« Counter to Bloomberg media blitz against Sen. Jeff Flake | Main | Colorado recall petitions »
An interesting question
Why did British witnesses stand by while a solider was hacked to death in public? You can probably guess the reason.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
The British populace has been conditioned to be good witnesses only, else they be charged with grievous bodily harm if they intervene and injure the attacker.
Strangely, it's connected to the reason why the "punk rock scene" still likes to wear plaid (esp. what looks like Highland tartan patterns). Scotland was where left-wing politics in Britain started, when full-on Communists took over the Scottish Parliament building shortly after WW1. Scottish working-class people respected how Lenin and company took Russia out of the Aristocrat's slaughter-house known as WW1. Scared the crap out of the British upper class and strict gun control was the immediate result.
The Sherlock Holmes stories in which Holmes and Watson pack wheelguns whenever they want in London circa late 19th century is completely accurate. The laws were very similar to Vermont today - pack what you want, no permit needed. I don't know if open carry was common or not; I suspect not but I don't know for sure. Concealed? Not at all uncommon.
To elaborate on Scott's remark, I believe that the underlying philosophy is that use of force is the exclusive prerogative of the monarch. Any citizen who uses force breaks the King's Peace. Whoever is left standing after a breach of the Peace is obviously the one who used the most force, so is the most guilty of breach of the Peace, and so should be the first prosecuted. Whoever is not left standing is the "victim" and should be compensated.
It was literally true up until a few years ago that if criminals broke into your house and threatened you or your family with injury or death with knives, guns or clubs, but you were good/lucky enough to subdue them, YOU would be prosecuted and imprisoned, and the government would give free lawyers to the invaders to sue your family for the injuries they suffered at your hands. I gather that has been slightly relaxed recently, but it still remains generally true that if you get involved in violence, even if it is to save innocent victims of crime, you run not only the risk of being injured in the fracas, but are at serious risk of criminal prosecution by the government.
It has become a very sick society.
Some very good points by all, I can only express some surprise at the comment about Lenin and Co stopping the slaughter! I believe that's where the slaughter really began! Also, I believe if any "class" suffered casualties in WWI it was the Aristos themselves. Otherwise, your points are well made.
Aside from the obvious point that the law-abiding citizens are totally unarmed, Britons, steady and brave as they are when part of an official organization, do have a hesitation to involve themselves as private citizens for the reasons you listed.
In Europe generally, it is "against the grain" to take individual action, which is why there is doubt about things like the Kennedy assassination done by a "lone nut". In the rest of the world it would usually be a "Cabal" of some sort.
This self-assertion and independent spirit, is what makes America unique. It's sad that the continuing efforts of our "Ruling Classes" to Europeanize the population are having their effects and the reply by FWB is, by now and unfortunately, becoming true.
General urban apathy. Fear. Lazy.
Does anyone really believe it would have been any better in NYC or Chicago.