Here's my post from the time of the incident.
October 19, 2020
"Queen Elizabeth II has approved a rare royal pardon for an inmate convicted of murder who used a narwhal tusk to help stop a terrorist attack..."
"... in which two people were killed before the assailant was killed by the police on London Bridge.
The decision to pardon the murderer, Steven Gallant, was in recognition of 'his exceptionally brave actions,' which 'helped save people’s lives despite the tremendous risk to his own,' a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said in a statement on Monday. If a parole board approves, Mr. Gallant’s minimum 17-year sentence would be reduced by 10 months.
The attack in November 2019 began at a prisoner rehabilitation conference... Mr. Gallant, who was imprisoned in 2005, was among a crowd of people who banded together to take the assailant down with an unconventional weapon: the narwhal tusk, which had been a wall decoration at Fishmongers’ Hall, the historic building that hosted the conference. He was in the hall for the day on a prison day-release program when he heard noises and saw injured people."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
48 comments:
So... he "subdues" a terrorist in the act of killing others, and he is convicted of "murder".
The UK is well and truly FUCKED.
He was convicted of murder? WTF?
Jeffrey Toobin only wishes folks would write that he was seen grabbing his narwhal tusk.
He was imprisoned in 2005, yet recently pardoned for his conviction for murder during a 2019 event?
Oh, he killed someone in 2005, was on a day release from prison in 2019 when he killed another person.
Perfect name to be pardoned by the Queen and even better if he were knighted.
"Bye Buddy, hope you find your dad."
Among the oldest and now outdated legal concepts is that of "attainder". Specifically, the idea that someone could do something or commit a heinous crime (almost always in the old days against the sovereign, i.e. a lese majeste) of such magnitude that themselves, their family, their honor and all their property could be 'tainted' forevermore. But unique to attainder in the British sense (and to a lesser extent the French and Holy Roman Empire) was that all 'taints' could be undone by equally heroic deeds, and that some deeds restored the honor of the person regardless of what they'd done previously, up to and including high treason.
I think this certainly qualifies, in the British sense. In the American common law sense, it would make sense too. Good for him.
The kind of guy you want on your side in a fight to the death is one who can identify the availability of, recognize the utility of, and then make immediate use of a narwhal tusk as a weapon when there are not many other good options at the time. The right to keep and bear tusks -- an important for self defense in England.
Man, if there's one thing I'd like to be remembered for, it's killing a terrorist with a narwhal tusk.
Obviously, this seems like the right call, but it's 2020. How do the Brits justify having a monarch with actual power like this? It's one thing to have a lady to put on your stamps and roll around in parades and stuff. It's another thing to let her decide to let criminals loose.
If the Parole Board approves? It's a damned royal pardon, which btw happens only after the Government submits it to the Queen. It makes no sense that the bureaucrats on the Parole Board have the final say on whether the sovereign can pardon someone. Off with their heads!
That could have been me, but I left my narwhal tusk at home that day.
I should certainly hope so! And if they take away our narwhal tusks only criminals will have narwhal tusks! :-(
The fact that the convicted murderer was allowed out and about among the public when this event occurred either implies that he wasn't "that kind of murderer", or that the English justice system is all forked up.
Too bad she can't now jail the prosecutors and judge.
A gallant Englishman
It’s criminal this man is in jail. He should have been knighted - far more deserving than most modern KBEs
A royal pardon only reduces his sentence by 10 months?
Maybe I should RTWT.
Or not...
Narwhal tusk FTW!
Misleading! He hasn't been pardoned. He's being given a Royal Prerogative of Mercy which will take 10 months off his sentence.
Gallant was sentenced to life, which under UK law is a minimum of 17 years before reaching eligibility for parole. Apparently he is a model prisoner and was on track to qualify, this will just move his possible parole date up.
If this guy had defended innocent citizens against a murderous islamic supremcist in the US some Soros funded, FakeCon NeverTrumper approved far left DA would have had that guy thrown in jail immediately.
Will she give one to her son, Andrew?
Wow that was some piss poor writing from the NYT.
I originally thought he was convicted of murder for the tusk situation. But I'm guessing he was pardoned for the murder he committed before the terrorist attack. But why the hell is a murderer walking around?
Since when does the UK allow a convicted felon to possess a narwhal tusk?
10 months off a 17 years - PFFFT
I wish they would have put the day-release information at the top of the story. Before I got to that information, I could not figure out the timeline.
Also....10 months off from 17 years? That seems very stingy.
How do the Brits justify having a monarch with actual power like this? It's one thing to have a lady to put on your stamps and roll around in parades and stuff. It's another thing to let her decide to let criminals loose.
A complete misconception. This is all the government's decision and all done by civil servants. The Queen has nothing to do with it.
The British government structure is that "The Crown" is the Executive branch. Long long ago, the Crown, ie the actual monarch, exercised these powers, but several hundred years ago, the monarchy was made ceremonial, so that it is the "Ministers of the Crown" who exercise executive powers. And the "Ministers of the Crown" are the people who win the actual elections. So no the Queen never decides stuff. When the law requires her actual signature - which is seldom - she signs like an automatic signing machine.
17 year sentence reduced "by" 10 months, that's nothing. He should be free now. What am I missing?
The parole board had better let the guy walk. The Queen would increase her popularity by issuing a royal pardon to Gallant.
GOOFUS puts out a sign saying "Refugees Welcome" and ignoring rape gangs.
GALLANT... well.
If a parole board approves, Mr. Gallant’s minimum 17-year sentence would be reduced by 10 months. The attack in November 2019 began at a prisoner rehabilitation conference... Mr. Gallant, who was imprisoned in 2005,
This timeline makes no sense to me at first read. I'm glad the Queen intervened here even though it seems like it didn't do much. Maybe I should read the story, but paywall....
Buwaya, do you have any comment on this?
While I follow politics in other countries pretty extensively, I must admit I was unaware of all this going on in Spain.
As a general rule, there's never a narwhal tusk around when you need one. This is the exception that proves the rule.
Why don't you ask him what's going on?
Why don't you ask him who's the latest on his throne?
"Tusk" Fleetwood Mac
Jack Posobiec has been going over the e-mails that one of Hunter Biden's associates gave access to a couple of days ago. The e-mails not only confirmed the authenticity of the e-mails from the laptop, but Posobiec has likely found out what the $3.5 million dollar payment from the Moscow mayor's ex-wife to Hunter Biden bought. He found a document that was the minutes summary from Burnham Investors Trust meeting of the independent trustees- in it is described a $200 million dollar investment in the firm from Yelena Baturina, the lady who paid Biden $3.5 million dollars (see the recent Senate report). The money paid to Biden is obviously the price he requested to set up the investment of the $200 million dollars- this, on its face, is money laundering to avoid financial sanctions against Russia that were in place at the time.
Face it- Hunter Biden is going to prison, and he might take his father and uncle with him.
Link for the above comment.
And now I have another stupid Fleetwood Mac tune running through my head.
He was convicted of murder in 2005. He was not convicted of murdering the terrorist.
Tom said...
It’s criminal this man is in jail. He should have been knighted - far more deserving than most modern KBEs
He's "in jail" for murdering someone else 15 years ago. I say "in jail" because it makes me wonder how someone in jail for murder is on a London street capable of defending people against a terrorist.
Also bizarre:
Gallant was sentenced to life, which under UK law is a minimum of 17 years before reaching eligibility for parole.
Life never means life, a lesson to remember.
This post filled me with an uncontrollable impulse to view the video of "Tusk." Mick Fleetwood in a Dodgers jersey. Christine McVie in a cub scout shirt. Stevie Nicks twirling a baton. John McVie's cardboard cutout viewing the Trojan Marching Band from the Coliseum stands.
It would be cool, if, like the truck for the Dreams guy, Mick would donate his royalties from "Tusk" to the bloke who stopped a terrorist with a tusk.
The most interesting thing to me is that in both the 2005 murder for which he is serving time and in his heroic intervention in the terrorist attack, Mr. Gallant showed much the same basic character. The man whom he murdered in 2005, Barrie Jackson, was a criminal who had been convicted of severely beating one woman (who had tried to intervene as Jackson beat his own father), had managed to be acquitted of attempted murder in the beating of another woman, was due to stand trial for witness intimidation, and was believed by Gallant to have attacked Gallant's girlfriend eight days earlier.
Obviously, there is an important legal and social distinction between a planned and premeditated murder of a man (even a habitual violent offender) who is not in the midst of committing a crime, and immediate action to stop someone who is in the middle of attacking others. But the underlying motive and the violence used in both cases are not radically different.
Bravo, Your Highness!
Face it- Hunter Biden is going to prison, and he might take his father and uncle with him.
Don't hold your breath, Yancey. Hillary still hasn't been locked up. We still don't know who killed Jeffrey Epstein or whether the mass slaughter in Las Vegas was a government sting operation gone awry. I've long ago lost any faith in our 'justice' system.
Mock,
Someone will pick up the investigation at the federal level- it doesn't even matter if Biden wins at this point- it is just too blatant to be ignored.
the mass slaughter in Las Vegas was a government sting operation gone awry.
No kidding!!
My bucket list has on it finding a narwhal tusk. Or a walrus tusk, an elephant tusk, a mammoth tusk, a sabre tooth from a long-gone lion, a sperm whale tooth, Carcharadon tooth, anything of that sort. In England most such finds would be a deodand, siezed by the queen as rightly hers, for some historical reason revolving around how good it is to be the queen. This also includes buried treasure, like caches of old gold coins or Viking artifacts.
Here in the US such finds as narwhal tusks are forbidden from sale via the Endangered Species Act, and by other laws about vertebrate fossils belonging to the state. Don't even think of picking up a falcon feather should you see one on the ground. Felony! Ambergris or gold nuggets, I seek in my dreams. I could keep the gold only if I had a claim on the land, or so I'm told.
Which is why I have hundreds and hundreds of Exogyra ponderosa fossils around my yard, legally collected with my kids long ago and legally kept as landscaping rocks. Invertebrate fossils are not state-owned here, under Texas and federal law. They also make great gifts to unpleasant relatives. Not nearly as appreciated as an illegal narwhal tusk would be.
My bucket list has on it finding a narwhal tusk. Or a walrus tusk, an elephant tusk, a mammoth tusk, a sabre tooth from a long-gone lion, a sperm whale tooth, Carcharadon tooth, anything of that sort. In England most such finds would be a deodand, siezed by the queen as rightly hers, for some historical reason revolving around how good it is to be the queen. This also includes buried treasure, like caches of old gold coins or Viking artifacts.
Here in the US such finds as narwhal tusks are forbidden from sale via the Endangered Species Act, and by other laws about vertebrate fossils belonging to the state. Don't even think of picking up a falcon feather should you see one on the ground. Felony! Ambergris or gold nuggets, I seek in my dreams. I could keep the gold only if I had a claim on the land, or so I'm told.
Which is why I have hundreds and hundreds of Exogyra ponderosa fossils around my yard, legally collected with my kids long ago and legally kept as landscaping rocks. Invertebrate fossils are not state-owned here, under Texas and federal law. They also make great gifts to unpleasant relatives. Not nearly as appreciated as an illegal narwhal tusk would be.
wholelottasplainin' said...
So... he "subdues" a terrorist in the act of killing others, and he is convicted of "murder".
The UK is well and truly FUCKED.
10/19/20, 4:20 PM
This is what the left wants for us all, here in America. They want to throw the book at anyone that dares to defend themselves because "that is the job of paid professionals", i.e. the police. Also while defanging the police so that they have no tools and no money to do their jobs AND install DAs that will allow "alleged" perps to walk with no charges/reduced charges. Oh, and don't forget the left wants to end cash bail so that they get released immediately with no stake in hanging around.
Then when citizens get fed up with this crap and form their own militias to patrol the streets and deal with criminals, they will continue to eliminate the 2a cause you can't have just anyone (not paid professionals) owning guns.
The fact that the convicted murderer was allowed out and about among the public when this event occurred either implies that he wasn't "that kind of murderer", or that the English justice system is all forked up.
Th English justce system is indeed pretty liberal, but this is one of its less absurd aspects. The "life" sentence for murder is just a colloquial term for the real sentence which is indefinite imprisonment - ie you can be released when the government thinks it appropriate subject to any recommended minimum the judge sets.
The guy was sentenced to life in 2005 with a judge's minimum of 17 years (which is probably above the average of about 14-15 years.) In the English system (which the judges understand when setting their sentences) prisoners can be let out on supervised release a bit before the end of their sentence (or recommended minimum.) The idea is that instead of just opening the door and letting them out, they get a little bit of time to adjust to being out of jail. But they have to go back at night, or whatever conditions are set for their conditional release. It's basically a "trial" release.
Every now and again a prisoner on conditional release commits some ghastly new crime and the cry goes up "why was he let out early !" and the answer is them's the rules. And the rules are not obviously stupid, even if occasionally there's a disaster. Keeping them all in jail until the end of their sentence, and then releasing them with no preparation, doesn't necessarily prevent new disasters. If you're going to murder someone when you're out on supervised release after 15 years, there's no good reason to believe that you wouldn't have done exactly the same if you'd stayed in jail until your regular release date after 17 years.
And if you think they should serve to the end of their sentence and then get a supervised release, then you'll finish up with the same reult. The judges will just edge down their minimums.
So this guy was due to be released in 2022, and in 2019 he'd started his period of supervised release. The "pardon" for his narwhal heroics simply knocks off the last ten months of his original sentence, so that he can be fully released now.
PS athough several people have pointed out the error, there are still folk turning up on this thread who have got the wrong end of the, er, tusk.
The guy was not convicted of murder for sticking a terrorist with a narwhal tusk in 2019. That was obviously justifiable self defense (and other person defense.) He was convicted of a completely different murder in 2005, and happened to be out and about on supervised released from prison in 2019, enabling him to stick the terrorist.
PPS There was another case from England several years ago where there was a "hero" guy who had been badly injured in a terrorist bombing, but who had helped other people escape. He was lauded on the front pages. Bad luck on him - he was recognised as a convicted rapist. And it turned out that he'd been released only a couple of years into a five year sentence, and if he'd still been in jail, he wouldn't have been injured in the terorist blast. But the fact that he'd been let out so early from a rape conviction caused much more of a stink than this narwhal guy case. The narwhal guy had already served 14 of his 17 years before he was let out on supervised release. Whereas the rapist guy had served less than half his sentence.
I feel a little embarrassed about having written a comment partially defending the mostly indefensible English criminal justice system, so I had better try to make amends with an anecdote showing how bad it really is.
In the early 1990s there was an actual ie non CINO, conservative politico in charge of police, prisons and sentencing, and alarmed by the very low sentences given by English judges for burglary, he arranged for a new law to be passed imposing a mandatory prison sentence of something like three years for a third burglary conviction. (Burglary in England is largely a regular job, rather than a spur of the moment thing.) He was forced by his CINO colleagues to add a clause saying that the mandatory three year priosn sentence could be overridden by the judge but "only in exceptional circumstances."
About ten years later someone did an analysis of burgary sentences since the passage of the new law. The mandatory three year sentence had been applied by the judge in ....wait for it....a grand total of SIX cases. In every other case in the previous ten years, the judge had found "exceptional circumstances" to avoid the mandatory three year sentence.
Lame pardon: only reduces his time by 10 months.
Post a Comment