I can’t wrap my mind around this stuff

I just finished this book over the weekend and while there are many aspects that I am skeptical about some things resonated well. One thing was that struck me was that the psychology of progressives (r selected populations in his terminology) is in a large part about “equality”. Gun control can be interpreted as government mandated equality of victimization. Everyone must be equally vulnerable. It is “unfair/unjust” that some people be able to protect themselves better than others. It is better than victims of violent crimes be selected at, essentially, random than for some people to be able to avoid and/or defend against criminals. If you are successful in defending your self you must be punished.

The case below via the author, Anonymous Conservative, could be a case in point:

A homeowner in Finland has been sentenced to four years in jail and a hefty fine after fighting off three intruders who attempted to rob his house. The thieves, meanwhile, got lesser prison terms and are to be paid damages by their victim.

In April, a 35-year-old man from Hyvinkää, a town just 50km north of the Finnish capital, Helsinki, heard a knock on the front door of his suburban house and rushed to open it. As soon as he unlocked it, three strangers rushed in and launched at him, toting baseball bats and a gun. The man retreated to the kitchen, where he found a knife and with it was able to overpower the intruders, two men and one woman.

The homeowner has been convicted of “excessive self-defense and attempted manslaughter,” Helsinki news reports. He will serve an unconditional sentence for four years and two months, which he has to spend in prison. The man also has to pay damages to his attackers, with the fine totaling €21,000 (US$23,000). The newspaper does not provide information on the severity of injuries sustained by the home-invaders, however, it is known that they survived the event.

All three received one-year-and-two-month conditional sentences, which is similar to probation or house arrest in Finland, depending on the case. The offender serves the sentence outside of jail, but has to follow strict jail-like rules.

The trio was also ordered to pay the homeowner damages, but their combined fine was ruled to be €3,000 (US$3,300).

A friend from the U.K. once explained to me that over there you were allowed to defend yourself as long as you used proportional force. If your attacker was using their fists you couldn’t use a knife. If they were using a knife you couldn’t use a gun, that sort of thing. I asked about a large man attacking a much smaller or weaker person. What then? Well, “It depends…”

I totally reject such thinking.

In the free areas of the U.S. if someone is using deadly force against an innocent person then you are allowed to use deadly force, of whatever type, against your attacker. The attacker could have both hands cuffed behind his back but if he has your kid on the ground and kicking them in the head and you would be justified in using a .50 BMG on full auto against him (take care not to hurt innocents yourself).

In my book the home intruders in the case above should have been made to pay for not only the damages done to the home or people, the lost time spent cutting up the bad guys and dealing with the police, and replaced the knife.

11 thoughts on “I can’t wrap my mind around this stuff

  1. I think the US rule as you articulated it is somewhat better, but only somewhat. How are we supposed to evaluate, in real time in crisis, whether the attacker’s force is sufficient to justify a lethal defense?
    The better answer (thanks Neil Smith) is that initiation of force is the immoral act, and justifies a defensive response by force. How powerful a force is a matter of esthetics and personal choice, it is not properly a matter of law.
    Some states do better on this than others. For example, NH law authorizes deadly force in response not just to threat of deathly force, but also to arson, burglary, rape, and home invasion to commit felony. That’s a good start.

  2. What people in Gun Free Kill Zones have agreed to is, human sacrifice. They have allowed that some may die in the hope that it is not them.

    Human sacrifice is abomination. Self defense is, not only a Natural Right, it is a duty under a holy, righteous, and just God.

  3. I don’t see it as being difficult to understand. Once you see the enemy’s patterns, you begin to understand the enemy.

    Yes; they are behaiving very, very irrationally. No; it isn’t difficult to understand why. Not in the least. Nor is it necessary to be able to climb into one of the drones’ heads, so to speak, and be able to see things the way they see them. It is enough to understand that insanity is promoted as a means of control, and has been promoted for a very long time. It works. What’s not to understand?

    You know that it’s possible to get a whole population (effectively, though there are always a few holdouts and a few detractors who manage to survive) to support genocide. You’ve seen it. You also know that getting a whole population to support genocide has been deliberate. You’ve seen that. This is a minor example.

    So what part do you not understand? Wait; you thought that certain European cultures were immune to this kind of programming? Why? Eurpoe has lapped that shit up over and over again. You’ve seen it.

    I cannot wrap my head around the fact that you cannot wrap your head around this simple conflict between good and evil, freedom and slavery. You know that human history is full of examples.

  4. A knife, versus two baseball bats and a gun, is now considered “excessive self-defense”?

    Even under the U.K.’s inane “self-defense” laws, that should have been justified!

    In the U.S., the only criticism he’d face is for not having his own gun — for “bringing a knife to a gun fight,” as it were.

    I only hope and pray that homeowner doesn’t have a wife and/or kids for the invaders to victimize in retribution in, say, a year and two months, when the attackers will be released but he’ll still be in prison for three more years.

    • Not “in a year and two months” — the attackers got suspended sentences — just probation, in other words. The only person who got real jail time was the victim.
      I thought Finland was sane by European standards. I guess I was quite wrong.

      • If the homeowner had killed the invaders he could have said they spoke Russian, and gotten a medal instead of a prison sentence.

        I thought Finland understood the need for overwhelming force in the face of aggression, particularly as in this case he was outnumbered, outgunned (outbaseball-batted, too, as he had a knife, not a sword), and the element of surprise. I think that last is enough to elevate the invader’s status at least one level to make it a “fair fight”.
        This isn’t a bar fight between two drunks who wouldn’t have been punching each other without the effect of the alcohol, this is a home invasion!

        • Ones hopes this is just an aberration. But it may be that Finland – once a proud country of freedom-loving people like Simo Häyhä, and the place where the Molotov Cocktail was invented — has gone off the deep end just like such places as Massachusetts.

    • Truth be known, he probably couldn’t get to his M-39 in time and the knife might have been a bayonet. Still the homeowner did not possess a home team advantage.

      What is the legal term in Finnish for “Crap-for-Brains-Judges”?

  5. Pingback: Weekly Gun News – Edition 44 | Shall Not Be Questioned

Comments are closed.