Thursday, 1 November 2007

Elderly man killed for watering his lawn

This is really a quite disturbing story about the sad death of a man who was, apparently, following the rules regarding water restrictions.
A MAN has been charged with murder after he got into a fight with elderly man who was watering his lawn in southern Sydney.

A 66-year-old man was watering his front lawn about 5.30pm (AEDT) yesterday at Sylvania when a 36-year-old man approached him.

A verbal argument ensued relating to water restrictions, prompting the older man to reportedly wet the younger man with the hose.

Police allege the 36-year-old responded by punching and pushing the older man to the ground and then kicking him.

An off-duty police officer intervened and arrested the 36-year-old.

The older man was treated by ambulance officers and rushed to St George Hospital in a critical condition but died soon after.

The 36-year-old was arrested and later charged with murder.

He was refused bail and is due to appear at Sutherland Local Court this morning.

A Sydney Water spokesman told AAP if the time stated in the police report was correct, the deceased man was not violating Sydney's water restrictions.

Level three restrictions allow residents to water their lawns and gardens with hand-held hoses before 10am and after 4pm on Wednesdays and Sundays.
Now, if you had to have a bet, which of the following would you put your money on?

The 36-year old votes for:

A) Greens
B) Labor
C) Coalition
D) Other

He is:

A) University educated
B) Trades educated
C) High school educated
D) Left school before the end of high school

He works as:

A) A public servant (including in education)
B) The private sector
C) An environmental organisation
D) Is unemployed

If you selected A, A & A then I reckon you're on the money.

Only a university education and the inverted moral values of a greens supporter can create the sense of righteousness required to result in it being morally OK to assault someone for watering their lawn during a water restriction period.

Such an action requires the totalitarian attitude of today's left, which sees itself as being on a higher moral plane than the rest of us.

The situation begs the question - why are there water restrictions in the first place?

"Climate change induced drought," is the answer provided by the enviro-religious.

"Shocking water management," is the answer provided by anyone with half a brain.

The fact is that, under sustained pressure from the green movement for the last 20-25 years, there has been no new capacity added to Australia's water system. Apparently, building more dams has a greater environmental impact than the ecological disaster created by sustained droughts.

The environmental damage done by the environment movement over the last 30 years is second only to what socialists managed to achieve before the Soviet Union collapsed.

But that's hardly a surprise to anyone with a modicum of common sense.


Francis W. Porretto said...

Jack, if you keep making sense and citing facts like that right out in public, somebody is bound to notice!

The "environmental" movement is founded on two things: an overweening conviction of its own infallibility, and an abiding hostility toward Mankind and its works. Because everyone erroneously concedes its "good intentions," and because ecosystems are so very difficult to understand, model, and predict, that movement has been allowed to get away with some amazing bloopers. But neither good intentions nor human fallibility can excuse the tremendous harm done by these arrogant would-be dictators.

What, then, must we do?

Anonymous said...

It's crass, immature and in very poor taste, to find a pretty tragic murder case, make random and unverifiable assumptions about the murderer, and then use those groundless assumptions to make some kind of political point.

Jack Lacton said...

Thanks, Francis. Always trying to keep facts to the fore.

Anon - It is certainly a tragedy that an old, innocent man was murdered. However, you miss the point of the article, which is that it's a tragedy that our educational institutions, supported by the leftist media can invert people's moral values to the point where violence is acceptable for simply watering the lawn (or, in the thoughts of the murderer, breaching water restrictions).

Anonymous said...

No, I get your point, but it is so weakly demonstrated by this case that it's just crass opportunism to try to latch onto an awful murder case to make it.

Generally, people who carry out acts of random violence will do so whatever the provocation, and if the poor guy had not been watering his lawn, the murderer would probably have attacked him for letting it go dry. If you could identify a pattern of left-wing thugs repeatedly attacking and killing people for not toeing the line, that would be interesting and would certainly be a talking point, but this is just an isolated tragedy that has nothing to do with your political agenda.