Popeye P1

'Also a 2 year degree in this country is very unusual indeed, particulaly in Criminology.'

When did i say i did a 2 year course Hotshot? Read before you quote please. Actually it was 3 years so guess that makes me more qualified than you. LOL.

'Without any idea what this guys going to do, you take a swing and happen to kill him? Murder touch to proove but you'd be alomst certainly convicted fo manslaughter. Although the judge can decide the sentence for manslaughter you would almost certainly face a long sentence.'

FFS he is in you're house. I suppose you'd just do nothing and let them have all you're possessions. Sry i forgot you'd consult you're law books first wouldn't you.

'bros2 and u last two guys - people from the real world; finally!'

If you read other threads on this matter i think you are in the clear minority old chappy. Now get studying.

p.s
'Shark

A question.

If tonight I hear someone breaking in and then hear them coming up the stairs what do I do?'

Answer it please Mr Hotshot.





[Edited by Popeye P1 - 19/06/2003 21:55:47]

[Edited by Popeye P1 - 19/06/2003 21:58:20]

turboman786

Popeye, as you no doubt are aware the law allows for 'reasonable' actionss in self defence, reasonable being defined by the proportionality f your actions in response to the threat faced.

So if this dude is in your house and he has a gun..or something you think resembles a gun...it would be reasonable for you to shoot him dead.......

But I guess Im not telling you anything you dont know...over to our legal boffin shark now...

wrxstiman

'the law allows for 'reasonable' actions in self defence, reasonable being defined by the proportionality of your actions in response to the threat faced.'

And how many ppl think in that clinical way. A stranger is in your house. When he hits you do you think...right i must hit him back but not too hard that it might exceed proportionality.

I'll say it again. B*llocks do you. If he hits you you hit him as hard back as you possibly can with your fist or any object that is nearby.

The law is an *** on this one.

bros2

[Edited by bros2 - 7/2/2003 1:53:10 PM]

Popeye P1

'I know how to shoot, and understand and have used guns to a reasonable degree. I know just how dangerous they are, which is why rules on ranges are so strict. '

So do I old chappy. Don't patronise us please with you're guide to using an Air Pistol. LOL

'Anyone who has a gun in their house in the UK has to have amazingly good security nowadays; the thought that you'd see a burglar, toddle off to the cellar, get a gun out of the strongbox, load it, then go after the burglar is laughable.'

Tell that to a Farmer who lives in an isolated dwelling. The gun is kept as self-protection thats all. What happened to Tony Martin was a one off incident. Don't make out everyone to be a vigilante hellbent on pikey justice.


End of the day bros2 the argument was never about having a gun in you're house etc. IT WAS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF IF A BURGLAR IS IN YOU'RE HOUSE.

wrxstiman

The argument is about the law being stacked in favour of the criminal.

You must wait and cannot take him out until he tries to severely harm or possibly kill you. Only then can you defend yourself properly. Up until then you must use reasonable force.

You cannot possibly know his intention in your house so you must wait till he has a knife to your throat.

Seems a mad kind of situation. You have to wait till he strikes first and only then can you strike back. But if youre dead then......

CarpetCleaner

Shark do you ********** regularly

wrxstiman

why paedophiles are let off with the likes of oxford boy finding legal loopholes

CarpetCleaner

at the end of the day if you 'cross the line' you've gotta face the consequences

bros2

[Edited by bros2 - 7/2/2003 1:53:31 PM]

Popeye P1

'Air pistol? Riiight. I learned to shoot with a .303, then the SLR. Also used the Browning 9mm and the Sterling SMG. And you?'

Grew up in the styxx old chappy on a diet of grouse and pheasant old chappy. I've shot most things in the UK(T.A etc) so you're little arsenal doesn't impress me. LOL.

'As for whether farmers in isolated buildings keep guns for self protection? I’ve never known one to. Pest control, sure.'

You're obviously not a country hillbilly. Prob the nearest place you been to a cow is on a plate.

'You may not believe it but the courts are not peopled by stupid people. Having served on a jury I'd have to say that most people are really keen to do the right thing, and are anything but soft on criminals.'

you'd be a fav for the Pikey liberal rights Bros2.




[Edited by Popeye P1 - 20/06/2003 16:18:16]

bros2

Popeye

Sorry, is this a pissing contest? I stated that I knew about the dangers of guns. For some reason you thought I'd only fired air pistols, so I pointed out that I'm qualified to comment on quite a lot of proper guns.

And you're still trying to prove a point by saying that you've been in the TA? OK, I admit it, you've fired more guns than me, and probably are the deadliest marksman in the entire world. Hell, you were probably born with gun in each hand. I bow to your superior abilities; you are the daddy of guns.

But the point I was making was that guns are dangerous, and that more people will get injured or killed through domestics and accidents than lives will ever be saved through the (very rare) occasions when a potentially murderous burglar is disarmed or deterred by the thought that a homeowner might have a gun.

Feel free to carry on the insults; I'll carry on with arguing the point at hand.


bros


PS Oh, and what on earth does "you'd be a fav for the Pikey liberal rights Bros2" mean? Clearly it's an insult, I'm just not sure precisely which dreadful left-wing crime I'm being accused of this time.

Popeye P1

'And you're still trying to prove a point by saying that you've been in the TA? OK, I admit it, you've fired more guns than me, and probably are the deadliest marksman in the entire world. Hell, you were probably born with gun in each hand. I bow to your superior abilities; you are the daddy of guns.'

I thought you started lecturing us on the misuse of guns telling us how qualified you were with weopons? BTW the air pistols was a sarcastic comment.

'lives will ever be saved through the (very rare) occasions when a potentially murderous burglar is disarmed or deterred by the thought that a homeowner might have a gun.'

But couldn't you argue the other way? If a burglar thought that a homeowner is allowed to deter any break-in it might make the Pikey think twice before committing a crime. Sorry but I have no sympathy for anyone who decides to burgle someones property-NONE WATSOEVER.





[Edited by Popeye P1 - 20/06/2003 17:27:36]

bros2

Really, the air pistol thing was sarcastic? Noooo, I never realised.

I said I was qualified to talk about how dangerous weapons are. Well, having fired a shedload of live rounds and having had instructors constantly drill us on safety and STILL see people point a live weapon the wrong way, I know how seriously the professionals take it.

Do you really think the average bod at home with a gun would exercise the same standard of care? I'd venture not, particularly if they're the sort of person who thinks they need a gun for their own protection.

Have a good weekend

bros

bros2

Popeye

Just seen your edit.

Yes, of course you could argue that arming everyone would mean that burglars would know what they face if they choose to rob you. As I've said though, surely the risks of an accidental discharge or a family row getting out of hand are much greater than the possibility that you'll deter a burglar.

Seriously, kids get everywhere in houses, so unless I was absolutely convinced that there was no chance that my kids could never ever get their hands on the weaopons, I just wouldn't have them in the house.

bros

wrxstiman

i ********** regularly

Billbill

I don't understand the unreasonable fear of firearms, unless you are unarmed and facing a muzzle.
Contrary to "popular" opinion, the earlier quote of people injured by firearms, in the US, was one taken from traffic injuries and not firearms injuries.
And firearm deaths, outside of police caused, are very small numbers.
Our felons, in the US, get double the time for the crime, if a firearm is involved. The problem is in the disarming of the criminal element.
But then the liberals of GB understand this, their felons are all non firearm carrying types.
It is good that our respective criminal types are so cooperative.

Billbill

I have owned literally thousands of firearms.
And have NEVER shot anyone that didn't deserve it!
Whether it was in combat or civilian life.
The anti-firearm crowd inflate the negative firearm numbers to please their agenda.
They don't bother to report on how many potential crimes have been negated by the intended victim who was armed.

There is a saying, from the "Old West" days:
God created man and Samuel Colt made them equal!

This attitude still applies in modern society.
While there are violent criminals that HAVE to be stopped, why shouldn't the 98 pound lady be allowed to defend herself from the 250pound potential rapist or burglar?????

Mace, teargas, pepper spray, baseball bat?
All of these prove inefective to the determined criminal.
But the properly launched, guided lead missle, settles the arguement.

Leslie

Bros

What would you suggest when you confronted with a villain with a knife or a gun as is happening more and more these days. The trouble is, these sort of people are prepared to use even terminal violence to get what they want. If you are elderly, or disabled you can expect to at the least to be tied up and after the bloke has filched your property he is likely to beat you up anyway just for the hell of it. This is happening more frequently these days. Ask yourself why it is that having broken in and burgled your house, the evil fellows will then trash your house, defecating on the carpets and leaving graffiti all over the walls as well as destroying everything in sight. Can you honestly say that people like that deserve any kind of consideration after the event.

With the ever increasing danger of attack by such people, the law abiding person deserves real protection. The police seem incapable of providing this any more. A call out in emergency takes too long if you ever got the chance to make one. Two policemen touring a vast area of the country at night in a panda because everyone else has gone home and closed the police station for the night are not much good are they?

How do you feel about the elderly lady who was forbidden by the Council to put barbed wire around her windows after many attacks in case it injured a burglar. I'd like to hear your views on that!

If the authorities cannot provide meaningful protection from these examples of "low life" then you cannot blame people from seeking to protect themselves any way they can.

Les [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

wrxstiman

Amen Leslie

Seems to me there is a strand of society (Bros 2 is one of them) that loves to take the side of the criminal and argue it from his viewpoint.

The victim becomes the criminal and the criminal becomes the victim (i.e Tony Martin and Fearon).

I for one am sick to death of this nonsense infecting our society. The 'seeing the good in everyone' approach. Everyone forgets the grief they cause to innocents.

If you had been burgled 30+ times with the constant fear of violence against you then how the hell can ppl argue against what Martin did?

If ppl cant see that then there is no hope for them. Wait till it happens to there grandad and lets see how liberal they are then.

Hell let out all the child molesters since they are all capable of reform and England will be a far better place!

Billbill

wrxstiman I know you're not serious.
I am firmly on your side with this.
Even tho I'm a Yank!

bros2

[Edited by bros2 - 7/2/2003 1:53:59 PM]

Billbill

bros2, your testament reads as though it was lifted from American circumstances.
I agree with you regarding the "current crop" and the possibility of educating the next.
In my experience, education begins at home on the morality level.
Without a supportive family to give guidance with good life experiences, the potential offender has to find out by trial and error.
First time offenders are the ones with the highest probability of rehabilitation.
BUT!!! If they are initially incarcerated with multiple offenders they find these types to be a peer group.
It takes a strong will, on the part of the first offender, to NOT be influenced by their peers.

It seems, as we get older, we DO know the answer to the problem. How do we communicate the solution to the individual in need?
What department or social structure is capable of properly handling this?

With a lack of life experiences, the youthfull offender is influenced by his/her environment. The most impressionable will be led! Where do we acquire leaders capable of the task?

Where do we begin with the morality issue?

Who decides WHAT is to be taught?

The Ten Commandments were a good beginning.
In the US of A, ironically, they are in conflict with the Church and State issue.

It seems that Religion and Politics are to be avoided in all non confrontational discussions.
There was a time when each was influenced by the other. Now they are at odds.

I'm too old to become an advocate on any issue. The generations to come will have to deal with the problems. And it seems that their ultimate solution (over here) is to build more and more facilities to incarcerate!

IMHO we have all become reactive instead of proactive.

Leslie

Bros

As far as giving the elderly weapons to protect themselves, that is a difficult problem although you could ask Billbill how he does it.

The point is I think, this country is becoming more and more lawless, due probably to the lowering of standards to our present poor levels. The reasons are quite varied I imagine. In the middle of the 20th Century people in general respected and understood the need for authority at reasonable and fair levels. Parents were mostly married, they had made the full commitment to family life and even though people strayed at times, they would tend to stick together for the sake of their children. They accepted that the priority was to bring their children up to the best of their abilities. Children accepted the authority of their parents, teachers,policemen and the law of the land. They were likely to get punished by their parents if they stepped out of line, but they loved their parents nevertheless. They were, in the main, polite and were also capable of finding their own entertainment and did not need to be spoon fed in that respect. They did not traipse around the streets looking for the chance to rob people or to vandalise other people's property.

What is the picture now? We have large numbers of single parent families where the parent is forced to work. The traditional family is disappearing fast. The parent cannot supervise the children and they become "latch key" children with no real guidance. The lack of influence from the second parent which is desperately needed by a child is gone. The general attitude to life which a child learns is ingrained as it grows up and almost impossible to eradicate. This happens across all classes, People are becoming too selfish to commit to a relationship but still want to have a baby to bring up,often because it is fashionable! The child is likely to be effectively brought up by a nanny.
Children who grow up like this will all too easily go wrong and become criminals. Add to this the easy availability of drugs etc and the need for young people to get enormous sums of money to feed the habit. There are also dysfunctional families where the children are allowed to do what they want with no parental supervision whatsoever at all times of the day or night. All this stems from the way children were brought up in the latter part of the last Century and the next generation will only be worse.

You try to absolve our present leaders from blame for this. They have had 6 years so far to do something is this direction and things have only got significantly worse! In fact their so called "modernisation" has only served to lower standards from their earlier level. I think that the Thatcherite policies of "profits being good" led to the greed which is demonstrated today from the top down. Money is God now and this government is no different in that respect. There is rarely such thing as a fair profit any more-just as much as you can con out of people. This government has abolished marriage tax allowance thus encouraging the break up of the properly committed family. Proper policing is impossible due to the control freakery which engenders hours of paperwork and no time to do the job as it should be. Drug use is becoming easier and is almost encouraged by changes in the law. Difficult to imagine children being addicted at single figure age, but it is happening!

The real worry is that this country is descending into anarchy, and this is being ignored by the government. I feel strongly that this needs to be addressed now and that positive efforts should be made to protect law abiding people from terror without hammering them for defending themselves. As soon as a villain attempts a break in he should be considered to have demonstrated intent of probable attack and thus his rights should be terminated at that point.

Les

bros2

[Edited by bros2 - 7/2/2003 1:54:20 PM]

Billbill

Bros?
Regarding your last paragraph.
Don't advertise your non firearms attitude and your address in the same breath.
The anti-gun crowd found this out a few years ago.
Several of those who professed to not own firearms were burgled.
One was turned into a liar when he confronted a home invader with a handgun. This individual lost all status with the anti-gun crowd.
Where I live you can get a "concealed carry" permit from the local sheriff's department. How you use the concealed weapon is a matter of law.

Popeye P1

'I agree with a large amount of what you say, other than the final paragrapgh'

Every time someone mentions a criminal having NO RIGHTS when he breaks into someone's property, Bros2 you seem to be on their side.

'As to whether a criminal should lose all rights when they enter your property: well, maybe,'

This is why our country's crime problem is in a mess. The twerps in government are too dam soft and SYMPATHISE with the persistent offender rather than INCARCERATE PERMANENTLY!

And why BROS2 do you always bring up GUNS all the time? obsessed or wat?

[Edited by Popeye P1 - 6/24/2003 12:00:28 AM]

Billbill

Hehehe Popeye,
I think I am the one obsessed with guns and Bros is responding to me.
That's fine as I am from a totally different culture.
Or maybe it's my "mind set" !!

bros2

[Edited by bros2 - 7/2/2003 1:54:37 PM]

Billbill

An intruder with the obvious intent to do bodily harm, when discovered, deserves what he/she gets!
Jury of six can convict as well as a jury of twelve.
It only requires one of the six to make a point!