Homeowner Munir Hussain jailed for attacking burglars who tied up family

Cold Fussion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
4,444
Location
A small island off the coast of New Zealand
Car(s)
1988 Ford Laser Ghia
Yup.

But you proposed that a corrupt or oppressive government could be voted out. How do you propose that that could happen after the Nazis took over in Germany?

Oh, and there were elections after they took over. November 1933. No other parties were allowed. How does "vote them out' work, again?

Nazi Germany and the Weimar republic are extreme examples of democracy gone wrong. The weimar republic saw many revolts in its years of operation and all of them were efficently delt with, so there is no reason to think why such a revolt would of worked anyway. You also have to consider the views of the time, its obvious now that Hitler was a crazed pyschopath, it wasn't obviouse to joe blogs of the german people, Hitler simply pandered to views of the people he was serving. Even if democracy had lasted until 1940, it is unlikely that the German people would of voted him out.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
So, now you're claiming that these are isolated examples? That it was a one time only affair, when citizens were deprived of their right to change their government? Is this correct?
 

Cold Fussion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
4,444
Location
A small island off the coast of New Zealand
Car(s)
1988 Ford Laser Ghia
So, now you're claiming that these are isolated examples? That it was a one time only affair, when citizens were deprived of their right to change their government? Is this correct?

I'm saying its an extreme example and i'm saying it wouldn't of made any difference if the government feared the german people because the people loved the government far too deeply.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I'm saying its an extreme example and i'm saying it wouldn't of made any difference if the government feared the german people because the people loved the government far too deeply.

So, such occurrences should be rare, then. No more than, say, one every 25 years or so?
 
Last edited:

Cold Fussion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
4,444
Location
A small island off the coast of New Zealand
Car(s)
1988 Ford Laser Ghia
So, such occurrences should be rare, then. No more than, say, every 25 years or so?

I'm saying its rare in the sense because i don't think its normal for a large percentage of the country to be wildly accepting of a supremely oppressive government. Im saying that in instances like these, the government fearing the people doesn't make much of the difference because if the people love the government like they did in nazi germany then they arent going to do anything to change it.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Actually, in cases like that, the fact that government fears the people (and specifically, the people's armaments and the potential that they would take it personally - i.e., apply high velocity lead to the persons responsible for the oppression) would moderate any potential oppression and make certain that any government thought several times before going down that path. The Germans eliminated that potential prior to the Nazi rise to power and this was possibly why they could conduct themselves to such excess.

If this is not the case, pray explain why just about every despotic regime that's gone down that same path since the turn of the century has thought that it was a good idea to register, then seize all forms of effective defense? Remember, Lenin once commented that, "One man with a gun can control one hundred without one" and proceeded to disarm the Russian people. Following that, no effective counter-revolution could be formed and when the Stalinist nightmares appeared, the people could easily be herded like sheep with no possible recourse, and without a government that feared the repercussions of too harsh a treatment of its people.


The right to keep and bear arms, which we've all been dancing around here, isn't just a defense against a despotic government, nor is it only about defending one's self from bandits. It is about both; the innate human right to defend one's self against all lawlessness, assault, tyranny or oppression, whether it be public or private.

Machiavelli, as underappreciated as he seems to be these days, made a point about this in Chapter 14 of The Prince, thus proving that some things never change.

Francesco Sforza, through being martial, from a private person became Duke of Milan; and the sons, through avoiding the hardships and troubles of arms, from dukes became private persons. For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised, and this is one of those ignominies against which a prince ought to guard himself, as is shown later on. Because there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed; and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be secure among armed servants.
 
Last edited:

Cold Fussion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
4,444
Location
A small island off the coast of New Zealand
Car(s)
1988 Ford Laser Ghia
I don't dispute that oppressive reigmes fear the people. I'm saying in the case on nazi germany it didn't make any difference. I don't really remember the original arguement without checking so please forgive me, I remember it as me saying fear of its own people shouldn't dictate a way a government acts.

I dont dislike the right to bare arms in America, infact i wish we had that right in Australia. I'm saying the primary purpose of you owning a firearm to rise up against your government if it turns oppressive.
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I don't dispute that oppressive reigmes fear the people. I'm saying in the case on nazi germany it didn't make any difference. I don't really remember the original arguement without checking so please forgive me, I remember it as me saying fear of its own people shouldn't dictate a way a government acts.

I dont dislike the right to bare arms in America, infact i wish we had that right in Australia. I'm saying the primary purpose of you owning a firearm to rise up against your government if it turns oppressive.

You said that fear should not be part of the equation, which seemed to imply that a government should not be in the position of fearing the people and that it wouldn't apply anyway. In Nazi Germany, it wouldn't have mattered as the guns were long gone before Hitler invaded Poland and really started putting the boot in on the Jews. If they had not been disarmed, the emptying of the ghettoes of Europe might have taken a totally different turn and the Warsaw Ghetto might not have been an exception to the unmitigated slaughter, but the rule. In a better world than ours, the Nazis might have looked at a heavily-armed Jewish population and decided that the cost of oppression might have been more than they were willing to swallow.

History shows that where there is armed resistance to government oppression, the toll gets high, nasty, and the people that make up said government quite often end up in jail, messily dead, or both. This makes governments think twice about screwing an armed populace - which is the point I was trying to make.


As for the second item, no, the primary purpose of my firearms collection is not to conduct armed rebellion against my government. That is a secondary purpose, should my government (heaven forbid) become so abusive of my rights that the use of arms becomes the only effective form of redress - as in the Battle Of Athens.

The primary purposes of my firearms collection are, if use is any indication of purpose, for sport, to punch holes in paper (and wood... and dysfunctional computers... and television sets... and dead home appliances...), and last but not least for self defense (to bring this back to the original purpose of this discussion thread). I remind you that I have been in a situation where I confronted a burglar/thief and he attempted to kill me. I'm still here, he's not, and the situation would have been reversed if I hadn't had a handgun on me at the time.

Now to make this clear - this thread really isn't about gun control, and I'm partially responsible for sidetracking it. Gun control is a peripheral issue here (important and related, but still peripheral); the real issue is that of the right to self-defense and how far it goes. In the UK, they pretty much do not recognize that right (as I can attest). Here in Texas, they do - right up to the point where it is legal to shoot a police officer who is exceeding his legal rights and attempting to unjustifiably kill someone.

Texas Penal Code, Section 9.31(c): The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

Section 9.32: DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force

My point here, and it has has been my intent to state this all along, is that I believe that there is a human right, above all else, to defend oneself and one's family against banditry, assault, theft, and simple lawlessness or tyranny from both public (i.e., government) and private (street thugs) sources. I find it a shame that the UK seems to recognize all sorts of other made-up 'rights' (such as the 'right' to free housing and a lavish lifestyle on the taxpayer's shilling) while denying this one. And, of course, claiming that the government has compensated for that denial with 'adequate' protection that clearly isn't.

I used to live in a place that had similar beliefs to the UK. I moved to Texas and am entirely happier.
 
Last edited:

AiR

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,985
Location
Suecia
Car(s)
Bulgogi Knedliky 1.6 GDI (Hyundai i30)
lol we're having a rep-battle
At least now the pictures (largely irrelevant to the topic) do not need two monitors to display so I see it made some impact.

And no I don't smoke :p

Of course the examples brought up are all about Nazi Germany which was an unfortunate development but one that also stopped being a democracy and is not representative of a normal goverment. Politicians should "fear" that they will be out of a job if they do poorly but they shouldnt fear getting shot by loonies with guns.

I used to live in a place that had similar beliefs to the UK. I moved to Texas and am entirely happier.
I'm sure the feeling is mutual. :p
I whole-heartedly support your little quest to make Texas a nation of it's own, it would be quite refreshing and amusing.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Heh, apparently we are. I hadn't noticed. :p

Anyway, I believe your neighbors in Norway seceded from you Swedes and they seem to be doing okay.

And no, most politicians should not necessarily fear being shot. Just those with like minds to the great tyrants of the past. :p For starters, most politicians are not worth the cost of a bullet. :p
 
Last edited:

freeferrarisdonotexist

I'm not stupid - I'm British!
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
1,143
Location
Somewhere in the South of England, UK.
Car(s)
Yamaha YBR125 (touring), FG 29er touring bike
The reason democracy is not always the correct way to deal with an overbearing or unjust government is because the government is made of people as well. Usually the same fringe nuts we see every day, whether that extreme is towards religion or a political or social ideal. It doesn't take too much for the circumstances to facilitate a despotic regime that can't be simply voted out, though thankfully the majority of us don't live in that type of government.
 

salle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
1,084
Location
Sweden
Anyway, I believe your neighbors in Norway seceded from you Swedes and they seem to be doing okay.

Not really the same situation, the union between Sweden and Norway was not similar to that of The United States of America. The king of Sweden was also king of Norway, and Sweden handled Norway's foreign politics but that was it, the norweigans governed themselves.

The reason democracy is not always the correct way to deal with an overbearing or unjust government is because the government is made of people as well. Usually the same fringe nuts we see every day, whether that extreme is towards religion or a political or social ideal. It doesn't take too much for the circumstances to facilitate a despotic regime that can't be simply voted out, though thankfully the majority of us don't live in that type of government.

Problem is when the majority of a democratic country thinks it's okay to abuse a minority. (Nazi germay, former Yogoslavia and Israel (not counting Aphertheid South Africa as the white people were a minority but never gave the black populace the right to vote.))
 
Last edited:

Cobol74

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
17,507
Location
The banana republic of Ukania
Car(s)
Honda Accord 2.2 i-Dtec Sport Estate.Hyundai Ix20
Lets just say if I were on the jury - no matter how so to for directed by the Judge - who in our system can virtually tell you which way to vote - (See Scott vs Thorpe) nothing in the world would make me vote Guilty - in my opinion you go stealing from someone's house you loose your rights; this is unless it was a set up job where the householder was themselves involved in some form of skulduggery.
 

kurthest

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
705
Location
Norway
Car(s)
2008 BMW 335i Coupe (e92)
The way I think, anyone who breaks into your home or car or whatever should instantly lose any legal rights whatsoever.
You should be free to defend yourself, your family and friends and your property with any means.

If you decide to rob someone, you are a piece of trash and the law should make it clear that you should be treated as such.

Too bad I live in a country where the criminals get better treatment than the victims :(
 

marcos_eirik

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
3,734
Location
Oslo, Norway
Car(s)
Mostly my feet, occasionally a Tesla
The way I think, anyone who breaks into your home or car or whatever should instantly lose any legal rights whatsoever.
You should be free to defend yourself, your family and friends and your property with any means.

If you decide to rob someone, you are a piece of trash and the law should make it clear that you should be treated as such.

Too bad I live in a country where the criminals get better treatment than the victims :(
If you take a course in law, more speciufically criminal law (strafferett) and you'll see how wrong you are. Have a good read of the article below in the Norwegian Criminal law from 1902. (Hint: It's giving you the right to self defense, not only of yourself and others, but also your (and other's) property)

? 48. Ingen kan straffes for Handling, som han har foretaget i N?dverge.

Det er N?dverge, naar en ellers strafbar Handling foretages til Afvergelse af eller Forsvar mod et retsstridigt Angreb, saafremt Handlingen ikke overskrider, hvad der fremstillede sig som forn?dent hertil, og det i Betragtning af Angrebets Farlighed, Angriberens Skyld eller det angrebne Retsgode ei heller maa agtes ubetinget utilb?rligt at tilf?ie et saa stort Onde som ved Handlingen tilsigtet.

Hvad ovenfor er bestemt om Afvergelse af retsstridigt Angreb, kommer ogsaa til Anvendelse med Hensyn til Handlinger, der foretages i Hensigt at iverks?tte en lovlig Paagribelse eller hindre, at Straf- eller Varet?gtsfanger r?mmer.

Har nogen overskredet Gr?nserne for N?dverge, er han dog straffri, hvis Overskridelsen alene har fundet Sted paa Grund af en ved Angrebet fremkaldt Sindsbev?gelse eller Bestyrtelse.

That was from the old one, which is still in force, the new one, which is not yet in force is cited below:

? 18. N?dverge

En handling som ellers ville v?re straffbar, er lovlig n?r den

a) blir foretatt for ? avverge et ulovlig angrep,
b) ikke g?r lenger enn n?dvendig, og
c) ikke g?r ?penbart ut over hva som er forsvarlig under hensyn til hvor farlig angrepet er, hva slags interesse som angrepet krenker, og angriperens skyld.

Regelen i f?rste ledd gjelder tilsvarende for den som iverksetter en lovlig p?gripelse eller s?ker ? hindre at noen unndrar seg varetektsfengsling eller gjennomf?ring av frihetsstraff.

Ut?ving av offentlig myndighet kan bare m?tes med n?dverge n?r myndighetsut?vingen er ulovlig, og den som gjennomf?rer den, opptrer forsettlig eller grovt uaktsomt.

Ikke i kraft, men gjelder for forbrytelsene i kapittel 16, se ? 411.

? 19. Selvtekt

En handling som ellers ville v?re straffbar, er lovlig n?r den som har retten, handler for ? gjenopprette en ulovlig endret tilstand, og det ville v?re urimelig ? m?tte vente p? myndighetenes bistand. Makt mot en person kan bare brukes n?r rettskrenkelsen er ?penbar, og m? ikke g? lenger enn forsvarlig.

Ikke i kraft, men gjelder for forbrytelsene i kapittel 16, se ? 411.
 

Cucciolotto

Active Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
142
? 48. Ingen kan straffes for Handling, som han har foretaget i N?dverge. BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA in a language foreign to me.



That was from the old one, which is still in force, the new one, which is not yet in force is cited below:


? 18. N?dverge BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA in that very same language.

Ok ok, now that you mention it, that's much clearer now! :p :lol:
 

kurthest

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
705
Location
Norway
Car(s)
2008 BMW 335i Coupe (e92)
If you take a course in law, more speciufically criminal law (strafferett) and you'll see how wrong you are. Have a good read of the article below in the Norwegian Criminal law from 1902. (Hint: It's giving you the right to self defense, not only of yourself and others, but also your (and other's) property)

That was from the old one, which is still in force, the new one, which is not yet in force is cited below:

Are you serious?
Did you even read what I wrote?
Yes, of course you have the right to self defense.
Thats not what I was talking about.

I'm saying that if someone breaks into your house, you should be allowed to seperate his head from his shoulder with a showel, if you so choose.
The criminal should lose any legal right whatsoever, and you should not be liable for whatever happens to said criminal.
If you catch some punk breaking into your car, you should be allowed to shoot his face off.
 

marcos_eirik

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
3,734
Location
Oslo, Norway
Car(s)
Mostly my feet, occasionally a Tesla
I'm saying that if someone breaks into your house, you should be allowed to seperate his head from his shoulder with a showel, if you so choose.
The criminal should lose any legal right whatsoever, and you should not be liable for whatever happens to said criminal.
If you catch some punk breaking into your car, you should be allowed to shoot his face off.
If that's the kind of justice system you're fancying, you (fortunately ;)) won't find that in any cvilized country.
Ok ok, now that you mention it, that's much clearer now! :p :lol:
It was an answer in Norwegian to a Norwegian forum member... :p
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AiR

salle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
1,084
Location
Sweden
Are you serious?
Did you even read what I wrote?
Yes, of course you have the right to self defense.
Thats not what I was talking about.

I'm saying that if someone breaks into your house, you should be allowed to seperate his head from his shoulder with a showel, if you so choose.
The criminal should lose any legal right whatsoever, and you should not be liable for whatever happens to said criminal.
If you catch some punk breaking into your car, you should be allowed to shoot his face off.

So there is NO situation where it's more justifiable to breaking into someone's house?

Like being lost in country roads, the petrol almost running out and you find a house but there's no one home, do you try and drive on or is it ok to break in to use their phone?

This is a pretty mild reason it could be to seek shelter from the weather. It could be to get away from an attacker.
To this then set an unconditional rule that you're never allowed to break in makes the law too black and white, which doesn't work in our murky grey world where nothing is as clear cut as media sometimes would like make it out to be.
 

kurthest

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
705
Location
Norway
Car(s)
2008 BMW 335i Coupe (e92)
So there is NO situation where it's more justifiable to breaking into someone's house?

Like being lost in country roads, the petrol almost running out and you find a house but there's no one home, do you try and drive on or is it ok to break in to use their phone?
Nope. There's never a good enough reason for someone to _break in_.
In your scenario, anyone could claim they where lost and only wanted to use the phone if they get caught.
This is a pretty mild reason it could be to seek shelter from the weather. It could be to get away from an attacker.
To this then set an unconditional rule that you're never allowed to break in makes the law too black and white, which doesn't work in our murky grey world where nothing is as clear cut as media sometimes would like make it out to be.
It should be black and white. Respect other peoples property!
 
Top