Category: Legal Stuff

Not Here, It Ain’t

Crime, Law and Order, Legal Stuff

Here’s one from Britishland that’s guaranteed to make yer blood boil:

Shoppers trying to arrest shoplifters could expose themselves to legal action and even imprisonment for assault, a lawyer has said.

Chris Philp told a fringe event at last week’s Tory Party conference that members of the public should make citizen’s arrests on thieves and called on security guards to step in where it is safe to do so.

But Ed Smyth, partner at Kingsley Napley, said that the law generally only permits citizen’s arrests for serious cases that could be tried in a crown court. They could also be used for low value shoplifting cases, but the force used must always be reasonable in the circumstances.

And guess what?  You don’t get to decide what’s “reasonable”.

No wonder that law-abiding Brits just cower in the face of villainy.  The law is not on their side.

But Of Course

Good Stuff, Legal Stuff

You will remember last week’s post wherein we all giggled upon seeing some shoplifting scrote getting his just deserts at the hands (stick?) of a shop owner who was fed-up by having said scrote stealing from him for the third time.

Well, because this happened in Cali-fucking-fornia, we now have this development:

Apparently, while many California cities have no desire to actually enforce the laws against people who steal from business owners and put them in financial peril, they are interested in enforcing battery laws involving the protection of said businesses. According to a new report, the Sikh man is now facing criminal charges as local police investigate the incident.

My own modest suggestion would be to borrow the man’s stick and beat the shit out of whoever actually charges this hero, but no doubt somebody’s going to have a problem with this.  (Just nobody, I suspect, among my Readers.)

But here’s what gets the RCOB moving:

Some are making the argument that the force used on the shoplifter in the video was excessive, and as a purely legal matter, that may be true. The shoplifter was begging for mercy while the store owner continued to swing back and strike him. The question is at what point the store owner is expected to disengage, and he likely passed that point.

The store owner “disengaged” before breaking any bones or causing any lasting damage to the asshole.  All he did was deliver a sound beating, and only in today’s pussified society could this be termed “excessive”.   Nobody cares if the scrote was “begging for mercy”, especially after the store owner tried his best to stop the overt shoplifting in a non-violent manner before resorting to the stick.

I am so glad I’m going to the range this afternoon with the Son&Heir…

Long Time Coming

Legal Stuff, Rights, The Gun Thing

I’ve always maintained that it’s an injustice for someone to lose their Second Amendment rights because of a criminal record imposed by the commission of a non-violent crime.  By all means, deny the Second to recently-paroled armed robbers and the like — but for non-violent offenses like forgery or tax evasion?  No.

Seems as though some judges are coming to the same conclusion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held this week in Range v. Garland that the government cannot disarm people convicted of minor, nonviolent offenses.

Unless I miss my guess, this is headed straight for the Supremes — and they’d better get it right.

Down The Toilet

Freaks & Loonies, Legal Stuff, Perverts

That’s what’s going to happen to this poor guy’s business:

A women’s spa, where nudity is compulsory, has been ordered by a judge to admit pre-op trans women with penises after an activist complained when the owner tried to ban them.

Of course, where else but in the Blue Northwest?

The family-owned spa, which has a branch on the outskirts of Seattle and one in Tacoma, is modeled on Jjimjilbang – sex-segregated bath houses in Korea – and offers monthly memberships and day passes.

Needless to say, real women — i.e. those without dangling bits — are probably going to stop frequenting this spa because they don’t want to see hairy penises in a girls-only haven, and the place will soon have to close.

All because some blue-haired trannie freak felt slighted.

In the old days… let me not go there.  On the other hand, why the hell not?

Next: The Supremes

Legal Stuff, Rights

Oh, I like this kind of thing:

A federal appeals court upheld a Texas law that bans Big Tech from censoring speech based on political viewpoint on Friday.

House Bill 20 prevents social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users banning users simply based on their political viewpoints. The law also requires several consumer protection disclosures and processes related to content management on the social media sites to which the bill applies. These sites must disclose their content management and moderation policies and implement a complaint and appeals process for content they remove, providing a reason for the removal and a review of their decision. They also must review and remove illegal content within 48 hours. House Bill 20 also prohibits email service providers from impeding the transmission of email messages based on content.

Needless to say, the Left went into full hair-on-fire mode:

The law was promptly challenged by NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association. They argued that tech companies have a First Amendment right to select and curate the content people post on their platforms. They were able to get the new law blocked, but Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed that decision — and won.

Fortunately, common sense and Constitutionalism prevailed.  In the judgment of the 5th Circuit:

The implications of the platforms’ argument are staggering. In the platforms’ view, email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks* could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business. What’s worse, the platforms argue that a business can acquire a dominant market position by holding itself out as open to everyone — as Twitter did in championing itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party.”…Then, having cemented itself as the monopolist of “the modern public square,”…Twitter unapologetically argues that it could turn around and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to pick on members of that community…

The 11th Court found differently, hence it’s off to the Supremes we go.  And they can’t punt it back, because two federal appeals courts have conflicting rulings.

Let’s see what happens.

*Note how banks were specifically mentioned, which should make this little episode interesting.