free login football betting tips_login bonus betdaq c#_login bonus Casino entertainment recommendation website

But Americans are just learning it. Amercians need to know Rule 302 as well.

First Rule 303. Few Americans have heard the phrase and fewer know what it means.? I will tell you.

Lt. ‘Breaker’ Morant, an Oz soldier in the Boer War, shot prisoners he had taken whilst on patrol way behind enemy lines because he could not hold them. (He was called ‘Breaker’ because he broke horses – he was a cavalryman).

At his Court Martial ?he was asked by the presiding (British) Officers by what Authority he thought he was able to just shoot the prisoners and he replied, ?‘Rule 303’. ?The Lee Enfield .303 was the weapon the cavalry used. He was found guilty and executed by firing squad. (His last words were, “Shoot straight, you bastards”.)

I raise this after seeing a video of an American policeman threatening to shoot an innocent, law -abiding man in the back. ( in the policeman’s own words, “I’ll shoot you in your Fuc*ing back”.)

Like Lt. Morant, ?American cops now see everyone as prisoners and every part of America as ‘behind enemy lines’. Bastards abound.

Here’s the video.

Rule 303:

Such is America today.

Now for Rule 302. You might think that cops are a tad out of control, but at least it is just straightforward threats to ?shoot prisoners – even non prisoners. Just motorists. The other Law ‘enforcement’ agencies are just as bad. Take the FBI. Please. It ain’t Fox Mulder and his blond sidekick chasing aliens, if ever it was. It is an agency with a looooong history in manipulation and entrapment of Citizens. Do not be fooled into thinking that a polite pair of agents (even if one is a blond sidekick) asking if they can ‘have a word’ with you is an exciting interlude in your otherwise humdrum day. It ain’t. It will be – undoubtedly – a trap. One way or another. Now or at some other time along your humdrum path.

But don’t take my word. Listen to a Lawyer. Remember as you do listen and watch, he is not just trying to drum up business. At least, I don’t think he is.

Rule 302:

18 comments for “Australians know ‘Rule 303’

  1. dearieme
    January 25, 2013 at 12:05

    Morant was an Englishman who didn’t arrive in Australia until he was 19.

    “shot prisoners he had taken whilst on patrol way behind enemy lines because he could not hold them”: my golly, what a whitewash! He was a serial killer of helpless men.

    WKPD relates, for example:
    Other killings followed; on 23 August, Morant led a small patrol to intercept a group of eight prisoners from Viljoen’s commando who were being brought in under guard; Morant ordered them to be taken to the side of the road and summarily shot. The South African born German missionary, Reverend Predikant C.H.D. Heese, spoke to the prisoners prior to the shooting.

    About a week later, reports began to circulate that Reverend Heese had been found shot along the Pietersburg road about 15 miles (24 km) from the fort on his way to Pietersburg to report the activities of Morant and his group to the British authorities. At his later court-martial, it was proved that Morant himself had shot Heese in an effort to prevent him from disclosing the murder of the Boer prisoners-of-war, …

    • January 25, 2019 at 04:44

      “Morant and Handcock were acquitted of the Heese murder.” Wikepedia.

      “Scapegoats of the Empire” was a book written by Witton who was not shot at the court martial.

      When the Australian Prime Minister said that in what was to become WW1 that Australia stood behind Great Britain up to “the last man and the last shilling…”

      Witton was alleged to have said “well I’m the last man..” Here is the scene…

    • Julian Farmer
      January 25, 2019 at 06:43

      We could use a few “Breaker Morants” today I feel…or will do in the very near future.

  2. JD
    January 25, 2013 at 12:28

    it has always been the way; whether Kings or governments, violent suppression of the people is how they express their fear of us –

    and don’t forget Churchill who wantred to shoot strikers in 1926, then Maggie’s boot boys in blue at Orgreave and Phony Tony allowing the Police to crack open heads in response to the Countyside Alliance protest against the bill banning fox hunting….

    History is full of such incidents. Nothing changes.

  3. Wolfie
    January 25, 2013 at 13:34

    Nevertheless statistic show that you are more likely to meet your end at the hands of a criminal who has been released early or escaped incarceration due to a legal technicality. I fear the state’s laxity more than its enforcers.

  4. January 25, 2013 at 18:03

    JD, Wolfie, thanks.

    Dearieme – I’m inclined to believe you on this. He seemed a nasty piece of work, not unlike Lt. Calley.

  5. james wilson
    January 25, 2013 at 18:52

    The FIB is the greatest Lore Enforcement organization in America, courtesy of a long-lived cross-dressing bureaucratic climber who dressed himself as a bulldog for the public. The Department of Fatherland Security lacks eighty years of propaganda working for it, but is rapidly overcoming that obstacle.

    The local cops vary quite a bit by geography. In general they are increasingly militarized, and worshipful of central authority–as is the country.

    Wolfie, a surprising statement from you. The people who impose the decline in civilization through regulation and law are the same ones who promote laxity on criminals.

  6. dearieme
    January 25, 2013 at 19:31

    “Churchill who wantred to shoot strikers in 1926”: really? Evidence?

  7. January 25, 2013 at 20:20

    Following on from JD’s comment:

    The full article is worth a read.

  8. Amfortas
    January 25, 2013 at 23:02

    #Dearieme: I was not attempting to defend the bastard, nor whitewash his actions. I agree, he was a killer and agree with his sentence. Brevity in an article sometimes leads to the wrong impression of the writer it seems, although I would have hoped that putting the cop in the same basket might have given you a hint.

  9. January 25, 2013 at 23:36

    @ Dearieme

    From Wiki:

    On 8 May 1926, there was a dramatic moment on the London Docks. Lorries were protected by the army. They broke the picket line and transported food to Hyde Park. This episode showed that the government was in greater control of the situation. It was also a measure of Baldwin’s rationalism in place of Churchill’s more reactionary stance. Churchill had wanted, in a move that would have proved unnecessarily antagonistic to the strikers, to arm the soldiers. Baldwin, however, had insisted they not be armed.

  10. dearieme
    January 26, 2013 at 00:13

    I agree that that arming soldiers might well have proved ill-judged, but that hardly shows that “he wanted to shoot the strikers”. Maybe he just wanted to ensure that the soldiers could effectively defend themselves and the lorries. Violence from strikers is hardly unknown in history. Without the actuality and threat of violence unions wouldn’t have existed.

  11. Rossa
    January 26, 2013 at 07:35

    With all the arguments for and against gun control in the US and the 2nd amendment defined by the NRA to mean all citizens have the right to be armed, this article suggests that the term ‘militia’ referred to the men in the southern States who formed the slave patrols to prevent uprisings of which there were rather a lot.

    It was a legal requirement in a number of States for all men aged 18-45 to be a member of a militia in their county, hence the argument that all men should bear arms. Clearly all reports of historical things can be used to suit any argument today whether a fallacy or not.

    H/T Robert Wilkinson

    • Lance
      September 20, 2017 at 15:26

      Rossa, that has to be the most ignorant version of the “anti-second amendment” argument I have ever heard. It had exactly nothing to do with slavery. How about a little history lesson.

      When the second amendment was written, we had just fought a war for our independence on our own soil. During the time leading up to that war, the colonies had established a defense force in 3 parts – The Continental Army (Professional, full time Soldiers), The Minutemen (A kind of National Guard or Army Reserve made up of professionally trained part time soldiers) and the militia which was pretty much every other available male that might be called on in an emergency to defend their city/town/community.

      These men received only a little training (mostly how to properly establish a “stash” of emergency supplies, who was in charge in the case of an emergency and basic military field commands like advance, retreat, flank left/right, etc). This training was mostly done by the local Minutemen when it was available at all. These were not “soldiers” per se, they were regular citizens who were supposed to be the last resort.

      But during the war, fighting broke out in towns and communities all over the colonies and the Militia found themselves, rifle in hand, having to defend their homes and families. Without these brave men holding their ground until the Army or the Minutemen arrived, we would have lost the war. After the war, there was talk of disarming the militia because England had been defeated so they were no longer needed.

      The Founding Fathers (George Washington, in particular) made sure to codify in the bill of rights the right for all citizens to keep and bear arms on the off chance that they might one day have to, once again, rise up in defense of their homes and families or to throw off the bonds of an oppressive government.

  12. james wilson
    January 26, 2013 at 17:28

    The reason that the 2nd amendment is written is not open to honest historical interpretation. There are arguments made out of ignorance, and arguments made out of malice. The actual arguments of the Founders, well supported by their correspondence, are unambiguous.

    –The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government–

    • Sherkinbrain
      March 24, 2018 at 00:21

      Why did Justice Antonin Scalia state tht the Second Amendment did not mean “the right to bear any weapon at any time for any purpose”?

      Is it not similar to the determination that the First Amendment does not allow one to shout “Fire!” In a crowded theater?

  13. January 26, 2013 at 19:02

    Amen JW. It’s a false argument by guncontrollers to try to shift the spirit of the Amendment onto something to do with militias, which were only a context from the time but not the essential thrust.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. soccer account singaporeLearn how your comment data is processed.