So this news story from the UK Daily Mail should come as no surprise to anyone who reads British writers like Theodore Dalrymple or James Hannan or Peter Hitchens.
Excerpt:
Two men were dragged to court for apprehending a Romanian they caught burgling their business.
A nine-month ordeal ended for Steven Iliffe, 54, and son Daniel, 26, yesterday when a judge threw out the case against them.
They had begged police to go on a roof to arrest career criminal Petre Ilie.
But officers were barred by their superiors, via their radio, due to health and safety rules.
Eventually, the father and son, both former soldiers, went on the roof themselves to tackle the armed man.
They were stunned when the police later arrested them on suspicion of attempted murder – and later charged them with the lesser offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
Yesterday, the pair said they were considering legal action against Leicestershire Police.
Mr Iliffe senior said he had suffered a heart attack in a cell triggered by the stress of his arrest at their scrap metal business in Hinckley, Leicestershire, last December.
He added: ‘We had suffered a string of burglaries and went up onto that roof only because the police had refused to do so.’
The criminal is in the country illegally, too:
Leicester Crown Court was told yesterday that Ilie, 39, already had ‘a number of convictions for burglary, failing to surrender and breaching court orders’ in the UK under the name Christopher Tudor.
In 2010 he was deported but sneaked back into the UK.
He was then arrested again alongside the Iliffes.
I hope that the United States doesn’t ever get to the point where the government prevents law-abiding citizens from defending themselves from criminals. The UK is a very liberal country, so they are very much into the idea that evil is good, and good is evil, so that everyone is “equal” and liberals can feel compassionate.
I know that formerly liberal countries like Canada have been pushing back hard against crime, with measures like abolishing the long gun registry, a tough “omnibus” crime bill, and renewed protections for self-defense. I guess that’s why their crime rates are at a 40-year low. Canada is serious about stopping crime. They do what works, and then they get the results that they expect to get.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
It’s coming. Any day now. I hope I’ll be dead before though.
LikeLike
As a retired police officer in the US, what struck me is the attitude of law enforcement. “Oh, we might get hurt if we try to do our job to protect citizens and their property. We better not.” Huh? In the US, when you take a position in law enforcement, you are sworn to make it your duty to do all that is possible to bring bad guys to justice. Yes, of course we take precautions, but when necessary, we confront the evil doers, sacrificing our own safety and perhaps our lives to protect those we serve. I was personally injured several times in the line of duty, did uncounted dangerous things, got into physical fights with people who refused to comply and faced down men who had loaded guns. What will happen when the criminals learn of the attitude of not facing danger? Threaten the officers with harm and they will leave us alone. When that becomes the norm, the only recourse for citizens is vigilante justice. It will be chaos.
LikeLike
You’ve GOT to realize that the US police in any town or city have no duty to protect you.
So remain armed, practiced and safe. You are responsible for you. God said so.
LikeLike
I have not read those decisions and did not see a citation on the link. My guess is that those cases are stating the police can’t be expected to be everywhere and stop every crime. This of course is true.
I was commenting that it appears that in the UK the police won’t protect people or propert when they are on the scene of a crime in progress. In the US those officers and supervisor would be disciplined for failing to perform their duty and conduct unbecoming an officer while on duty, and perhaps face civil suits as in this case.
LikeLike
Read the Supreme cases again.
One was due to 2 women who were harmed because the police refused to protect them. It was disgusting. It’s all there in that post.
Bernie, the police may help save some as they pursue criminals but they have NO DUTY to do that.
Read here:
http://lastresistance.com/1185/police-not-obligated-to-protect-citizens/
Here is the Supreme Court Decision: ” By a 4–3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.”
Wake up. YOU and I are responsible for ourselves. No one was disciplined for failing to act. The women were physically injured. They BEGGED for help! Police left. The women were robbed, beaten and raped for FOURTEEN HOURS.
The Supreme Court case was due to the CIVIL SUIT. Did you read this at all?
LikeLike