A British homeowner was arrested after a burglar fell 30 feet from the balcony of his apartment and later died in the hospital. Police say that "following an exchange of words," the 43-year-old intruder, whose name was withheld to protect his privacy, smashed through a fourth-floor window in an attempt to escape after being confronted by the homeowner, Patrick Walsh, aged 56.

Walsh was subsequently arrested for “assault causing serious bodily harm.” If convicted he could face a life sentence.

A spokesman for the Greater Manchester Police said that even though the common person might assume that the homeowner is the victim, the law says otherwise. “It’s quire simple, really,” said Sgt. Bobby Nimrod. “The so-called intruder was peaceably engaged in his profession when he was angrily accosted by Mr. Walsh. Frightened the burglar tried to run and, unfortunately, fell to his death.”

The police sergeant said that the fact that burglary is a criminal act didn’t overcome Walsh’s civic duty to retreat. “People may think ‘I’m in my own home, surely I have the right to protect myself and my property,’” Nimrod went on. “But this is mistaken. Protecting persons and property is the police’s job. Homeowners are required to exit the premises, if they can, and call the police.”

To assure that they comply with the law, in the event of a break-in, homeowners are advised to contact the police and be put on a waiting list for a house-call. “We normally can offer same-day service for most house-call requests,” Nimrod said. “There is no need for anyone to take any action to confront a suspected criminal at any time.”

Even though Walsh never touched the fleeing burglar, he is still up for the assault charge. “People think assault means that you’ve hit someone,” Nimrod explained. “Under the law, the mere threat of harm is the assault offense. That the intruder hastily jumped through an upper floor window is pretty conclusive evidence that Mr. Walsh was perceived as a threat. If he had touched the intruder, we would’ve had to add a ‘battery’ charge.”

In addition to a possible prison sentence, Walsh may also face civil liabilities from his victim’s family and the police union, which has filed a complaint alleging that Walsh engaged in “unlicensed and unauthorized” use of intimidation. “Intimidating suspects is the police’s job,” said Robert Barron, spokesman for the union. “Mr. Walsh has poached on our prerogatives. He must be made to pay.”

Democrats Try to Woo Homosexuals

Democratic candidates for President traveled to Los Angeles to participate in a debate on gay issues. The event, unprecedented for a presidential campaign, was sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, one of the most powerful gay lobby groups in the world.

Senator Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Senator Barack Obama (Ill.), former senator John Edwards (N.C.) and Governor Bill Richardson (N.M.) said they favored civil unions for gays, but not “marriage” per se. Only Representative Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) and former senator Mike Gravel (Alaska) endorsed same-sex "marriage."

“Many married heterosexuals enjoy an occasional anal penetration,” Kucinich declared. “If they can be married, why can’t homosexuals?”

Despite the audience’s enthusiastic approval of Kucinich’s position, Senator Obama declined to fully endorse gay marriage, declaring that a “civil union” ought to be sufficient. “You know, many married people wish they had a civil union,” Obama said. “Getting spouses to be civil to one another is a worthy goal. Maybe if we convert all the marriages into ‘civil unions’ people will get the idea they ought to be civil to who they live with.”

Clinton reaffirmed her opposition to gay marriage, citing her own personal experience as her rationale. "Marriage isn’t so great,” she opined. “You make promises then some bum is diddling interns behind your back. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.”

Clinton did admit that legal provisions barring spouses from testifying against one another might come in handy, but that such circumstances were rare and should not induce people to embark upon “the gut-wrenching, heartbreaking matrimonial ‘trail of tears’ unless you absolutely have to.” She told the largely homosexual audience that they should “appreciate the absence of social pressures to get married and enjoy the unfettered freedom offered by relationships that are not legally binding.”

Edwards acknowledged that his notorious primping has led to rumors that he might be gay, but insisted that he is “merely effeminate.” “I love looking good and dressing well,” Edwards said. “Many have jumped to the conclusion that this means I’m gay. But I’m not. I would consider lesbianism, but I’m not cut out for it. Still, I firmly believe in gay rights and, as president, would fight for those rights.” Edwards suggested that his comprehensive national health plan should reassure gays that “their special diseases would be fully covered.”

Edwards also took a shot at Clinton, saying her husband's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on serving in the military was “wrongheaded.” “The Spartans were gay and they are recognized as the most fearsome warriors in history,” Edwards asserted. “Why three hundred of them killed ten thousand Persians in a film earlier this year. So, I think we may be missing out by not actively recruiting gays and promoting gay relations among our troops.”

Bill Richardson, who appeared the most uncomfortable among the candidates, said he only came to the debate to demonstrate his tolerance “by spending some time in the same room with so many queers.” He confessed that he was feeling disconcerted, but said he was confident that he’d be okay “as long as I keep my pants on.”

Although they were invited, none of the Republican presidential candidates attended. Former New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani was the only one to offer a reason, saying “I couldn’t find my drag outfit.”

Dems Groping for New Spin on Iraq War

Growing signs that the Bush Administration’s “surge” strategy in Iraq may be working has high profile war critics fumbling around for a politically viable stance. As long as the war was showing no signs of progress, the Democrats’ could count on voter fatigue to make their withdrawal schemes seem plausible. Recent positive developments may undermine this approach.

Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) recently toured Iraq and were forced to admit that the military was meeting with a considerable amount of success in rooting out al-Qaeda cells and capturing or killing insurgents. But neither would credit the president for the strategy.

Sen. Durbin observed that while the troops have been killing al-Qaeda in Iraq, these are not the same al-Qaeda that attacked America on 9/11. “It pains me to have to point out that the al-Qaeda in Iraq are not the same al-Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11,” Durbin said. “The al-Qaeda who attacked us all died in plane crashes on that day. As soon as we knew that we should’ve closed the books on this case and avoided these wars.”

Asked to reconcile recent events in the Iraq War with the Democratic Party leadership’s insistence that the surge has failed, Sen. Casey, offered “We have said from the beginning that our troops are doing their job. What we object to is President Bush taking credit for it. It is our position that he has mismanaged this war and needs to change course. We can’t let the fine efforts of our troops confound this message.”

Both condemned President Bush as inflexible. “He’s a ‘Johnny one-note,’” Durbin complained. “Everything he says is about ‘achieving victory.’ There are other options, you know. He needs to come down off his high horse and compromise. We control congress now. We deserve to have a part in the decision making.”

Durbin said he might be able to cut the president some slack on the Iraq War if he would agree to tax hikes. “Look, if both the economy and the war are going well, how are Democrats supposed to compete in the 2008 election?” Durbin asked. “He’s got to give something to get something. All we’re asking is for him to meet us half way and choose which one is a win for the Republicans and which one is for the Democrats.”

“Baghdad Diarist” a Fraud?

It looks like The New Republic’s series of stories by a soldier serving in Iraq may be bogus. Since early this year, the magazine has been running articles alleging sadism and cruelty is common among U.S. troops stationed in the country.

The stories were all written under a pseudonym, so it has been difficult to try to track down the events described. Recently, though, Pvt. Scott Beauchamp, of the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry, has come forward as the author. Given this lead, Army investigators have been unable to confirm that any of the incidents mentioned in his “diary” actually took place. "During that investigation, all the soldiers from his unit refuted all claims that Pvt. Beauchamp made in his blog," said Sgt. Robert Timmons, a spokesman in Baghdad for the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division.

Beauchamp has clung to his story asserting “When I close my eyes I can see every detail of those horrible days. It was all like a bad dream come true.”

It seems likely now that it was all a dream and Beauchamp is too deluded to know the difference.