A report from Sweden suggests that some people are no longer waiting for the authorities to act against serious crime. It's been auto-translated into English.
A 26-year-old taxi driver from the Middle East was reported for rape against a 14-year-old girl – and then found hanged in a nature reserve. Now the girl, her boyfriend and three of his brothers are suspected of the very troublesome murder, which according to the prosecutor had the character of "an execution".
The events began in February this year when the then 15-year-old girl reported that the taxi driver had raped her when she was 14.
On March 26, a taxi was found abandoned, overflowing and with the taximeter in progress on a parking at Hjälstaviken nature reserve in Enköping municipality north of Stockholm.
On April 1, the taxi driver – was found hung in a tree 500 meters from the car.
The police quickly turned their attention to the now accused youth. All young people refuse crime except the girl who admits that she attracted the man to the place – but only because he was beaten.
. . .
All the defendants deny crimes, but the evidence includes mast connections from mobile phones and DNA traces.
On a jacket, DNA was found from both the taxi driver and one of the brothers.
There's more at the link.
That's what happens when the authorities can't or won't act against criminals, particularly unwanted alien intruders (of which Sweden has an outsize proportion among its population). It's not limited to Sweden by any means. Friends, acquaintances and contacts of mine in law enforcement around these parts, ranging from Oklahoma City to Dallas/Fort Worth and from Amarillo to Texarkana, have all reported "unintended consequences" of crimes, sometimes fatal for the criminals, other times just very, very painful and/or impoverishing. I'd say I've heard of at least a couple of dozen occurrences over the past year or two, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
When police will no longer respond to a crime because it's too "minor" for them to bother about, or because they're too busy elsewhere, or because it's politically incorrect to make a fuss about certain crimes and/or perpetrators . . . people will take it upon themselves to act. The authorities don't like that, and will doubtless threaten dire consequences, but it's already happening and it's going to go on happening. After all, if those same authorities ignore the rule of law and the provisions of our constitution by encouraging (and even paying for) massive alien invasion, they shouldn't be surprised when the crimes committed by those aliens (an increasing proportion of them, I'm told) attract consequences that also ignore the law and the constitution. One good (?) turn deserves another, and all that sort of thing.
Of course, I don't approve of such doings and I don't recommend that readers of this blog should act that way. Nevertheless, it's still going to happen. For the authorities to think they can stop it by issuing severe warnings and passing yet more laws and regulations against it is utter folly. People will do whatever they need to do to ensure their security. It's been that way for generations, and it's not about to change.
It's very telling that many governments and their agencies are coming down more and more in favor of evil, and against good, in defiance of their citizens. It's not just about crime - it's about every aspect of our lives. Neil Oliver asks: "Who are we and what is it we truly care about?"
Those are very good questions. Highly recommended viewing.
Peter
14 comments:
I've often thought about how much law enforcement is there to protect the criminal as much as the victim and how ironic the defund the police movement is as a result of that fact.
The ‘Authorities’ have forgotten, if they ever really took it in, that one purpose of official punishment is to discourage vigilantism. Because if the authorities can’t or won’t catch and punish enough of the criminals, the populace WILL. And then they will begin to wonder what the pluperfect hell they put up with the authorities for.
I would take it further than the previous commentator, the legal system exists to protect the lives of criminals, by and large.
There is a story I like that illustrates this. During a police strike in a town in Arizona, the police chief was asked by a TV station what the strike would do to the crime rate. He stated that it would decrease. When the surprised reporter asked him why, he told her that most of the town residents had guns and did not have a jail in their basement. He said the citizenry's response to crime would be to shoot the criminals.
Ditch the electronics, mask up, watch your spoor. Discard everything afterwards.
One of the things people forget is that one of the primary reasons criminal defendants are incarcerated is to protect them from retribution. Expect more of this with the "no cash bail" nonsense.
My original home state is California and I was born in the late 50s. My parents were lower White poor and I was last by 6 years. I left the state in 96 due to business and many of my wife's and my family have left the state.
One thing I learned was the history of the state when I was in elementary school. SF after the Gold Rush went really corrupt with criminals, police, and Judges. Finally the people turned vigilantes and went after the criminals, police , and Judges. They were killed and maimed over time until SF turned back into law. The question is will this happen to California again.
Then there are the crimes committed by criminals that are in effect 'crime stopping' or 'retribution.'
Normal people are getting there.
When people create a government and give it exclusive authority to make and enforce laws, they give up their individual authority to do so. It's not one sided though. If that government fails in its duty to apply those laws, equally and fairly, i.e. voids the contract with the people who created the government, that authority to act returns to the people.
Might there be consequences when people take the law (back) into their own hands? Yes. But why they took the law into their own hands is understandable when the government fails in its responsibilities.
Bill
Lesson learned!!!
Leave your cell phone at the bar/restaurant. No DNA evidence, torch the carcass.
There's a more modern example - Albuquerque New Mexico, July 1975 police strike.
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/07/24/archives/rate-of-crime-believed-lower-in-albuquergues-police-strike.html
Criminals quickly figured out that robbing stores was way too risky after a few FAFO'd.
Based on the "and 3 of his brothers" part I'm going to guess that the accused are in fact also an immigrant family. I don't think many native Swedish families have 4 or more children. That background probably explains why they were willing to take the law into their own hands.
Thirteen years since the murder of Elin Krantz. He strangled her as he raped her. Her hands show that she fought.
Reminds me of the old movie The Virgin Spring by Ingmar Bergman.
There are some patterns in murderers and their victims. Generally the murderer and the victim know each other. Also somewhere over 90% of murderers have a history of arrests for other violent crime.
So, if the police investigate a murder, they are likely to start with people who knew the victim with a history of arrests for violent crimes.
Also, in 2020, police solved less than half of the murders in the United States.
Tom Clancy chronicles a vigilante in Without Remorse, so murderers should not get inspiration from that book so that the police will have a harder time finding them.
Post a Comment