April 5, 20187 yr Author Until the last year or so crime had been falling for around 25 years. How can the UK approach be described as "softly softly" when we lock up more people per head of population than any other western democracy apart from the USA? Well, the *figures* have been falling, but we all know how reliable gov't figures are... :rolleyes: I note that you haven't tried to justify your "green card for murder" attitude. Because I haven't advocated any such thing!
April 5, 20187 yr Well, the *figures* have been falling, but we all know how reliable gov't figures are... :rolleyes: Because I haven't advocated any such thing! You seemed to think that, in the scenario I outlined, I would be perfectly justified in stabbing someone. If that isn't a green light to murder, I don't know what is. There's no point in me wasting my breath on your first comment.
April 5, 20187 yr Author You seemed to think that, in the scenario I outlined, I would be perfectly justified in stabbing someone. If that isn't a green light to murder, I don't know what is. Then you are right - you don't know what is. I thought the scenario was that someone was in your house uninvited, and unwilling to leave? There's no point in me wasting my breath on your first comment. Except that you just did, by saying you didn't. :heehee:
April 5, 20187 yr Then you are right - you don't know what is. I thought the scenario was that someone was in your house uninvited, and unwilling to leave? You've completely missed the point just for a change. My excuse for stabbing someone was pretty pathetic and uncorroborated. Yet you seemed to think it was sufficient excuse to kill someone. As John has already said, if the law reflected your wishes, that would positively encourage more people to carry weapons.
April 5, 20187 yr Author You've completely missed the point just for a change. My excuse for stabbing someone was pretty pathetic and uncorroborated. So you were playing devil's advocate, which I get told off for doing... Yet you seemed to think it was sufficient excuse to kill someone. As John has already said, if the law reflected your wishes, that would positively encourage more people to carry weapons. You were using a very unrealistic scenario, therefore that makes your argument a strawman.
April 5, 20187 yr So you were playing devil's advocate, which I get told off for doing... You were using a very unrealistic scenario, therefore that makes your argument a strawman. If someone breaks into my house tonight when I’m in bed, do you believe I should have the right to stab them to death without the police taking me in for questioning afterwards? Asking for the majority of the site.
April 5, 20187 yr How can you possibly believe that breaking into someone's house makes it completely OK to murder someone?! The two crimes are worlds apart, that's like an eye for a tooth more than an eye for an eye. This case seems like it was in self defense, but it's not always. You can't broadstroke what would happen in every situation like this.
April 5, 20187 yr Thinking it is ok to murder someone because they have decided they would rather like to acquire your flat screen TV is f***ing abhorrent. I don’t even know where to begin with that. This human is offering no threat to you. A TV can be replaced by home insurance. That’s the whole point of home insurance ffs! I can’t believe that you can equate a physical object with a human life. If you are attacked by an armed assailant that is a different ball game. Imminent threat to life, a kill or be killed, is a justifiable response but it’s certainly right that you are arrested and questioned appropriately under caution. It affords you rights and protections. The police can also refer you on to victim support and counselling programmes to support you, as taking a life is not as simple as buying a bag of sweets from Tesco. It f***s people up. Your causal attitude towards the life of other people is deeply disturbing. If someone is stealing from me they deserve punishment, but that’s not f***ing death.
April 5, 20187 yr Society is civilised - criminals are not! Wat. Laws are manmade and can be unmade. Breaking them does not determine the civility of a person. Look at the stupid anti-maj big business laws the big business Tory wannabe dictators love so much
April 5, 20187 yr Then we have something in common. I am alarmed - at how blasé people can be over crime. The softly softly approach has been tried for years and has utterly failed - that's why we need a get tough policy! http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/s...ime/Murder-rate 71st, comparable with Saudi Arabia and much much less than Iran, who are not exactly soft on crime. Funnily enough those with skyhigh murder rates all have guns freely available. Now I appreciate your views are an attempt to get that murder rate higher, and burglary rates lower - but the figures for burglary dont support the view that it works in those countries that allow lethal force.... So, you are talking right-wing reactionary crap. When were YOU last broken into? Beaten Up? Shot? Stabbed? Pickpocketed? I've been a victim of 3 of those crimes (hint: not stabbing and shooting) and I dont feel like I want anyone who did it to me to be brutally-stabbed, thanks all the same. I have perspective and you don't.
April 5, 20187 yr Our society is already messed up. Rehabilitation is the way to go, not continuous punishment.
April 6, 20187 yr Author If someone breaks into my house tonight when I’m in bed, do you believe I should have the right to stab them to death without the police taking me in for questioning afterwards? Asking for the majority of the site. I *never* said the police should not investigate, only that the definition of self-defense should be extended. How can you possibly believe that breaking into someone's house makes it completely OK to murder someone?! The two crimes are worlds apart, that's like an eye for a tooth more than an eye for an eye. But it wouldn't *be* murder if the definition of self-defence was extended. Thinking it is ok to murder someone because they have decided they would rather like to acquire your flat screen TV is f***ing abhorrent. I don’t even know where to begin with that. This human is offering no threat to you. A TV can be replaced by home insurance. That’s the whole point of home insurance ffs! I can’t believe that you can equate a physical object with a human life. On the contrary, its easy - you just have to consider the like of a criminal to be worth less than that of a law-abiding person. Your causal attitude towards the life of other people is deeply disturbing. If someone is stealing from me they deserve punishment, but that’s not f***ing death. My 'casual attitude' extends *only* to criminals, not to law-abiding people So, you are talking right-wing reactionary crap. I make no apologies for that (though I object to the term 'crap') - our current methods for dealing with crime aren't working, so why shouldn't we experiment with alternatives? Our society is already messed up. Rehabilitation is the way to go, not continuous punishment. But what do you do when rehabilitation doesn't work - which is frequently the case... Edited April 6, 20187 yr by vidcapper
April 6, 20187 yr Author Getting back on topic... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/ap...spected-burglar Intruder killed in pensioner's home was wanted over another burglary The Mail is much more revealing... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-55...lar-bailed.html The predator: 'Armed burglar', 37, 'stabbed to death by 78-year-old OAP' is from career criminal family who have conned frail pensioners out of HALF A MILLION pounds and he was previously jailed for 10 years Richard Osborn-Brooks fought with 'burglar' who broke into his London home armed with a screwdriver Suspected intruder died from a stab wound and the pensioner was arrested by police on suspicion of murder It has emerged the suspected burglar was wanted in connection with a raid on another elderly man's home Henry Vincent was part of a criminal family which was jailed for for more than 50 years for various incidents The new case has reignited the debate over the rights of homeowners to defend themselves against intruders Supporters of the pensioner have set up crowdfunding pages and flooded Twitter with supportive messages
April 6, 20187 yr I *never* said the police should not investigate, only that the definition of self-defense should be extended. But it wouldn't *be* murder if the definition of self-defence was extended. On the contrary, its easy - you just have to consider the like of a criminal to be worth less than that of a law-abiding person. My 'casual attitude' extends *only* to criminals, not to law-abiding people I make no apologies for that (though I object to the term 'crap') - our current methods for dealing with crime aren't working, so why shouldn't we experiment with alternatives? But what do you do when rehabilitation doesn't work - which is frequently the case... It's murder taking the law into your own hand by current definition. Hair-splitting because you want to encourage murder. Who made YOU God with the right to say who and who doesn't deserve to die? At what point does a "crime" become a crime. Someone stealing a bar of chocolate because they are starving from a shop under your definition is a criminal who deserves to die. Repulsive views. Figures prove harsher laws dont work. You are wrong in every way and just promote the idea because you have no capacity to see the wider picture. You just want extreme vengeance, not reducing the problem. How about seeing the death penalty permissible for people who break the law? - that includes getting cash in hand, going one mile over the speed limit, tax dodging, slagging someone off, and promoting hate-based crimes, keeping your kid out of school, not reporting a crime, walking out of a shop having received too much change and keeping quiet about it. Or sitting on their arse lying about not being able to work and illegally claiming state benefits.
April 6, 20187 yr Getting back on topic... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/ap...spected-burglar Intruder killed in pensioner's home was wanted over another burglary The Mail is much more revealing... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-55...lar-bailed.html The predator: 'Armed burglar', 37, 'stabbed to death by 78-year-old OAP' is from career criminal family who have conned frail pensioners out of HALF A MILLION pounds and he was previously jailed for 10 years Richard Osborn-Brooks fought with 'burglar' who broke into his London home armed with a screwdriver Suspected intruder died from a stab wound and the pensioner was arrested by police on suspicion of murder It has emerged the suspected burglar was wanted in connection with a raid on another elderly man's home Henry Vincent was part of a criminal family which was jailed for for more than 50 years for various incidents The new case has reignited the debate over the rights of homeowners to defend themselves against intruders Supporters of the pensioner have set up crowdfunding pages and flooded Twitter with supportive messages Don't care. If he was guilty of other crimes the problem is with the sentencing and follow-up checks, not with the law. If you can't pay to fund crime-prevention it's not a shock to see crime rates go up. Basic obvious facts. This is just an attempt to disguise the real problems.
April 6, 20187 yr Author It's murder taking the law into your own hand by current definition. Hair-splitting because you want to encourage murder. Who made YOU God with the right to say who and who doesn't deserve to die? At what point does a "crime" become a crime. Someone stealing a bar of chocolate because they are starving from a shop under your definition is a criminal who deserves to die. Repulsive views. Figures prove harsher laws dont work. You are wrong in every way and just promote the idea because you have no capacity to see the wider picture. You just want extreme vengeance, not reducing the problem. How about seeing the death penalty permissible for people who break the law? - that includes getting cash in hand, going one mile over the speed limit, tax dodging, slagging someone off, and promoting hate-based crimes, keeping your kid out of school, not reporting a crime, walking out of a shop having received too much change and keeping quiet about it. Or sitting on their arse lying about not being able to work and illegally claiming state benefits. 1. You make it sound like I'm advocating a 'wild-west' scenario - but I'm not advocating innocent members of the public be picked off like targets in a shooting gallery! 2. Strawman 3. IMO people who claim harsher punishment won't work are part of the problem - they are merely making excuses for criminals. 4. Could you possibly cram any more strawmen into one paragraph? :rolleyes: Edited April 6, 20187 yr by vidcapper
April 6, 20187 yr I *never* said the police should not investigate, only that the definition of self-defense should be extended. But it wouldn't *be* murder if the definition of self-defence was extended. That doesn’t answer the question though.
April 6, 20187 yr 1. You make it sound like I'm advocating a 'wild-west' scenario - but I'm not advocating innocent members of the public be picked off like targets in a shooting gallery! 2. Strawman 3. IMO people who claim harsher punishment won't work are part of the problem - they are merely making excuses for criminals. 4. Could you possibly cram any more strawmen into one paragraph? :rolleyes: It's not your fave non-comeback "strawman" to demonstrate in practise that your vague wild theories would be unpoliceable and would lead to vast injustice. You rarely think anything through, and consequences are of little concern to you. Even when it means innocent people would 100% definitely be murdered (note: NOT killed, they would be duped and murdered using the law as an excuse to get away with it) - see previous examples I gave. "Innocent" members of the public: but they are guilty of breaking the law in the examples I gave. How are you going to draw the line between someone walking through an open door to check on a neighbour who then shoots them or stabs them and claims they were stealing, and someone who nicks out of shop? You just use vague words and blanket terms. If you dont advocate a Wild West scenario then state exactly and clearly what you do mean and I will continue to give you examples of why it is a bad idea and will never become law. Every case will continue to be weighed up on the evidence and intent and there is no need to change anything. People who "claim" harsher punishment doesn't work aren't "claiming" anything. They are providing evidence that is a fact. People dont commit crimes expecting to get caught. They expect not to get caught. Now provide evidence that those countries with harsher sentences and full prisons or death penalties have less crime. If you can't then you are talking bullshit. I provided evidence for my opinion......
April 6, 20187 yr I *never* said the police should not investigate, only that the definition of self-defense should be extended. But it wouldn't *be* murder if the definition of self-defence was extended. On the contrary, its easy - you just have to consider the like of a criminal to be worth less than that of a law-abiding person. My 'casual attitude' extends *only* to criminals, not to law-abiding people I make no apologies for that (though I object to the term 'crap') - our current methods for dealing with crime aren't working, so why shouldn't we experiment with alternatives? But what do you do when rehabilitation doesn't work - which is frequently the case... Can you give an example from the last 15 years when of a murder conviction you consider wrong on grounds of self-defence? Yes, I have chosen 15 years deliberately to exclude the Tony Martin case from almost 20 years ago. If you can't think of an example from the last 15 years, that would suggest to me that the law is fine as it is.
April 6, 20187 yr Author Can you give an example from the last 15 years when of a murder conviction you consider wrong on grounds of self-defence? Yes, I have chosen 15 years deliberately to exclude the Tony Martin case from almost 20 years ago. If you can't think of an example from the last 15 years, that would suggest to me that the law is fine as it is. There's a difference between 'fine as it is' and 'popular with people who subscribe to the notion of a person's home being their castle', though. Its yet another of those laws that are on the statute books, but would be unlikely to receive a majority of popular support.
Create an account or sign in to comment