressida Dick, Sadiq Khan, and their private army of uniformed enforcers won’t protect the public from such things as acid attacks, sooner or later the public will start protecting themselves:

Footage of the latest incident was filmed by a witness, who shared it on Facebook.

It shows the the alleged acid attacker lying face down in the road outside Maryland railway station in Stratford, surrounded by a group of men.

As he stands up a man kicks him back to the tarmac and somebody in the crowd shouts: ‘Kill him, bro.’

Another man attempts to intervene but the first man continues to kick and stomp him while he is down, making him scream out in pain.

The cameraman warns: ‘Yo, if you bring acid ever again.’

A second man then douses the suspect with what appears to be milk and boots him in the back.

The crowd shouts: ‘Kill him, bruv. P****.’ Somebody then strikes him with a plank of wood.

If this happened in Nigeria the man would be dead, either beaten to a pulp or doused in petrol and set alight. But more importantly, and this was the crux of my previous post, if the police had tried to intervene the crowd would likely have murdered him too. Would the same thing ave happened in London? Probably not but, with recent stories of policemen being mocked and pelted with bottles and stones, I suspect it’s a matter of time before a British policeman intervenes in vigilante justice and meets the same fate as the victim.

Share

Sorry Plod, you’re on your own

Plod doesn’t really get it, does he:

Firstly, the reason a lone policewoman is struggling to get the cuffs on a drunk male is because someone decided women could do the job just as well as men and physical standards went out the window. This is what happens when the purpose of an organisation is changed to serve as a vehicle for progressives to enact their deranged fantasies as part of an overall aim of undermining society and the institutions on which it depends.

Secondly, people are reluctant to intervene in such situations because – largely thanks to Plod’s idiocy – the personal risks are too high.

Thirdly, as I said the other day, the public are increasingly seeing the police if not quite aligned against them, then certainly not on their side. Only if you pointed this out to Twitter Plod, they’d close ranks, start issuing threats, cite dubious government surveys which say “the emergency services” are as popular as ever, declare you a problem and “biased against the police” and, finally, block you. I’ve learned not to bother. Proposals like this amuse, though:

Is this going to be reciprocal, do you think? So if an ordinary citizen requests help from the police and they do nothing, Plod gets charged with the same offence? Yeah, sure. But what’s ironic is the police have spend decades creating a monopoly of force by disarming the public and prosecuting anyone who defends themselves, or “takes the law into their hands” as they call it. They are insistent the public should stand well back, or submit to getting their houses burgled or their heads kicked in, until the police show up as only Plod is permitted to deal with such things. Only now we find the police are manifestly incapable of doing half the stuff they’ve claimed a monopoly over and need the public’s help. But it’s not there, and Plod’s on his own. Who’s fault is that, then?

Share

Public Feedback

I’ve written several posts expressing my belief that the British police are not on the side of the public, and they are rapidly losing their support. In particular, this:

I think it’s high time British policemen were shunned from polite society, particularly those in the higher ranks, unless they have unequivocally demonstrated whose side they are on. The default approach to a policeman should be that afforded to a bouncer at a Manchester nightclub, someone to be avoided except when absolutely necessary and even then contact kept to an absolute minimum. The day policeman cannot arrest ordinary citizens on trumped-up terror charges and expect to interact with normal society afterwards is the day they will start to change. But while the middle-classes support this stuff and engage with policemen on supposedly equal terms, rather than demand those responsible are fired on the spot, things will only get worse.

I will not ever call for policemen to be lynched by a mob. I would not ever condone policemen being lynched by a mob. But I suspect there will come a point in future where, if I see a mob lynching policemen, I will walk on by having seen nothing. If the police don’t wise up soon and change course, there is even a chance I’ll stop and watch. I doubt I’ll be alone.

Today I found this story:

A police officer has condemned people who cheered a man escaping police after a confrontation which left two officers requiring hospital treatment.

The incident on Romford Road, Newham, east London, was filmed and shared on social media with laughter and shouts of encouragement clearly audible.

Sorry, but if the police make it abundantly clear, day after day, they are not on the public’s side they can hardly complain when the public treats them with contempt.

But Supt Roy Smith described it as a “sad state of affairs”.

This adequately describes British policing in the modern age, particularly their contemptuous attitude towards ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

Supt Smith tweeted it was “disappointing to see members of the public filming this and laughing at the officers”.

I’d say Supt Smith doesn’t know his public very well, then. Too much time on diversity training and not enough walking the beat, perhaps? Now I’m sure policemen of yore would have found themselves in similar situations, i.e. low-lifes cheering on a criminal. The difference is they’d have expected it, and not gone bleating to the public about how “disappointed” they are. Here’s the tweet in full:

So how did this affairs come about, eh? What changed? And as for the police are the public, spare me. Remember this:

A van driver was arrested by a group of police officers after challenging them because they were parked on a double yellow line. Andy Mayfield, 53, was held in custody for 12 hours and strip searched under anti-terror laws after he started filming the cops, who were parked illegally outside their own police station in Ashton-on-Ribble, Lancashire in January. He was detained under the Terrorism Act and submitted to a rigorous questioning at the Newton Heath terrorism centre in Manchester before eventually being released.

This is more like the behaviour of an occupying army than a police force, and now they’re complaining the public is jeering them when they’re in difficulty. Like their political masters, the British police seem to suffer from a severe lack of self-awareness. I expect we’ll be seeing more incidents like this.

Share

Forced Pride

This got me wondering…

…whether taking part in pride marches wearing rainbow stripes on your face was compulsory for police serving in British forces. Or is it one of those things which are common in modern organisations whereby it’s wholly voluntary but if you choose not to take part you can kiss your career goodbye?

My guess is some police officers are happy to take part whereas others are very much against it, perhaps with the latter group being made up of old-school police approaching retirement. I wonder if the police officers union has been approached by anyone who objected to taking part but feared their career may suffer, and if so what their response was?

My guess it’s a matter of time before ordinary employees in corporate jobs are herded into the streets to wave rainbow flags during Pride month. We may even be there now:

At the annual Pride Parade in London this year, corporations like Barclays, Citibank and Starbucks led the parade at the front of the party while historical groups who have stood with the LGBT community in the UK for decades were pushed to the back.

My guess is people are going to start getting awfully sick of this, and a lot of them will be gay men and women.

Share

An Illustration of a Changed Society

This thread was worth a read but it’s now protected, perhaps because of the reactions the author was getting to it. Basically, the lady in question was on the train in the UK and some creepy older guy sat down right beside two girls in their late teens and started harassing them. The lady intervened and the man spent the next few minutes yelling at her and became very aggressive, but ultimately left them alone. The girls thanked the lady, who lamented that nobody else in the carriage intervened. Now good on her for stepping in and rescuing the girls from this sex-pest, but there are good reasons why nobody helped her.

British feminists – of which the author is one, according to her Twitter bio – have spent decades eradicating traditional gender roles, and have been so successful that the role men now play in society is a mere shadow of what it once was. Indeed, many aspects of what was normal male behaviour is now illegal thanks to feminist lobbying. Now this may be a good thing for women in some ways but, like everything involving societal trade-offs, it came at a price. Men, having been told women don’t need their protection, having been accused of being rapists and sex-pests simply for being male, and having been told endlessly their natural behaviour is “problematic” to the extent young boys are given powerful drugs to control it, are now behaving very differently to how they used to. They are no longer chivalrous, they are no longer willing to assist strange women in distress, and are extremely risk averse. Feminists have worked extremely hard to emasculate men, and now they’re paying the price of living in a society where their efforts have been successful. Unbelievably, many seem to think their work is only just beginning and men are still a problem, but here we are.

In addition, men are now well aware that common-sense policing has long since disappeared and any interaction with Plod could well leave them in a world of trouble. If a man had intervened and a fight ensued, he would probably have been arrested. If he has a wife, a family, a job, or a mortgage the process in front of him might be very costly indeed. Why risk it? And how does he know what the circumstances are? For all he knows this might be a domestic dispute, and any intervention involving kids might see the idiotic police and feminist-driven CPS conspiring to put him on a sex-offenders register. Wasn’t there a story some years ago about a man being charged as a sex-offender after grabbing the arm of a young girl who was about to run into a busy road? Again, why risk it?

A few generations ago plenty of men would have done something in the situation described by the tweet’s author but society has changed, and this didn’t happen at the behest of the sort of men who would have come to the girls’ aid. Rather, the shift in societal behaviour was demanded by those who now lament the current state of affairs.  From what I can tell the main beneficiaries of feminists’ efforts to remove traditional male roles from society, and the collapse of common-sense policing, are sex-pests who are free to operate without fear of either. Well done, folks. Well done indeed.

Share

Is this jury nullification?

Via JuliaM, this is an interesting story:

A father and son duo who opened fire on an police van have walked free from court after being cleared of attempted murder.

Richard Baldwin, an expert clay pigeon shooter, shot at an unmarked white van three times using his double-barrelled shotgun after thinking he was scaring off burglars from his property.

However the businessman was actually opened fire on a van which had two plainclothed police officers inside.

Maybe the prosecution aimed too high, and they’d have been more likely to secure a conviction on a lesser charge? I’ve been told that when Plod is on the receiving end of something he doesn’t like the charges are inflated, sometimes comically so. The downside to this is sometimes the charges don’t stick. But:

Both Mr Baldwin and his son were also cleared of an alternative charge of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, and carrying a loaded shotgun in a public place.

Hmmm. Perhaps there is something else going on?

Mr Baldwin, who was cleared of attempted murder along with his son, told The Daily Telegraph that he was ‘harassed’ by Irish travellers for more than a year before he opened fire on the police van.

Ah.

Luton Crown Court heard Mr Baldwin had become increasingly angry after police took 25 minutes to respond to his pleas for help.

Mr Baldwin took his legally-owned weapon and take matters into their own hand to track the suspected burglars.

Mr Baldwin made a number of calls to police regarding harassment of his family from the travelling community, but he claims they were ignored. An officer also told him not to use racially offensive terms when referring to travellers.

He claims that tyres and tools were stolen from Mr Baldwin’s garage and that he had never had problems with the travelling community until this group of people began to abuse him and his family.

Could it be the jury decided to signal its displeasure at useless Plod refusing to do their jobs, yet finding time to lecture the victims of crime on racism? I hope so. I’ve been saying for a while the British public ought to begin withdrawing their support from the police; jury nullification in cases where the defendant should never have been in that position were it not for useless Plod is one way to go about it.

Share

The Arrest of Tommy Robinson

Yesterday the right-wing provocateur Tommy Robinson was arrested for livestreaming the comings and goings outside a British court building where a rape trial involving Muslims was ongoing. Within hours the British government had placed a gagging order on the press, so as usual it fell to Twitter to tell everyone what went on.

The chattering classes are this morning stroking their chins and sternly reminding us that filming outside a courtroom is illegal and Robinson is currently serving a suspended sentence for the same offence. Reporting on ongoing court matters is strictly controlled in the UK in order not to prejudice a trial, and people make a valid point when they say Robinson’s actions could result in a mistrial. At best, he’s been very naive and probably ought to find himself a reliable legal adviser if he’s going to keep doing stuff like this.

However, there is a lot more going on here and the chattering classes are either deliberately overlooking it or, more likely, utterly unaware of it. Robinson has not been arrested for filming outside a court building, he’s been arrested because he embarrasses the ruling classes. He has been constantly followed, monitored, and harassed by Plod wherever he goes solely because he draws attention to the failings of the ruling classes. In this particular instance, he is making the point that the mainstream media is silent on the issue of Muslims raping vulnerable, underage British girls in northern, working-class towns, leaving it to people like him with iPhones to keep everyone informed. While he’s probably mistaken the lack of media coverage of this ongoing case for self-censorship rather than mere compliance with the law, the wider point is that the media does self-censor and particularly so in cases such as these. The modern British media is merely a mouthpiece for the ruling classes, which is why so many journalists have taken to Twitter to pompously besmirch Robinson and justify his arrest and incarceration. The last thing mainstream journalists want is some pleb without the proper credentials, much less a degree from Oxford or Cambridge, reporting on things they’d prefer went unmentioned.

While it is true that Robinson has committed some sort of offence here, Britain is fast becoming like many authoritarian states in that everyone is committing an offence merely by going about their daily business, and it’s therefore just a matter of who the police choose to arrest. And even if you haven’t committed a crime, the police can arrest whoever they like for wholly imaginary reasons and face no consequences. With the process being the punishment, it doesn’t really matter if you’ve committed an offence or not: if the ruling classes and their minions in uniforms decide you’re a problem, they’ll make your life hell and convince themselves they’ve acted lawfully. We should remind ourselves at this point that nobody rotted away in a Soviet gulag for no reason: there was always a charge attached to their incarceration. The fact Robinson was originally arrested for breach of the peace and later that changed to prejudicing a trial shows the authorities aren’t really interested in what they charge him with provided he ends up behind bars.

Somebody asked on Twitter yesterday why the government is terrified of upsetting Muslims to the point they’re prepared to jail the likes of Robinson. I responded by saying they’re not: the government and their bag carriers are not in the least afraid or Muslims because they pose no threat to their way of life, and are often quite useful in cementing them into positions of power and privilege. What they are genuinely terrified of is the ignorant, white masses rising up and hanging them from lampposts, and the event which triggers this could well be widespread revulsion at what the ruling classes have seemingly allowed Muslims to get away with in towns like Rotherham and Telford. The nightmare scenario for the likes of Theresa May and tossers writing in The Times and The Guardian is not a crazed jihadist bombing a concert or knifing someone on Westminster Bridge but an angry mob of people who look and sound much like them.

Tommy Robinson to some degree represents that angry mob, and even those who don’t like his methods or opinions are forced to admit he has a point: the government is failing massively on many levels, and eventually things will boil over with ugly results. The idiots in government think by chucking him in jail the problem will go away, just as Twitter and Facebook think they can eradicate alt-right opinions by banning users who hold them, as if covering their ears is the answer. History is littered with national leaders who spent time in prison for criticising the previous regime; not that I think Robinson will become Prime Minister, but it demonstrates that rulers who jail those who are inconvenient often don’t remain in charge very long. It’s a sign of extreme weakness rather than strength, and it’s no coincidence that Robinson is being arrested at a time when Britain has one of the weakest yet childishly authoritarian Prime Ministers in living memory.

The next week or so will probably test May’s government more than she realises. The public are already incensed over Count Dankula’s Nazi pug prosecution, and if Robinson is harmed in custody in any way, the ruling classes might find he has a lot more supporters than they thought, and some are ready to step up and take things a little further. The IRA in their successful campaign to bomb their way to the bargaining table were able to rely on an enormous number of people putting money into hats passed around in pubs. Similarly, jihadists are supported in large part by thousands of hands placing notes into bowls passed through the crowd during Friday prayers.

Let’s leave the who, what, and how to one side for a minute, mainly because they’re questions I can’t answer. Instead, let’s try a thought experiment: if hats were passed through the British population asking for money to tackle the problems Tommy Robinson is highlighting, how many people would cough up, and how much money would be raised? I expect if the ruling classes knew the answer, they’d turn white.

Share