Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Yeah baby! It depend what they mean by reasonable force though.

I don't know, compared to the two other U.K. vigilantes, "The Angle Grinder Man" and that katana wielding bastard who beheaded a criminal, this Jack Straw seems ho-hum.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't know, compared to the two other U.K. vigilantes, "The Angle Grinder Man" and that katana wielding bastard who beheaded a criminal, this Jack Straw seems ho-hum.

....you talking to me? Well I dont see anybody else here.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't know, compared to the two other U.K. vigilantes, "The Angle Grinder Man" and that katana wielding bastard who beheaded a criminal, this Jack Straw seems ho-hum.

He is a politician, we breed them tough, Neil Kinnock , an ex labour leader, beat two guys up in an Indian restaraunt toilet for insulting his wife. I doubt dubya would do that.

Originally posted by Zebedee
He is a politician, we breed them tough, Neil Kinnock , an ex labour leader, beat two guys up in an Indian restaraunt toilet for insulting his wife. I doubt dubya would do that.

Originally posted by Zebedee
He is a politician, we breed them tough, Neil Kinnock , an ex labour leader, beat two guys up in an Indian restaraunt toilet for insulting his wife. I doubt dubya would do that.

wow. senseless violence. how admirable.

but yes, dubya would never do that. he would just have him kidnapped and dragged off to guantanimo to face months/years of solitary confinement and torture.

Originally posted by Zebedee
He is a politician, we breed them tough, Neil Kinnock , an ex labour leader, beat two guys up in an Indian restaraunt toilet for insulting his wife. I doubt dubya would do that.

The "W" is physically tough... he's stocky, has a block-like head and a decent set of knuckles; he's also a very dirty fighter, which would be a plus in a free-for-all street fight. Rampant Nepotism, cronyism, corruption and overall failed politics aside, the "W" seems like a brawler; I am confident he could take out most world leaders in the Thunderdome.

http://home.golden.net/~tekapo/redterror/bush_rugby.jpg

Originally posted by Schecter
wow. senseless violence. how admirable.

but yes, dubya would never do that. he would just have him kidnapped and dragged off to guantanimo to face months/years of solitary confinement and torture.

It wasn't senseless if two guys pawed your woman and made comments to make her feel worthless. I think you'd act in someway. I don't think many men wouldn't. I think it's a case of standing up for what's right. He asked them to apologise first and they were continually abuse. Neil was a "have a go" hero.

Originally posted by Robtard
The "W" is physically tough... he's stocky, has a block-like head and a decent set of knuckles... he's also a very dirty fighter, which would be a plus in a free-for-all street fight. Rampant Nepotism, cronyism, corruption and overall failed politics aside, the "W" seems like a brawler; I am confident he could take on most world leaders in the Thunderdome.

http://home.golden.net/~tekapo/redterror/bush_rugby.jpg

I take it back it could be a good match up. Neil played Rugby for Wales as a youth. I think we should get a time machine like in Bill and Ted, some ether and catch them both in their prime. Put them in a steel cage ala the WWE and let the mayhem ensue. I give odds as evens.

Originally posted by Robtard
The "W" is physically tough... he's stocky, has a block-like head and a decent set of knuckles; he's also a very dirty fighter, which would be a plus in a free-for-all street fight. Rampant Nepotism, cronyism, corruption and overall failed politics aside, the "W" seems like a brawler; I am confident he could take out most world leaders in the Thunderdome.



Yeah well anyway *pushes Robtard*

Originally posted by Zebedee
It wasn't senseless if two guys pawed your woman and make comments to make her feel worthless.

"pawing"? well if by that you mean phisically imposing/assaulting, then i feel he was in the right. if they just said rude comments i dont feel he was legally justified in assaulting them.
a spoken insult is not a crime. assault is.

Originally posted by Zebedee
I think you'd act in someway. I don't think many men wouldn't. I think it's a case of standing up for what's right. He asked them to apologise first and they were continually abuse. Neil was a "have a go" hero.

he could have notified the authorities of this harassment.

Originally posted by Schecter
"pawing"? well if by that you mean phisically imposing/assaulting, then i feel he was in the right. if they just said rude comments i dont feel he was legally justified in assaulting them.
a spoken insult is not a crime. assault is.



he could have notified the authorities of this harassment.

Oh well lets all hold hands and hug some trees.

notice the words "legally justified", which is the topic, if im not mistaken.

you dont have to knee jerk react with implications of extreme passivism. we are discussing law, here.

Originally posted by Schecter
"pawing"? well if by that you mean phisically imposing/assaulting, then i feel he was in the right. if they just said rude comments i dont feel he was legally justified in assaulting them.
a spoken insult is not a crime. assault is.



he could have notified the authorities of this harassment.

They pawed, one stroke her hair and made suggestive comment as she sat have dinner with her husband who was leader of the opposition at the time. I don't think any man could stand for that in front of him. In the U.K. a spoken insult is a crime. It's incitement to cause a breach of the peace or a number of other charges.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah well anyway *pushes Robtard*

*kicks the man-bag* *gouges eye with thumb* *bites a portion of cheek-meat off* *shits out Alfheim*

That's how I roll.

Originally posted by Zebedee
They pawed, one stroke her hair and made suggestive comment as she sat have dinner with her husband who was leader of the opposition at the time. I don't think any man could stand for that in front of him. In the U.K. a spoken insult is a crime. It's incitement to cause a breach of the peace or a number of other charges.

That desrves a punch in the face and he asked them to stop.

Originally posted by Robtard
*kicks the man-bag* *gouges eye with thumb* *bites a portion of cheek-meat off* *shits out Alfheim*

That's how I roll.

Damn..what your really that raw? Anyway im just messing around no beef whatsoever.

Originally posted by Zebedee
They pawed, one stroke her hair and made suggestive comment as she sat have dinner with her husband who was leader of the opposition at the time. I don't think any man could stand for that in front of him. In the U.K. a spoken insult is a crime. It's incitement to cause a breach of the peace or a number of other charges.

wow. i guess laws of conduct are far more strict over there. in america that part about stroking her hair would likely go over as justification for self defense, but not simple words (unless of course those words were threatening/endangering as opposed to just emotionally hurtful)

Originally posted by Alfheim

Damn..what your really that raw? Anyway im just messing around no beef whatsoever.

Well, I probably wouldn't "shit you out", just spit you back in your face. Likewise.

Originally posted by Schecter
wow. i guess laws of conduct are far more strict over there. in america that part about stroking her hair would likely go over as justification for self defense, but not simple words (unless of course those words were threatening/endangering as opposed to just emotionally hurtful)

Face it... he beat up two assholes and got away with it because he's a politician. Moral of the story, don't beat the crap out of some scum, even if they deserve it, unless you're connected.

Originally posted by Schecter
wow. i guess laws of conduct are far more strict over there. in america that part about stroking her hair would likely go over as justification for self defense, but not simple words (unless of course those words were threatening/endangering as opposed to just emotionally hurtful)

The Public Order Act 1936 provides that "any person who in any public places uses Threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence".

"Insulting words" that's basically anything likely to get a reaction. If someone is rude to you in a pub in the U.K. and you punch them you might have committed assault but it will be coinsidered provoked and your punishment will be less, perhaps less than theres.

The guys concerned did not want to press charges. One would think they felt very stupid.

Originally posted by Robtard
Face it... he beat up two assholes and got away with it because he's a politician. Moral of the story, don't beat the crap out of some scum, even if they deserve it, unless you're connected.

Originally posted by Robtard
Face it... he beat up two assholes and got away with it because he's a politician. Moral of the story, don't beat the crap out of some scum, even if they deserve it, unless you're connected.

True, at the time a lot of dirty tricks were going on between the two major parties. Kinnock was a welsh miners son I think and he certainly came from a mining community and hard as nails. Despite having ginger hair and freckles, in fact that might have added to why he was tough as you like. All the abuse at school.

Originally posted by Robtard
Face it... he beat up two assholes and got away with it because he's a politician. Moral of the story, don't beat the crap out of some scum, even if they deserve it, unless you're connected.

yeah, i find it hard to believe that events would have panned out the same way if the insulters were men of power and the victims were commoners. but such is the case everywhere.

Originally posted by Zebedee
True, at the time a lot of dirty tricks were going on between the two major parties. Kinnock was a welsh miners son I think and he certainly came from a mining community and hard as nails. Despite having ginger hair and frckles in fact that might have added to why he was tough as you like. All the abuse at school.

Alot of people were saying that if he was around now he would be elected for Prime Minister. I would vote for him.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Alot of people were saying that if he was around now he would be elected for Prime Minister. I would vote for him.

Agreed, at the time though it was all Thatchers me, me, me stuff.

Originally posted by Schecter
"pawing"? well if by that you mean phisically imposing/assaulting, then i feel he was in the right. if they just said rude comments i dont feel he was legally justified in assaulting them.
a spoken insult is not a crime. assault is.



he could have notified the authorities of this harassment.

I smell pussy....*sniff sniff* YUP!

In Oklahoma or Texas, you should expect an ass whuppin' if you insults another man's women.

In Feudal Japan, if you insulted another man's women, your got your "ass" chopped off with a katana.

Anyway,

If some douche bag sexually harasses my wife, verbally, I will give them one chance to apologize. If not, I will beat their ass. If they touch her, ass beat immediately.

You may be single but here is some advice, you as the man should protect your girlfriend/wife from perverts. If you do not, you do not deserve your women.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I smell pussy....*sniff sniff* YUP!

In Oklahoma or Texas, you should expect an ass whuppin' if you insults another man's women.

In Feudal Japan, if you insulted another man's women, your got your "ass" chopped off with a katana.

Anyway,

If some douche bag sexually harasses my wife, verbally, I will give them one chance to apologize. If not, I will beat their ass. If they touch her, ass beat immediately.

You may be single but here is some advice, you as the man should protect your girlfriend/wife from perverts. If you do not, you do not deserve your women.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHA

wow

its like 1940

maybe the measure of a man should be his ability to NOT give in to stupid animal urges, but hey, what do I know about the way people behave?

Originally posted by inimalist
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHA

wow

its like 1940

maybe the measure of a man should be his ability to NOT give in to stupid animal urges, but hey, what do I know about the way people behave?

I do not profess to be perfect...I have a short temper...actually, I should take some anger management classes to tell the truth.

Did you just insult my wife *******? That's it, I am giving you one chance to apologize.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I smell pussy....*sniff sniff* YUP!

In Oklahoma or Texas, you should expect an ass whuppin' if you insults another man's women.

In Feudal Japan, if you insulted another man's women, your got your "ass" chopped off with a katana.

Anyway,

If some douche bag sexually harasses my wife, verbally, I will give them one chance to apologize. If not, I will beat their ass. If they touch her, ass beat immediately.

You may be single but here is some advice, you as the man should protect your girlfriend/wife from perverts. If you do not, you do not deserve your women.

He said he didn't find it "legally justified", not that he was beyond acting on irrational impulses himself. Who knows, he may well gouge out another man's eye and skullfck him for merely glancing at his girl.

This topic went downhill really, really quickly.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
This topic went downhill really, really quickly.

Was it ever uphill?

*gouges out feces eye and skull fcks him*

Originally posted by dadudemon
I smell pussy....*sniff sniff* YUP!

In Oklahoma or Texas, you should expect an ass whuppin' if you insults another man's women.

In Feudal Japan, if you insulted another man's women, your got your "ass" chopped off with a katana.

Anyway,

If some douche bag sexually harasses my wife, verbally, I will give them one chance to apologize. If not, I will beat their ass. If they touch her, ass beat immediately.

You may be single but here is some advice, you as the man should protect your girlfriend/wife from perverts. If you do not, you do not deserve your women.

i guess you'd rather rant like a retard than actually read what i said.



ok toughy?
now go get aids

Originally posted by Schecter
i guess you'd rather rant like a retard than actually read what i said.

lol....okay, whatever you say, Mr. wet-drip vagina. Still doesn't detract from the fact that you didn't say you would defend yours and more importantly, your woman's honor. Too bad...it is one of the only times that a man should ever put up his dukes.

Originally posted by Schecter
ok toughy?
now go get aids

So either admit that you are a sniffling pussy who wouldn't stand up for your women or say that you would do something illegal in the situations being discussed. Don't be a nancy and dance around the subject by hiding behind your philosophical words.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Was it ever uphill?

*gouges out feces eye and skull fcks him*
That's hot.

One thing that has to be apprieciated in this matter, is that Cherie Blair and her army of human rights lawyers had so badly screwed up the law and punishment deal over here, that there have been one too many case of "man gets beaten up and is ordered in court to pay for the assailants shirt for getting blood on it" and far too many "Well, I COULD have gotten involved in that situation and saved that guys/girls life, but was worried about getting in trouble with the police" deals. (The police who manage to get a fair and appropriate prosecution only too rarely).

The ineffectiveness of the police force, paired with the criminal's confidence/assurance that there will likely be no retribution for their crime, has slowly driven things round to this.

Yes. People DO get seriously out of hand over here all too easily.

Im thinking that if you get a proven to be fair, equal force reaction for you knobbishness, (Rape, Assault Burglary etc) then you may not be so quick to be a knobend.

And this has nothing to do with giving in to animal instincts.

Its about an intellectual decision self policing because our police force is only ever any good AFTER the event (Murder-attempted or actual-, Rape, Assault etc), and even then you cant guarantee that the instigator/offender is gonna be the one punished in the matter, instead of rewarded, which, virtually, they are.

I wouldn't condone 8 guys turning up to mett out justice on one guy neccessarily, but if someone is trying, unprovoked, to kill you, then equal force retaliation in self defence is OK in my book.

If the legal process hadn't been so biased against the victim, it wouldn't have come to this.

this is the now typical disgusting opportunism of the labour government at its worst...it was their unequivocal adoption of many ridiculous EU human rights laws that allowed criminals to prosecute their victims who dared try to fight back

couple this with the fact that the police all but abandoned rural policing as well as many urban areas is what led to the case of Tony Martin. an isolated farmer who had his home broken into and robbed 4 times in 6 months while the police did nothing and who decided to defend his home from multiple criminals by firing on and killing one of them and was not only sentenced to life in prison but was also sued by one of the criminals who robbed his home and was injured by Mr Martin

the labour government can see their once unassailable lead in the polls and election getting cut gradually shorter and after 10 years in power are talking great things about sorting all the problems THAT THEY CREATED

Originally posted by dadudemon


So either admit that you are a sniffling pussy who wouldn't stand up for your women or say that you would do something illegal in the situations being discussed. Don't be a nancy and dance around the subject by hiding behind your philosophical words.

Thats what it sounds like to me. Now im not saying you should break the law but I dont know about all this "people have the right to say what they want." yeah to an extent but if you insult somebodys wife and you get punched in the face you deserve it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol....okay, whatever you say, Mr. wet-drip vagina. Still doesn't detract from the fact that you didn't say you would defend yours and more importantly, your woman's honor. Too bad...it is one of the only times that a man should ever put up his dukes.

im supposed to puff up my e-muscles to impress you instead of sticking to the topic? i dont owe you an explanation/assurance for shit, so grow up and take your pills.

i really dont care what personal issues you have which make you need to go online and be a cunting pecker, but maybe we can resolve it via PM unless you're just interested in posturing and strutting to impress everyone.


Originally posted by dadudemon
So either admit that you are a sniffling pussy who wouldn't stand up for your women or say that you would do something illegal in the situations being discussed. Don't be a nancy and dance around the subject by hiding behind your philosophical words.
"sniffling pussy?" thats super tough dude...the way you throw out unprovoked insults online. "duhhubuh look at me, i go online and call people pussies for not constantly disclaiming that they would kick some ass if they were ****ed with. aint i tough? look at me. aint i? guys? hello? please? *beats chest*"

like i said, i dont care about your anger issues and chemical imbalances.

hope your house burns down

Originally posted by Alfheim
Thats what it sounds like to me. Now im not saying you should break the law but I dont know about all this "people have the right to say what they want." yeah to an extent but if you insult somebodys wife and you get punched in the face you deserve it.


i expected this dimwittery from dudemon (whatever his name is) but you're going to not read properly as well? there is a difference between moral and legal justification. since this thread focuses on legal justification, then that is the topic.


have you all gone ****ing illiterate?

Can't every "be excellent to each other?"

Most people would defend there self by any means against an intruder in there house, the law makes no difference but its about time they changed it. I remember some guy broke in to a house and sued the guy because the owner shot him...

Originally posted by Schecter

i expected this dimwittery from dudemon (whatever his name is) but you're going to not read properly as well? there is a difference between moral and legal justification. since this thread focuses on legal justification, then that is the topic.


have you all gone ****ing illiterate?

Yeah we know that but the point was made that some people dont care regardless, you insult their wife you get punched in the face, and thats that. Hey im not angry or anything though I just said what I thought.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah we know that but the point was made that some people dont care regardless, you insult their wife you get punched in the face, and thats that. Hey im not angry or anything though I just said what I thought.

you agreed to an irrelevant and fallacious personal attack on me, so dont play innocent.

if you took the time to read my words and his, you are enabling a troll. if not, you shouldnt participate in any discussion. either way, you need to review your decision to endorse/support a trollish rant.

Originally posted by Schecter
you agreed to an irrelevant and fallacious personal attack on me, so dont play innocent.

Im not playing innocent I agreed with dauderman.

Originally posted by Schecter

if you took the time to read my words and his, you are enabling a troll. if not, you shouldnt participate in any discussion. either way, you need to review your decision to endorse/support a trollish rant.

Ok i'll stop.

boy thats just swell


anyway


a distiction must be made between legal and moral justifications when concerning self defense issues.

allow me to flip the coin and give an example: when someone breaks into your home you are legally justified it killing them as a means of self defense. pretty cut and dry, right?

what about if the case involves some neighborhood kid who routinely breaks into homes and takes items, and is generally regarded as harmless in the sense that they wouldnt hurt anyone? lets say the perpetrator enters the home of someone who knows this well? and knowing well that they are harmless and only intend to burglarise their home, they none the less choose to put a slug in their skull and splatter their brains on the wall to "teach them a lesson". while the law may perhaps justify this, does that make him morally justified?

my argument centers on just the opposite scenario. a case which may be morally justifiable, but perhaps not legally justifiable. (as is not the case in the u.k. so i have recently been informed). if one cannot approach a debate in an objective manner without having to endure howling, chest beating, and shit slinging, this forum is indeed in dire need of fixing.

Originally posted by Magee
Most people would defend there self by any means against an intruder in there house, the law makes no difference but its about time they changed it. I remember some guy broke in to a house and sued the guy because the owner shot him...

Tony Martin, he did shoot the intruder a 17 year old kid in the back, running away from him.

Originally posted by Schecter


my argument centers on just the opposite scenario. a case which may be morally justifiable, but perhaps not legally justifiable. (as is not the case in the u.k. so i have recently been informed). if one cannot approach a debate in an objective manner without having to endure howling, chest beating, and shit slinging, this forum is indeed in dire need of fixing.

Yeah ok I got that.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah ok I got that.

i wasnt speaking to you. in fact i think im done speaking to you

Originally posted by Schecter
i wasnt speaking to you. in fact i think im done speaking to you

Ok.

Is that the case in the US?...

it differs in UK law in that you are allowed to defend yourself only to the same degree of force as what you believe you are threatened by...and given that guns aren't as prevelant in society in the UK then shooting someone tends to be considered excessive force

this was the issue as previously mentioned in the tony martin case whereby he killed one robber and injured another




the morals of what's right and wrong, in practice, are somewhat blurry...if you are being repeatedly robbed of possessions that you work hard to pay for and you know its the same person perpetrating it and the law seems completely unwilling to help...who knows what you would do out of sheer frustration and anger

i also dont know anyone who considers being robbed as something trivial like you seem to be implying. as if unless there is personal danger then you can easily brush off having your house robbed...i know from personal experience how traumatic having you house robbed repeatedly can be...knowing that scum have been rifling through you private possessions is not a nice thing at all




as it stands...and as public opinion shows with regards to the Tony Martin case given that there was huge public outcry when he was jailed for defending his property...then the UK is in the situation where the defence of yourself of your property IS morally justifiable but the legalities of it are shambolic....due to the labour governments blind implementation of idiotic european laws...which the same government now sees is costing them public support and perhaps the next election...and are now effectively stealing other parties manifestos in order to recitfy their own mistakes

Originally posted by Schecter
im supposed to puff up my e-muscles to impress you instead of sticking to the topic? i dont owe you an explanation/assurance for shit, so grow up and take your pills.

No, not at all. However, you can dish it so you can take it. BTW, this IS on topic.

Originally posted by Schecter
i really dont care what personal issues you have which make you need to go online and be a cunting pecker, but maybe we can resolve it via PM unless you're just interested in posturing and strutting to impress everyone.

I am one of the nicest laid back people around. Who is trolling again?



Originally posted by Schecter
"sniffling pussy?" thats super tough dude...the way you throw out unprovoked insults online. "duhhubuh look at me, i go online and call people pussies for not constantly disclaiming that they would kick some ass if they were ****ed with. aint i tough? look at me. aint i? guys? hello? please? *beats chest*"

1. Do or say whatever makes you feel better. This is just the internet. I've obviously struck a nerve...sorry if I offended.

2. I am really laid back. I called you on being a pussy with you comments. I am not very serious with these insults. They are more for humor than to "flame" you. Dude, I could really care less if you don't take care of your women...I ain't married to her..what does it matter?

3. Answer this directly: Would you take up for your girlfriend/wife, physically if necessary? If yes, why are we even talking about this, if no, then tell what moral convictions prevent you from doing so. (If you are Buddhist, a wimp, etc.)

Originally posted by Schecter
like i said, i dont care about your anger issues and chemical imbalances.

hope your house burns down

yeah yeah...whatever. Single much?



Originally posted by Schecter
i expected this dimwittery from dudemon (whatever his name is) but you're going to not read properly as well? there is a difference between moral and legal justification. since this thread focuses on legal justification, then that is the topic.


have you all gone ****ing illiterate?

Dude, law largely based off of morals...duh?

Also, I have nothing, at all, against you. I think you are a fantastic poster. My insults were not supposed to be direct attacks but I intended them more or less as humour that I thought you would appreciate with your perverted mind....seriously. Come on..."wet drip vagina"? I thought that was pretty funny.

Originally posted by jaden101
Is that the case in the US?...

it differs in UK law in that you are allowed to defend yourself only to the same degree of force as what you believe you are threatened by...and given that guns aren't as prevelant in society in the UK then shooting someone tends to be considered excessive force

this was the issue as previously mentioned in the tony martin case whereby he killed one robber and injured another

if you feel threatened you may defend your property how you see fit. in florida a law was passed where you can use lethal force if you feel physically threatened even off of your own property. im not sure how i feel about this, which of course means that i dont condemn it.




Originally posted by jaden101

i also dont know anyone who considers being robbed as something trivial like you seem to be implying. as if unless there is personal danger then you can easily brush off having your house robbed...i know from personal experience how traumatic having you house robbed repeatedly can be...knowing that scum have been rifling through you private possessions is not a nice thing at all

i dont recall suggesting that it was trivial. i suggested that theft alone, barring a threatening situation, does not warrant lethal force. then again, in the case which i have stated, it would be difficult to prove that excessive and unwarranted force was used, barring a confession or witnesses.

and ffs, why must objectivity be instinctively met with suspision and baseless speculation? i mean, thanks for not beating your chest and calling me a pussy like the e-chuck norris' in this thread, but still its getting tiresome to read these supposed implications which i never made.


Originally posted by jaden101
as it stands...and as public opinion shows with regards to the Tony Martin case given that there was huge public outcry when he was jailed for defending his property...then the UK is in the situation where the defence of yourself of your property IS morally justifiable but the legalities of it are shambolic


my opinion is simply that there is a very thick line between tuning someone up and ending their lives over some stolen items, just as there is a difference between a guy that snatches a purse and runs away and a guy who mugs at gunpoint. i feel that action should be taken accordingly, but not excessively. kill the gunpoint mugger, chase/beat down the pursesnatcher, if you will. not because of whats "right", but because its simply logical to kill the man who's threatening to do the same, and not kill the man who simply grabs shit and runs.

Originally posted by dadudemon
*yet more literal excrement, trolling, insults, reversal of blame, backpeddling, etc*


boy thats teriffic

*ignored*

Originally posted by Schecter
boy thats teriffic

*ignored*


Thank you. I appreciate that compliment!!!

mmm...that certainly is one that's open to abuse or on the face of it would appear to be.

what would stop anyone from killing someone and saying they felt physically threatened if there is no burden of proof of the threat?




calm down my friend...i'm not regarding your comments with suspicion at all...just saying i dont know if anyone who is repeatedly robbed by the same known person would ever consider that person to be harmless...and in the case of house robbery...it's rarely physical harm that is the problem...

but i do see your distinction between acting when in definite fear for your physical well being and when it is likely not the case...although most of the time people being irrational will come into play...and in a society where the mere pulling of a trigger or not means someone is dead or alive...a single moment of irrational behaviour can make someone kill an assailant....even if they were never under any danger or harm themselves



i think you and i have had our fair share of...shall we say...heated debate



true...i agree in principle...but like i said...fear and irrational thinking lead to the problem of using excessive force...the law proposal that this thread refers to is trying to redress the balance in favour of the person who is the victim of the robbery/attempted rape and even more so towards the people who may just decide to walk by and not intervene because as the law currently stands in the UK...its simply not worth helping someone cause chances are you'll end up in jail for your trouble

Originally posted by jaden101
mmm...that certainly is one that's open to abuse or on the face of it would appear to be.

what would stop anyone from killing someone and saying they felt physically threatened if there is no burden of proof of the threat?




calm down my friend...i'm not regarding your comments with suspicion at all...just saying i dont know if anyone who is repeatedly robbed by the same known person would ever consider that person to be harmless...and in the case of house robbery...it's rarely physical harm that is the problem...

but i do see your distinction between acting when in definite fear for your physical well being and when it is likely not the case...although most of the time people being irrational will come into play...and in a society where the mere pulling of a trigger or not means someone is dead or alive...a single moment of irrational behaviour can make someone kill an assailant....even if they were never under any danger or harm themselves



i think you and i have had our fair share of...shall we say...heated debate



true...i agree in principle...but like i said...fear and irrational thinking lead to the problem of using excessive force...the law proposal that this thread refers to is trying to redress the balance in favour of the person who is the victim of the robbery/attempted rape and even more so towards the people who may just decide to walk by and not intervene because as the law currently stands in the UK...its simply not worth helping someone cause chances are you'll end up in jail for your trouble


Very logical

Originally posted by jaden101
mmm...that certainly is one that's open to abuse or on the face of it would appear to be.

what would stop anyone from killing someone and saying they felt physically threatened if there is no burden of proof of the threat?

what would stop someone in the uk from beating the shit out of someone for no reason and lying about being insulted?
barring a confession or witnesses, unfortunately nothing.
surely then you can see this law being abused just like any other.


Originally posted by jaden101
calm down my friend...i'm not regarding your comments with suspicion at all...just saying i dont know if anyone who is repeatedly robbed by the same known person would ever consider that person to be harmless...and in the case of house robbery...it's rarely physical harm that is the problem...

but i do see your distinction between acting when in definite fear for your physical well being and when it is likely not the case...although most of the time people being irrational will come into play...and in a society where the mere pulling of a trigger or not means someone is dead or alive...a single moment of irrational behaviour can make someone kill an assailant....even if they were never under any danger or harm themselves

however courts of law already take these things into consideration. fear/passion/confusion/rage/etc can cause one to commit actions and use far more excessive force than they ever normally would, and judges will usually be lenient in such cases. what im arguing is that any such self-defence law should not render any excessive use of force pre-justified. so that anyone can just blow the pickpocket's brains out because they are legally justified. i feel that such a situation would lead to many wrongful deaths and simultainious moral decline, putting material posessions above human life as a priority.

there is a huge burden of proof for the use of the "self defence" defence in trials...and it is rarely succesful...in the UK anyway

which might be one of the basis for the change in the law

there is also little protection for people who come to someone elses defence which is proving an extremely big problem





absolutely...but as it stands...in the UK the pendulum is as far swung in the opposite of that as it can be....thanks to the same government who thinks its all doing us a favour by trying to rectify that