Read this disclaimer first!!
Saturday, Jan. 18, 2003 - 9:20 a.m.
Self-Defense

A U.K. farmer was jailed and denied parole for fatally shooting a 16-year-old kid and wounding his friend when they tried to burgle his 350-acre farm. One of the reasons cited was that he was a 'danger to burglars'. As Iain Murray points out (scroll down a little), this is like saying that women who practice self-defense are a danger to rapists. It's hard to believe, but wait! There's more!

A U.K. socialist group maintains that this man isn't specifically a danger to burglars, but a danger to society. They say that he is a bigot who was itching to shoot someone he found inferior. Even if that is true, with all pressure from the press, I'm surprised that the man was denied parole.

Members of the public want him freed on the grounds that he was convicted for a thought crime, thinking that things were better forty years ago. (when you could happily blow away anyone on your property), and that being a bigot was socially acceptable.

The question is, is this man truly a dnager to society? Evidently his lack of remorse indicated to the parole board that he would do it again. Was what he did even illegal? Did he have reason to believe that his life was in danger? Even if only his property was in danger, is that enough to justify killing?

It just goes to show that things aren't always as clear as they seem.

0 scrawls at the end of this hall

The look:
The feel:
The taste:
________________________