It has come to my attention that the vile gun thug (Anders Breivik) has been put on trial for his numerous nefarious deeds.
Frankly I dislike the man and what he stands for, I imagine that many other right minded men and women find both his deeds and his justification for them deeply offensive. But I will try not to allow my emotions cloud my thinking as I point out something to you.
In common with many terrorists he has chosen to refuse to recognize the authority of the court, while I view this as the actions of an arrogant nasty little man I would like to point something out. If he is so sure that he wants to refuse to refuse to the authority of the court then why has he entered a plea of ‘self defence’ in the court.
I am sure that a reasonable man or women will understand that it is lawful to kill someone who is trying to murder you and your family, it is the idea behind “self defence”. But to make the “self defence” argument to work in a court case you need to be able to show that
1. You had good reason to fear that an imminent attack will be made against you or someone else.
2. You need to only use reasonable force.
I will not bother to discuss the second point, but I would like to ask how Breivik could think that a group of unarmed teenagers running away from him were a threat to his wellbeing. I can not think of any way in which these teenagers were able to pose a threat to him or any other person. To me this is pathetic moaning of a very evil man, to my mind Breivik’s self defense claim seems to be evidence of an aggravating factor in the crime.
While the court in Norway can not pass a death sentence, it can send Breivik to prison. He can only be sentenced to about 20 years, but if his is still a threat to the public after this time then he can be kept away from society for longer. I think that his “self defence” claims suggest that he is (and will remain for a long time) a threat to public safety, I think his statement is yet another good reason to keep him locked up !