“A police force has been slammed for failing to dispatch officers to a woman who warned them five times she felt scared shortly before she was stabbed to death by her ex lover,” the dailymail.com.uk reports. “On the day of her death, the personal assistant had again phoned police at 2.40pm to report further harassment, stating five times that she was scared and that Martin Bunch had been at her garden fence . . . Police then had no further contact that day until Mrs [Jeanette] Goodwin pressed a panic alarm installed at her home at about 7.40pm. But by the time officers arrived [thirty minutes later], Bunch had repeatedly stabbed Mrs Goodwin, leaving her to bleed to death on her garden patio.” Needless to say, the Brits see this homicide through the lens of police and judicial incompetence . . .
God knows there was plenty of that to go around. The cops caught Goodwin’s killer three times. He was berated, tagged and released. Each time the spurned lover removed his electronic bracelet and continued to stalk his victim. The police created a “safety plan” for Ms. Goodwin—which failed to stop Martin Bunch from sinking a knife into her, ending her life.
The Independent Police Commission ruled that “None of the failings were judged to be misconduct.” Not that it really matters. As in the U.S. (Castle Rock v. Gonzales), British authorities are not legally obliged to protect their subjects. “Assistant Chief Constable of Essex Police, Derek Benson, said: I have apologised to Jeanette Goodwin’s family for our failings.” He promised to review performance and . . . that’s that.
Ms. Goodwin was denied her natural and historic right to keep and bear arms. She lived in country where the majority of the populace must depend on the police for their personal protection. And those who don’t, subjects who take responsibility for their own safety and security, are denied access to the most effective technology for doing so. And, lest we forget, self-defense training.
If you asked a Brit to consider the possibility that Ms. Goodwin could have saved her life with a firearm they’d view the suggestion as “patently ridiculous.” They believe the dangers of firearms ownership far outweigh any potential benefit. In fact, they’ve become culturally blind to the idea of armed self-defense; The Daily Mail article makes no mention of guns. Instead we get a sidebar listing the “Catalogue of Errors: How the Police and Legal System Failed.”
Thank God America broke from The Land of Hope and Glory back in the day, incorporating concepts of individual liberty and responsibility from British common law and tradition. A philosophy of freedom that has withered and died in its birthplace. With notable exceptions.
In his song Freedom [above] Brit pop star George Michael sings “All we have to see, is that I don’t belong to you and you don’t belong to me.” Ain’t that the truth.
[h/t Weerd Beard]
Robert,
Thank you for this and all of the “It Should Have Been a DGU” stories. Even with the DGU stories out there, sometimes it puts it into more realistic terms for people to hear about the stories that did’t happen.
I mourn for Jeanette’s family and hope they can use her story to help their countrymen learn that it is always your responsibility to defend yourself while waiting for the authorities.
The other side of the coin is this story (http://easybakegunclub.com/news/1163/Held-at-knife-point-in-her-own-home%2C-woman-shoots-.html) from New Mexico. The difference? The “victim” in New Mexico had a handgun and was able to stop her attacker.
Woman did everything according to the rules and she got stabbed to death. The lesson here is if the rules are actually working to make you a victim it’s time to change the rules. And if you can’t get the rules changed, then you have to break them.
Wonder what the final thought thru Ms. Goodwins mind was as she was stabbed to death,”Thank god I followed the rules.”
Had she met her assailant with an illegally obtained gun I’m sure she would have faced jail time for it. But she would have been alive to go to jail.
Splenid options.
Leaves you somewhere between “pestilence and cholera”…
Splenid options.
Leaves you somewere between “pestilence and cholera”…
I’ve often speculated on what mortally wounded crime victims are thinking as their life is ebbing away. Probably a mix of “I can’t believe this is happening” and “I wish I had an effective weapon to fight back with.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/02/minnesota-killings-spark-debate-over-self-defense-laws.html
Homeowner who shot and killed two home intruders faces murder charges. He shot them too many times, after they were down, and then told the police all the wrong things.
He didn’t just “tell them the wrong thing”. He executed the girl. I’m fairly sure the contact wound under her chin would have been a giveaway.
His shooting two intruders – justified. Putting in a, as he put it, “clean finishing shot” was simple execution and put himself in trouble. You can use a firearm to stop the attacker and stop the danger. A “finishing shot” on a wounded girl is never going to be legal – nor should it be.
If he had killed them as they were on the stairs and still a threat? No problem as they were in his home. But grabbing a second weapon and walking up to a wounded girl on the floor? He’s going to jail.
and this is what happens when the media and the anti-rights cultists advertise the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws as ‘kill at will’, ‘get away with murder’ and ‘shoot first’ laws; some people will believe them.
First, I agree totally with Bill Baldwin.
Second, the dude in that story is just balls-out crazy.
Oh, wow. I want to repeat and reinforce my dead-nuts crazy statement. It wasn’t in the story that JP linked, but I read in another story here that while he shot the kids on Thursday, he didn’t call the cops until Friday. He told the cops that “he didn’t want to trouble [them] on a holiday.” Friday rolls around, he calls a neighbor and asks him to recommend a good lawyer, and then later called back and asked the neighbor to call the police.
I thought he was crazy when I read that he dragged the boy onto a tarp and sat back down (instead of calling the cops), but this proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
To be clear, I don’t mean “insanity plea crazy,” I mean “should be put down like a rabid dog” crazy.
In 71/2 years of prosecution, I tried exactly ONE case where the cops arrived as the assault was happening.
Self defense is the difference b/tw being able to tell police what happened, and them guessing as they draw a chalk line around your body.
Thank you for your comment.
Self defense is the difference b/tw being able to tell police what happened, and them guessing as they draw a chalk line around your body.
+1! Fantastic comment.
Disclaimer- the following is depressed sarcasm and should not be taken as my desired state of future society.
Yes, the police failed, because they didn’t have enough power. When will our government wake up to reality and give them the authority to arrest and imprison dangerous people before they commit such tragic and hateful actions? If the officers had just been able to apply their training and experience without the shackles of antique laws no longer suited to modern life, this villian would be where he belongs. In a hospital receiving treatement. Let the police arrest future criminals, and society will be a better place, safer for our children.
Sarcasm off. This is a tragedy, and the article is exactly correct. Unfortunately, I can see the UK going the other way and taking the nonsense I just whipped up as fact.
“When will our government wake up to reality and give them the authority to arrest and imprison dangerous people before they commit such tragic and hateful actions?”
I’m not sure how far that can occur before it spirals out of control because of government incompetence and their willful immoral intent to abuse their powers and break the law. In the minds of Pelosi, Obama, Bloomberg, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg everyone of us should be arrested and imprisoned.
I wonder how does UK’s overall murder rate compares to that of the US. And I want to specify murder and not homicide since I don’t consider a DGU where the bad guy dies as murder.
Approximately 1.3/100000 in UK as opposed to about 4.2/100000 here. While ours has fallen consistently since the crack epidemic, theirs is up from 1.0/100000 when they basically outlawed firearms.
Your numbers are correct on the murder rate. However, when you look at violent assault figures, which include Rape, but interestingly enough NOT other sexual assault, The UK rate is 4 times the rate in the US.
I find that rather interesting.
Does anyone know how the violent assault figures have changed in the UK as they restricted firearms ownership? Where does one find these stats?
Obeying the rules, when your attacker does not, got this poor women killed. There is a lesson here that the anti-gunners will never see.
I often read comments at gun blogs dismissively putting down the modern British attitude to that of being an obedient sheeple and subject. Yet, things really haven’t been that much different for any of the past centuries or have they? Certainly some deep intellectual political and scientific thinkers and great writers of literature have been British. However, the majority have been subjects of an empire for a very long time. The average British man has served, fought, and often died for centuries in battles and places as far away as Afghanistan, Crimea, India, Scotland, Ireland, America, Africa, and Malaysia. I could go on but I think you get my point. Brits have been giving up their lives based on the orders and decisions of kings, queens, the empire, prime ministers, and modern society at home and abroad for one reason or another. After a while it mostly seems to boil down to government leaders having the power over the lives of the people and the people not having enough self-respect and independence to dispose of the leaders and limit the next leader’s powers. Small limited governments are not perfect either and often lack appropriate powers yet the pro/cons balance is much better than suffering under a government that is too large and powerful.
That’s a thought-provoking observation.
I have tried in the past to ask those who prefer the controlled structure of a place like Britain why they don’t immigrate there instead of bringing it here? It always sounds trite, even ludicrous. But looking at the whole of mankind, wouldn’t one see the value in leaving just one bastion of wild liberty to use as a sort of control for all of the other more centralized, authoritarian experiments going on?
I mean, this same bunch of nanny-state apologists probably endorse wilderness areas to preserve nature. Why not allow the Land of the Free to continue to be just that. A kind of liberty preserve.
Thanks for your reply. You’ve brought up an interesting idea for consideration. I’m ok, in theory, for states and cities within states to have their own value and level of legal/political value systems if that makes sense. I am against a federal government intruding and forcing their agenda onto others.
I’ve often thought that all countries need a few “cities” or land areas of refugee where at least the wild counter-culture men and women can go to and be accorded a place to live and outlet for their temperaments and values when so different than the majority whatever that might mean. I think some countries do have or had places like that as an outlet. Heck, even the USSR had the port of Odessa. Decades ago, I considered portions of NYC, San Francisco, and New Orleans such cities for certain people. Now, America is really in flux. If the Left ever takes over full power of the USA I don’t think they have it in them to tolerate any free places for groups and individuals.
“British authorities are not legally obliged to protect their subjects.”
Not the citizens – the subjects. And the disarmed subjects have no legal right to protect themselves in Britain.
Shut up and eat your broccoli, peasants – the rulers know what is best for you.
Comments are closed.