Saturday, May 25, 2013

A Problem With the London Murder

There is a problem with the story that those murderers of that soldier in London.  The story goes the soldier was hacked to death.  If you look at several of the pictures, where is the blood from the murdered soldier?  There is none around the soldier. Certainly if there was a blood pool somewhere we'd be treated to a picture of that, for in journalism "if it bleeds, it leads." Certainly there is blood on the hands of the murderers, but that would happen hacking even into a dead person.  From the eyewitness acount:
 They were, in their way, punctilious about killing a soldier, however cowardly the attack, hitting him with a car, then laying into him with their blades. 
If you look at the picture of the car, which hit the soldier, the front end is completely smashed in, meaning the soldier was hit with appalling force.  Side views shows the fluids flowing out of the car.  That is a pretty hard hit.  I think what happened is the soldier was already dead before the thugs began cutting him up (dead people don't bleed like live people.)  I also sincerely doubt a soldier would have been able to kill so easily with a knife.

What's the difference?  Well, mutilating a dead person and hacking a person to death are two different things.   Both are savagery, but different orders thereof.  Next, what are the circumstances of the initial automobile contact?  Was it an accident, in which two lads who accidentally killed a soldier in front of a barracks figured they were done for anyway, and decided to make a suicide mission out of it?  Or, as the press insists, were these two out to murder a soldier?

The story that they hacked a soldier to death certainly is unlikely.  I think in time we'll have a fuller picture.  So what does the coroner say?  Right now it is "hate Muslims" time.  These lads who were raised Christian and converted to a doubtful version of Islam are hardly representatives of that religion.

We should get the facts.

Along these lines though, in the UK guns are tightly restricted, they do have an outsized murder-by-knife problem.   I'd much rather face a gun than a knife, and I think the law recognizes this inasmuch that there is no conceal carry permit anywhere in USA for a knife as a weapon, nor open carry.  In fact, unless you can show you are on your way to or from work where a knife with a blade more that 5 inches, you are most likely going to jail.  You may beat the rap, but not the ride.  Knives scare law enforcement far more than guns.

In the real world a knife is far more troubling than a gun.  In the history of guns, of all of the bullets let fly, almost none have resulted in a death.  But a knife is a nasty thing to deal with, so easy to get badly hurt, and in most knife fights, one does not realize one is up against a knife until it is in the victim.  A gun has to be shown pretty much to be used.  Not so with a knife. Knife fighters do not show their knife, as in the movies.

I had an occasion to discuss with Py Bateman, she of the Feminist Karate Union, of the attempted murder on her. She instinctively got her hand across her throat before the unseen knife got there. She got her attacker off her with the lock that is universal in martial arts but we call kotegaeshi in aikido.  She showed me her scar, it was the most elegant thing of its kind.  It starts out straight with murderous concentration then arcs down and away.  Splendid work on her part.  She recounts the story in detail another time in the paper.  Her argument is knife attacks are survivable.

Indeed.  Appalling but survivable.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

No comments:

Post a Comment