This black, Demiesh Williams, killed Andrew Clarke here. Andrew had confronted him over possibly the most English thing possible: queue jumping. For his temerity this black thug beat Andrew to death in front of his wife.

Demiesh Williams will serve just over three years in prison.

Three years.

It would be easy now for me to post a multitude of examples of people being locked up in Britain for speech crimes for almost as long, or longer but no it is actually far worse than that. Instead for comparison we turn towards the case of Martyna Ogonowska.

This Twitter post contains the details and I’ll quote:

In UK sentencing, courts routinely emphasise mitigating factors and the prospect of rehabilitation – particularly where the offender is young, vulnerable, traumatised, or has no previous convictions.

These principles are frequently cited in cases involving offences disproportionately committed by men, including serious violence, sexual offending (including against children) domestic abuse etc. Youth, immaturity, mental ill-health, past trauma, and capacity for reform are commonly provided (and accepted) as reasons to reduce sentence length.

Yet in the case of Martyna Ogonowska, those same principles appear to have carried little weight. Martyna stabbed Filip Jaskiewicz once in the chest outside a car park in Peterborough. She later turned herself into the police, saying she believed she’d killed him and stating that she’d stabbed him because he was violently and sexually assaulting her.

During her trial At Cambridge Crown Court, in April 2019, Martyna’s defence team argued diminished responsibility because she’d been acting in self-defence, and had a diagnosis of severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following a previous rape at age 14. However these arguments were rejected, possibly due to the assessment by the Prosecutions psychiatrist that Martyna had likely lied about previously being raped. The trial judge did acknowledge that Jaskiewicz had “undoubtedly touched Martyna sexually” and had been violent toward her shortly before the stabbing.

However he ruled that her actions did not qualify as self-defence primarily because she had brought a knife to the scene, which she claimed was for protection. Martyna was convicted of murder and also found guilty of possession of a bladed article. She was sentenced to a life term with a MINIMUM of 17 years in prison.

In both instances a man is killed.

In one a man is killed in cold blood over a minor argument that no reasonable person would expect to turn deadly (unless of course you are dealing with a black person).

In the other a man is killed by a woman who the court acknowledged had at the very least touched her sexually. In a more common parlance he was likely attempting to rape her.

The real problem for Martyna though, and to a lesser extent for the poor Mr Clarke, is that the legal system of the United Kingdom makes no allowances for the carrying of any object for the purposes of self-defense.

We need to break down what this means and the implications because for most American readers this will sound insane, because it is insane.

Let us assume this case happened in America, and it could be any State. In every State and almost every jurisdiction in America you can legally carry some kind of knife, fixed or folding (lockable). If you kill someone in self-defense you are in affect making an affirmative defense. You are saying, yes I took actions necessary to protect myself and this other person died because of it but I was justified. The same is true in the UK, self-defense is an affirmative defense and it is also valid and respected.

In most of the US if you used a legally held knife and said that you carried that knife for self-defense it has little to no legal bearing on the case itself. There are some exceptions to this in places like New York City as one might expect but not to muddy the waters too much. Of course in a lot of America you can carry an actual handgun to protect yourself!

In the US you are not considered automatically to have criminal intent if you admit that you were carrying the knife to defend yourself. Defensive use is different to offensive use after all. If the prosecution wish to challenge that claim they would need to present evidence but the presumption of innocence applies. The fact I had a weapon on me and admit the reason for carrying it is not bushcraft or to cut an apple at a picnic but to defend myself is not an automatic go to jail card.

In the UK it is.

If you carry any object and tell the police or courts you carry it to defend yourself the UK legal system sees no difference between offensive and defensive intent. It is that crazy.

This does NOT mean however if you were carrying say a heavy metal water bottle because you like to stay hydrated and you used that water bottle to protect yourself that is illegal. It was an object to hand you used and it is ok, but if you even admitted you selected a metal water bottle in particular because you might have to defend yourself, well…you are in trouble as poor Martyna discovered.

The implications of this are horrifying to most people. The British State and it’s legal system assumes hostile intent of you and believes a human can’t proactively prepare to defend themselves with an object. They very desire to do so is in fact criminal! This means it isn’t just that the British gave up their guns they gave up so much more. The fact that the judicial class are so willing to use this legal precedent to put Martyna in jail for 17 years because she used a knife is pure evil.

The British State’s behavior here serves to keep its law abiding populace as permanent victims of either armed criminals. A system does what it is designed to do. Yes Demiesh Williams shouldn’t just be in jail he should be dead, executed by the State but Andrew Clarke should have every right to carry a defensive object of some kind. A lot of Brit’s rightfully point out that America has as bad/worse demographic crisis when challenged about theirs and our legal system is also awful and anarcho-tyranny in action but we are clinging on at least in part because we are not criminalizing self-defense at such a fundamental level. Reformers in the UK would do well to challenge this legal precedent and attempt to change it. A citizenship that has no legal recourse to protecting themselves with weapons against criminals is fucked in the long run.