No Jail for have a go heroes

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.

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. 😐

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?

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

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?

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

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).

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!!!😄

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.

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?

and ffs, why must objectivity be instinctively met with suspision and baseless speculation?

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

thanks for not beating your chest and calling me a pussy like the e-chuck norris' in this thread

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

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.

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.

what would stop someone in the uk from beating the shit out of someone for no reason and lying about being insulted?

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

what im arguing is that any such self-defence law should not render any excessive use of force pre-justified.

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