Greg Carvel's ordeal is finally over here:
And about bloody time! I have a sneeking suspicion that the police didn't want to charge him, but it was ordered by those who say they do not influence police policy (yeah, right!)
He SHOULD have gotten a gong for preventing a dangerous looney from getting access to firearms!
He SHOULD have been supported as a victim of a serious crime.
He SHOULD be compensated for this frivolous/malicious prosecution.
I'm sure Greg won't be holding his breath waiting for the above.
My thanks to all those good people who supported him with words, thoughts and money!
What is coming out of cases like this is that, while the police say firearms must not be used for self-defense, the courts are not backing this stance.
The courts are doing things right here (for once!)- we DO have a right to self-defense. The same one our police have and use.
The precident is well-established. Now we need to move to a point where these VICTIMS of crime are not financially crippled defending themselves for what is their right in law.
To preserve their lives and property by the best means available.
5 comments:
Good job. Bloody glad to hear this news.
I totally agree that we should have the right to defend ouselves and our property with the best means at our disposal.
Unfortunatly, we had grippers like John Banks abd Phillip Alpers who eroded our rights and re-vamped the Arms Act in an effort to keep arms out of the hands of the mental defectives the government had turned loose on the community when they shut down the institutions.
You are correct - the Police really have no option under the arms act. They are damned if they do, and damned if they dont.
The Act is quite clear and this guy had a loaded handgun under the counter in clear breach of it.
I know that Police would have been perfectly well aware that if the matter had gone to trial, the jury would almost certainly have let him walk, but Police have no option in serious matters - its not their job to decide penalties - just the prime facie facts which they place before the courts.
Mind you, juries are capricious entities.........
I see a police spokeswoman has been quick to point out that this result doesn't mean that shopkeepers (and others) have the right to defend themselves.
Oh yes we bloody well have--it's just that we'll still be prosecuted for it.
Not bad, is it? Prosecuting people for exercising the most fundamental right of them all. *spit*
Update: It ain't over yet--I see the prosecution is considering appealing that decision.
"The precident is well-established. Now we need to move to a point where these VICTIMS of crime are not financially crippled defending themselves for what is their right in law."
Amen to that.
Post a Comment