Whatever one thinks about David Burt — and these days, it’s mostly positive — he is the Premier of Bermuda.

The leader of the country.

How is it, then, that someone can be alleged to have threatened to put a hole in his head, and pull him out of his house and chop off his head with a hacksaw, yet still be allowed to walk free from the courts under orders to make no further contact with the Premier?

We should be so lucky.

What have we missed here?

Were there extenuating circumstances that allowed for the accused to walk among us until his June 1 date with the Supreme Court?

It would have been helpful, indeed interesting, if magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo had provided us with an explanation as to the legal reasoning behind his decision.

Let’s not forget that this was the same magistrate who concluded last September that two tourists could leave Magistrates’ Court merely with absolute discharges after beating a pair of would-be robbers to within an inch of their lives.

Vigilante justice gone wild.

There was enough evidence to confirm the Americans went exceedingly over and beyond what stipulates self-defence, the emphasis placed significantly on the bulk of the beatings having taken place after they had retrieved their goods.

This is not to say that the country has suddenly gone soft on crime, but a threat on the life of the head of state has to be taken with all seriousness.

We shudder to think where Jared Gordon would be awaiting trial had the allegations involved the President of the United States — most definitely not on the streets.

Why should David Burt and his family be viewed any differently?