In a police state one of the less obvious restrictions is the monopoly the police have on law enforcement and civil protection. At the moment we are supposed to be able to protect ourselves, our property and other people from violence and even effect a citizen’s arrest under some circumstances.
In another advance on the police state that right is increasingly being challenged. It appears on the surface as if the police had no reason to arrest Mr Philpott for stabbing a youth who with his friends vandalised Mr Philpott’s property and threatened violence against his son and his wife. He has an obvious prima facie case for self defence.
The police cannot possibly assume that Mr Philpott set out to injure innocent youths. The incident happened on or near his property, the youths were drunk. Mrs Philpott called the police, Mrs Philpott had been collecting evidence, neither likely if Mr Philpott was at fault. Mr Philpotthad no apparent motive for attacking them if they were innocent.
So why did the police arrest Mr Philpott? Had evidence later suggested some unusual events had led to Mr Philpott attacking passing innocents, then he could have been arrested. He is a respectable business owner, he is not going to be hard to find.
Incidentally the young man stabbed in this incident went to the school I was lucky enough to avoid. My parents moved house to avoid it. It was not a good school 25 years ago, might not have improved under our Great Leader's care. As for the parents, either they did not know their 16-year-old son claimed on Facebook he was "[happiest] when with mates getting drunk" or they did not care. They hold a great deal of responsibility for this.
Update: Advancing police state in the USA. In a police state the police have arbitrary authority; they just tell people what to do, whether they are breaking any law or not. In a police state the police often respond to political organisations, and often those organisations are involved in organised criminal activity. Talking of Acorn, what on Earth is "resisting"? Resisting arrest maybe, but you can't really do that if you are not being arrested!
2 comments:
Why arrest Philpott?
1) They get to tick another set of target boxes for Philpott's arrest. Arresting both offender and offendee has become quite common.
2) Arresting the offendee puts people off calling the police, so the number of cases reported to the police reduces over time.
3) They are conditioning people (whether intentionally or not) to be helpless and put up with all the shit flung their way.
The offendee has a lot to lose by calling the cops. His reputation, his job (as a result), his time and possibly lots of dosh on legal fees which, in all likelihood, he doesn't have.
The cops can't really lose. They've been handed their powers by successive inept and controlling Home Secretaries.
B*stards, all of them.
This is a great post thanks for writing it
Post a Comment