http://youtu.be/ZUGYyZtLmOk

“Paul Kohler was brutally attacked in the Wimbledon property he shares with his wife and four daughters after he opened the front door to four thugs at 10 p.m. on Aug. 11,  nydailynews.com reports. “They kicked, punched and knocked the 55-year-old head of law at the School of Oriental and African Studies to the floor. One of the gang then threatened to smash a heavy wooden cabinet door into his face if he didn’t hand over his money. The monsters then grabbed his wife Samantha MacArthur and taped her to a chair. Luckily, one of the couple’s daughters had barricaded herself into her room and called cops.” What makes this attack different is that . . .

Mr. Kohler is an academic (head of law at the School of Oriental and African Studies) and the attack happened in the leafy London suburb of Wimbledon. It stands as proof that savage criminals can strike anyone anywhere in the UK, as they can anywhere in the world, really.

The fact that Mr. Kohler’s attackers were Polish will no doubt fuel “little England” xenophobia. The British press is doing its bit, focusing on the bad guys rather than the Mr. Kohler’s inability to defend himself and his family. Why would they? The Land of Hope and Glory took armed self-defense off the table decades ago leaving its citizenry sitting ducks.

I’ve heard Brits say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Statists see the government as the answer to violent crime. Truth be told armed citizens are that ounce of prevention and that pound of cure. [h/t DD]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

43 COMMENTS

    • I laughed at the Franklinesque simplicity and clarity of that statement.

      I’ll be sure to give proper attribution if I quote that in the future.

    • “Instead of an ounce of prevention or a pound of cure, I’ll rely on 180 grains of lead.”

      Apply liberally to the affected area…

      Re-apply as needed.

      Unlimited refills.

  3. If he had defended himself and his family, the local cops would probably have arrested him for being rude to the thugs because they’re Polish. The fact that he was badly beaten, his family terrorized, is a justifiable social cost for having a diverse and otherwise quite safe society. (sarc)

    • That is actually true. There have been several court cases where the one who defended against the attack has been sent to prison instead of the perps. Perhaps the people of England need to have their own revolution. You know damn well that the muslims are arming themselves in preparation for the takeover.

    • F*CK the COPS…Here or across the Pond…Better to be judged by twelve, than to be carried by six. NEVER just let them have it (your life, your family, your home, etc.) I’ll die with a gun in my hand, fighting the b*stards, before I’ll EVER give in or follow their disarmament/defenselessness laws.

    • Not only that, but I bet if you asked what he thought of armed self-defense the day before the attack, as an academic, he would likely have droned on about how guns belong in the hands of the police, etc.

      Wouldn’t surprise me if he still holds that viewpoint. The British are largely conditioned as a people that guns are bad. Even an incident such as this will change few minds.

      • I’m a Brit and I like guns, a lot.

        The trouble here is that, even had he been armed, he would have been unlikely to have it on him when answering his door and, even if he did have it, the attackers would have overwhelmed him. A gun is only useful as defense if you have the time, training and distance to deploy it.

        • Mark, two important points. 1 – If guns were readily accessible in many homes, this attack would not have happened in the first place. Criminals do not attack people that can defend themselves, at least not very often nor do they live long afterwards. Michael Brown is a good example. When I lived in rural Texas, I often did not bother to lock my front door, even when away from the house. Criminals knew that there was a very good probability (almost certainty) that they would be looking at the business end of a weapon (a very quick look) had they crossed the entrance with bad intent. 2 – In the rare cases when the criminals don’t get the point and need to be culled from the general population, according to the article the professor’s daughter escaped and locked herself up in another part of the house. Had she been armed and capable of using the tools, this ordeal would have ended quickly and the criminal element would have been culled from the population. This is such a blatantly simple case; the man’s photograph should be on milk cartons as a poster child “For Every Home To Have A Gun” campaign.

        • Mark – based on what happened in the Tony Martin case in England, self-defense with a gun will result in the criminals being considered “victims” and the person defending their home going to jail for years.

          I am not, of course, recommending any action that might be contrary to British law, but let me give you a hypothetical: If Tony Martin had killed both of his attackers, wrapped the bodies in a plastic tarp, hauled them out to some obscure location in the forest and hidden them, he probably would never have been caught. If he had been caught, he could have admitted the shooting but claimed it was over a drug deal gone bad: “I paid those bastards (pick a suitable amount) for a pound of hash and they tried to rip me off.”

          The government would have given him 6 months for voluntary manslaughter, since they don’t care about drug dealers and drug killings. But the British government very much wants to make an example of anyone protecting themselves or their families from criminals – harking back to their desire to maintain a monopoly of force over their subjects.

          • Or he could have done a quick conversion and claimed that he acted (shot the perpetrators) in accordance to the Sharia law. Then it would have been alright.

  5. But every life is precious and his is worth no more that the thugs’. So, he and his family should be satisfied that no life was lost….

  7. I think you have mistakenly taken the script for the remake of “A Clockwork Orange” as a news article. /sarc

    From Wikipedia:
    “A Clockwork Orange is a 1971 dystopian crime film adapted, produced, and directed by Stanley Kubrick, based on Anthony Burgess’s 1962 novella A Clockwork Orange. It employs disturbing, violent images to comment on psychiatry, juvenile delinquency, youth gangs, and other social, political, and economic subjects in a dystopian near-future Britain.

    Alex (Malcolm McDowell), the main character, is a charismatic, sociopathic delinquent whose interests include classical music (especially Beethoven), rape, and what is termed “ultra-violence.” He leads a small gang of thugs (Pete, Georgie, and Dim), whom he calls his droogs (from the Russian друг, “friend,” “buddy”). The film chronicles the horrific crime spree of his gang, his capture, and attempted rehabilitation via controversial psychological conditioning. Alex narrates most of the film in Nadsat, a fractured adolescent slang composed of Slavic (especially Russian), English, and Cockney rhyming slang.”

  8. Something over 50% of home break-ins in the UK occur when the home is occupied. All they have to do is knock on the door.
    <20% such break-ins in the US occur in occupied homes and most of those break-ins occur in areas control by the Antis.
    The UK also outlawed self defense by use on any object. Using any ordinary object, such as a cane, in an act of self defense becomes possession of an illegal weapon.
    If the home owner injures someone that breaks into their home even if the criminal seriously injured the home owner, the criminal can sue for money damages and court costs. And win. Some criminals in CA and MA have had success in this area too.

    • What on earth is the rationale for this even being possible? And even more stupefying, why do people accept it?

      • The rationale is very simple – the populace will not have any means or desire to stand up to the State. The crimes committed by individual criminals are not desired by the State, but are immaterial compared to the protection of the State. These crimes rarely affect those in power; as for those that are not in power, who cares? People accepting this is part of the conditioning – take away physical means and take away mental capacity to contradict the State. Slavery in it’s purest form!

    • Sorry can’t let that pass, if we are going to call the antis on ignorance and lies we shouldn’t be committing the same acts. It is in fact legal to defend ones self in the UK. However between the current case law the standards of escelation and the fact that defenders are in a difficult position we would call guilty til proven innocent the reality makes for little difference. Defense might as well be illegal, but then a great deal of things are illegal in such a state til one is given permission.

  10. I can’t even begin to wrap my head around his warped, victim mentality: referring to himself as “very, very lucky?” Lucky would be living somewhere that you don’t become a criminal for having an inanimate object capable of being used to protect your family and yourself.

    • Hell, “lucky” would be living somewhere that actually allows you to defend yourself. And I’m not even talking specifically about firearms, as much as the fact that the simple notion of self-defense (even with fists or cricket bats or whatever) is essentially outlawed in England.

  11. This is a real-life example of where multiple attackers commit a home invasion. It’s also where magazine limits and gun bans fail by hampering law abiding citizens from defending themselves and their families.

    On a side note: I can’t help but notice when andy cuomo travels he’s typically protected by 4 (assumingly) heavily armed guards. Are our elected officials life’s and safety somehow worth more than the rest of us?

  12. Well… good to know that the UK’s strict laws and bans on guns, swords, knives, sticks, loose rocks, and harsh words protected this man and his family so… ‘well’.

  13. Take a look at those pictures at the end of the video and repeat to yourself in your head: this is more moral than him having the means to protect himself…

  14. I guess he couldn’t lecture his way out of that one.

    Of course that’s all anyone could do in the UK anyways. Lecture.

  15. Only one question, why would anyone open the front door to 4 strangers at anytime let alone at 10 o’clock at night?

  16. Great minds resident…I took my girlfriend to Clockwork in 1972. I wouldn’t let her leave. 1st naked gal I saw on film 🙂

  17. “Paul Kohler was brutally attacked in the Wimbledon property he shares with his wife and four daughters after he opened the front door to four thugs at 10 p.m. …” (emphasis mine)

    As Jamie Hyneman of Mythbusters would say, “Well there’s your problem.”

    Why do these people open their doors to a gang of strangers any time of the day, much less at night? Force them to break down the door and navigate an obstacle course before they can get to your family.

  18. At 10PM, why would you open your door? I wouldn’t unless I knew who was there, even then I would ask why they were there AND I would be carrying.

  19. Wow, when I read this I immediately thought of the “droogs” in “A Clockwork Orange” too. I first saw it at the AVON in Providence in 1972 or 73 where it always seemed to be playing. I took my date there who later became my wife. The movie introduced me to the music Beethoven, Purcell, Rossini and …. Wendy Carlos who went to school here. I still have the soundtrack albums. What a great movie.

  20. Jeezus. If that’s what “very lucky” passes for in Britain, does that mean William Wallace was a “little unlucky” when he got castrated?

  21. Straw Dogs come a-callin’, better have that shotty handy. Oh wait, this is England, and the Crown will see to all your needs, and Wimbledon is a ‘safe’ place to live. No worries, be happy.

    Laugh. Whigs’ descendants will never learn, and the commoners fall in line. Deference to the Crown and all.

Comments are closed.