The Stig Was Arrested!

martineb72 said:
In fact the amount of crime in the US is lower than in the UK. True murder rate is higher, but if you stayed out of the really bad parts of town then the murder rate is only fractionly more than in the UK.

The polite way of saying that if you're not Black, not a drug dealer, and not in a ghetto, then your chances of getting killed are miniscule and I would dare say right in line with European numbers.


Shooting someone in your home isn't lynching, it is defending yourself.

I really do not understnad this European "let them kill you in your house because that is just what you should do" mentality comes from. In most of the US, there is a provision in the law that requires you to flee/be able to flee before killing in self-defense. The idea (and a damned sane one I might add) is that once in your home, there is no place to retreat to. The home is the very last stand and rightfully, one can defend themselves in their castle by any and all means necessary.


fbc, why do you have a victim statistic fetish? I ask because I fully answered your questions above and yet you still want to die. :thumbsdown:
 
I really do not understnad this European "let them kill you in your house because that is just what you should do" mentality comes from. In most of the US, there is a provision in the law that requires you to flee/be able to flee before killing in self-defense. The idea (and a damned sane one I might add) is that once in your home, there is no place to retreat to. The home is the very last stand and rightfully, one can defend themselves in their castle by any and all means necessary.


fbc, why do you have a victim statistic fetish? I ask because I fully answered your questions above and yet you still want to die. :thumbsdown:

"but theyre invading the castle sire, shouldnt we get the arrows and boiling tar out?"

"no no no no, we dont know what they're here for. Just get out the clubs and wait in the closet"
 
fbc said:
martineb72 said:
peter3hg2 said:
And so on and so on.
Shooting someone who is, for example, robbing your house is no better than lynching. You are removing the judge and jury and making the decision about someone elses life on your own.
To me that is totally wrong and you should be put in prison for killing a burglar.
Just my opinion.

Shooting someone in your home isn't lynching, it is defending yourself. You don't generally have the luxury of waiting around to find out what the intruder plans to do. If they came to kill or rape, it is your right and duty to protect yourself. And don't think it requires an intruder to have a gun to come kill or rape someone, it could be carried out just as easily with a kitchen knife.

Martin

Do you honestly believe it's okay to kill someone just because they've broken into your house and may in fact no pose a threat to you at all? You can use reasonable force to defend yourself, shooting someone dead because they've got your VCR in their hands isn't reasonable. If however they're coming at you with a weapon that's a different matter.

You said it yourself:

martineb72 said:
If they came to kill or rape, it is your right and duty to protect yourself

But...

martineb72 said:
You don't generally have the luxury of waiting around to find out what the intruder plans to do

So if you don't have the luxury of waiting to find out what their intentions are, what you supposed to do? Shoot them and hope your assumption was correct and that you haven't just shot dead some guy who wanted your tv? And if they were just after your tv, do you believe you should be punished for your actions? I mean after all, the intruder wasn't there to kill or rape, so there goes your "right and duty to protect yourself". And in a blink of an eye, you've ruined two lives.

As for killing someone as easily with a knife or a blunt object - no, it's much much easier and quicker to kill someone with a gun, which is part of the problem. With a gun you have much less of a chance to think about your actions.
Even though I understand what you're saying and respect your opinion on this, I don't agree completely.

Let me explain with a hypothetical scenario:
Let's take B. a burglar and Mr X.
B. decides to break into Mr X' house and steal, let's say his TV.
As a human being B. should realise that what he's about to do is 1)illegal, 2)immoral, 3)just plain wrong. No matter what, there is no justification for breaking into someone's house and taking their property.
So, here we are. B. is inside Mr X's house, he hears a noise and goes to check it out. Mr X, being the owner of some sort of gun/rifle, arms himself with it as he goes downstairs.
Mr X sees B. and takes upon himself the right to defend himself and fires.
Mr X did not intend to mortally wound B, however B dies shortly after the police arrives.

Was it wrong of B. to break into Mr X's house and steal his stuff? Yes.
Did he deserve to be punished for it? Yes.
Did he deserve to die for it? No.
However, the circumstances created by B. himself did lead to his unfortunate fate.
Was it wrong of Mr X to kill B? Yes.
Was it wrong of Mr X to shoot B? (thus defending himself) No.
Would Mr X have killed, or even shot at, B. if B. had not taken it upon himself to break into Mr X's house? No.
Should Mr X therefore be punished for the act of killing B? No.

Allthough the death of B. is unfortunate, he did kind of bring it upon himself. He forced Mr X into a situation which lead to his own demise.
It would not be fair to punish Mr X, simply because Mr X had nothing to do with creating the situation, this was entirely done by B.

See where I'm going with this?
Should people be allowed to shoot at anything that moves? Of course not.
But should people be punished because they shot a burglar? I don't think so.
 
ishigakisensei said:
I really do not understnad this European "let them kill you in your house because that is just what you should do" mentality comes from. In most of the US, there is a provision in the law that requires you to flee/be able to flee before killing in self-defense. The idea (and a damned sane one I might add) is that once in your home, there is no place to retreat to. The home is the very last stand and rightfully, one can defend themselves in their castle by any and all means necessary.


fbc, why do you have a victim statistic fetish? I ask because I fully answered your questions above and yet you still want to die. :thumbsdown:

The key phrase here is 'self-defence'. Someone stealing your tv does not represent a threat to you - it is not okay to shoot someone in that instance. If however they're attacking you or others, that's a different matter.

Now it's entirely understandable to feel threatened when there's a burglar in the house, and feel a need to take action, but then we get into 'reasonable force'. Firing a gun at someone you feel threatened by when you don't know a) if they're armed, and b) they're going to attack you is not using reasonable force.

Granted, when you wake up and find someone in your house you don't know their intentions, but that doesn't make it okay to leap to the worst-case scenario, pull the gun out, and fire off some shots at the intruder.

DaHitch - In that scenario yes, the burglar has contributed to the outcome, but that doesn't justify it. Again, it's a question of reasonable force - see above.
 
Thats why we have these http://img156.imageshack.**/img156/2779/notrespassingofferedshotdc6.gif
edit (from rightwingnews.com
British Bizarro World: Today, we're going to learn about "Topsy Turvy land", otherwise known as Britain! In this strange and fantastic realm, the justice system works to protect the criminals while the people the crooks are trying to victimize go to jail. Just take the case of one Tony Martin...

"Tony Martin, the farmer jailed for shooting dead a teenage burglar, had his application for parole rejected yesterday.

...Mr Starr, a Cambridgeshire businessman, said Martin told him a Probation Service report to the board criticised the farmer for "not being up to speed with the 21st century and of thinking things were better 40 years ago".

Mr Starr added: "A lot of prisoners lie and say they are sorry about something when they are not. He was not prepared to lie. It is not a question of 'does he feel sorry'. He feels he should never have been intruded on and he acted in self defence."

Richard Portham, another friend, said: "He told me that the Norfolk probation service was recommending that he should not get parole because they considered him a danger to burglars."

"I suppose the attitude came across in this report that he would do it again."

That's right folks! In "Topsy Turvy Land," shooting burglars is illegal and they even keep people who defend their homes in jail because they might be a "danger to burglars." Even the police are in on the act as you can see from this article in the Daily Telegraph...

"Police have been ordered not to bother investigating crimes such as burglary, vandalism and assaults unless evidence pointing to the culprits is easily available, The Telegraph can reveal.

Under new guidelines, officers have been informed that only "serious" crimes, such as murder, rape or so-called hate crimes, should be investigated as a matter of course."

Yes folks, for all intents and purposes, in "Topsy Turvy Land" your home isn't a castle, it's an open market with fantastic prices (all you can carry for free)!
 
Your problem with Tony Martin is the burglar was running away when he was shot, which your article neglects to say. If someone is running away then shooting them can never be justified in ANY circumstances.
 
yes, the burglar was running away when he was shot, so he was not a risk to tony martins life, thats why he got that punishment.
 
The use of force may be excessive in the case of a burglary, but if you have handled weapons before for any period of time, you are trained to not just go squeezing off the trigger as soon as you see a target. If you are certain there's a burglar in the house, I think it's fair to give a warning (either verbally or with blanks) and give them an opportunity to realize they made a bad decision, and leave. If they don't heed the the warning, they have intentions beside those of merely stealing your stuff, and if they start moving toward your location, they are likely to attack you in some fashion (my guess is these particular people would be the stupid ones).

I agree with the trespassers will be shot sign, that should be fair enough warning that if you are in my house uninvited, there will be consequences, unfortunately signs like those don't really work with a townhouse :p.
 
Your problem with Tony Martin is the burglar was running away when he was shot, which your article neglects to say. If someone is running away then shooting them can never be justified in ANY circumstances.

thats fault on my part for not looking into that, thx fer the insight :)

So what happens then, if someone is running away with your stuff?
 
fbc said:
The key phrase here is 'self-defence'. Someone stealing your tv does not represent a threat to you - it is not okay to shoot someone in that instance. If however they're attacking you or others, that's a different matter.

Again with the victim fetish. I am under no obligation to wait to be attacked. What you are presenting are mythical hypothetical not found in reality. In a dark house late at night someone break into a house - you can rest assured it's not the Prize Patrol from Publisher's Clearing House. Once spotted, if the burgler makes ANY threatening move than I have every right to shoot him - see, a RIGHT to shoot.

You obviously have never seen police training videos on just how fast an assailant can move against you. We're not a buch on Bush-like cowboy wannabes in the US. There are laws that dictate what one can and cannot do. Thankfully, we allow homeowners the ability to do what is necessary to protect themselves and their family - again, a damned sane idea.

Now it's entirely understandable to feel threatened when there's a burglar in the house, and feel a need to take action, but then we get into 'reasonable force'. Firing a gun at someone you feel threatened by when you don't know a) if they're armed, and b) they're going to attack you is not using reasonable force.

On the contrary. It is quite reasonable when a perp is in your house. Again, there is no place to retreat to. What you advocate is servile stupidity that gives rights and the benefit of the doubt to parasites. You've obviously never been in the military no have a clue about how to defend yourself. I pity those who rely on you for protection because they have nothing.

Granted, when you wake up and find someone in your house you don't know their intentions, but that doesn't make it okay to leap to the worst-case scenario, pull the gun out, and fire off some shots at the intruder.

Them being in my house makes it OK. Criminals know this and this is why no sane person ever thinks the perp will be there for anything less than murder. You come in my house against my will and I have every right to kill you. You'd know this so don't come in my house. The logic is quite sound.

DaHitch - In that scenario yes, the burglar has contributed to the outcome, but that doesn't justify it. Again, it's a question of reasonable force - see above.

Since you are not a reasonable male, you are not in a position to declare what is and is not reasonable. You don't know squat about what perps can do. Cops with guns have been killed by perps with knives at distances of 20feet. Trained professionals mind you. So just what chance would a naive pascifist like youself fare?

This is life and death here and I for one could sleep quite soundly after shooting an attacker despite your empty self-rightousness.

wooflepoof said:
So what happens then, if someone is running away with your stuff?

Shoot'em in the leg! :thumbsup: Seriouly though, you cannot shoot someone in the back without a really damn good excuse. Could shoot around them to get their attention.
 
The only problem with the United states is the government, and the people who choose it. ........ otherwise the country is Perfect. How can you choose bush twice???????!!! :shock:
 
ishigakisensei, why do you call FBC an unreasonable male. To paraphrase you , I find your attitude to guns extremely frightening and would hate to live in a country with people like you going around. I think Fbc makes very reasonable points that I'm sure most people here would agree with.
 
^ whilst i agree ishigakisensei is being a tad harsh, im sort of with him on this.

I have no tolerance for anyone who has the audacity to violate the summation of my lifes hard work and my achievements. Iv'e worked basically from birth learning to crawl walk talk learning math english science, getting a job learning how to handle money paying taxes and working my ass to the bone in order to have the sense of financial security and peace of mind that what im living in will provide for me and my family the ultimate sense of saftey and security short of living on a military base or being in a bunker with a machinegun wielding jesus. i've been taught to shoot to kill if for whatever reason im going to pull out a knife or a gun out on someone, despite the fact that they've commited one of the worst possible offences next to harming or threatening my family or myself, which they basicaly have done, the only service of kindness i feel i can provide is to minimize the amount of agony they go through as i put them down. Regardless of wether they want to kill me or steal 6 packets of sugar. not an issue of money. i dont even care if its a gun if i its a knife, a bat, a golf club or a care bear im going to make sure that my family and everything they have worked for is safe.
 
peter3hg2 said:
ishigakisensei, why do you call FBC an unreasonable male.

Because he is not being realistic at all.

To paraphrase you , I find your attitude to guns extremely frightening and would hate to live in a country with people like you going around.

Then your paranoia is unfounded. I have seen police training videos as well as some military ones and so I am aware of what is capable of happening in an instant in close quarters. It is chimerical to think one has all the time in the world to ascertain an intruder's intentions. I never said nor implied to go in with guns blazing only that one must make a life-and-death decision in an instant and it is most reasonable and sane for the law to side with the homeowner who has nowhere to retreat.

A country full of people like me would be a very safe place to live.

I think Fbc makes very reasonable points that I'm sure most people here would agree with.

Then this is also most scary. You want to die then that is your right but to call having a victim fetish reasonable strains all credibility.

wooflepoof said:
i dont even care if its a gun if i its a knife, a bat, a golf club or a care bear im going to make sure that my family and everything they have worked for is safe.

The very idea that someone should be punished for protecting himself & his family is such a twisted totalitarian one that should strike fear into the hearts of every Liberty loving person in the world. Evil thrives on cowardice and silence.
 
If someone breaks into my house and tries to steal something, and I have a gun, I'm going to aim for the center of mass and pull the trigger. No, reasonable people aren't going to just shoot anything that moves in their house late at night, but if the reason is there, so is the bullet.

As it is, I don't have a gun, but my knives and swords will at least scare off lowly buglars. That being said, I hope I never have to deal with a buglar.
 
peter3hg2 said:
ishigakisensei, why do you call FBC an unreasonable male. To paraphrase you , I find your attitude to guns extremely frightening and would hate to live in a country with people like you going around

Couldn't agree more.

peter3hg2 said:
I think Fbc makes very reasonable points that I'm sure most people here would agree with.

Thanks. I'm done with discussing this however, I'll end by repeating my first post on this - I live in a society with extremely tight gun controls, that control contributes to the safety I feel and the comfort I have living in this society. I am also very proud of this society and community - again the controls on weapons is a contributing factor.

I do not wish to ever live in a society where attitudes like ishigakisensei's are prevelant and gun control is lacking - in that sort of society I would feel much less safe than I do here.
 
Your delusion is unfounded fbc. Your Linus-security blanket will not protect you if the time ever comes. And, your basless self-rightous and completely closed-minded statement totally misreprents my views and everything that I have said. I am glad that Ido not live in your fantasy land where homeowners minding their own business are considered evil in society because they choose to defend themselves and their family.

You're also woefully ignorant about what can happen in close quarters. But then again, you do not even want to know, instead choosing to snuggle into your blanket of self-righteous fantasy that Australia is devoid of violent crime and anyone who dares confront you with reality must be met with twisted and specious arguements. :thumbsdown:
 
fbc said:
peter3hg2 said:
ishigakisensei, why do you call FBC an unreasonable male. To paraphrase you , I find your attitude to guns extremely frightening and would hate to live in a country with people like you going around

Couldn't agree more.

peter3hg2 said:
I think Fbc makes very reasonable points that I'm sure most people here would agree with.

Thanks. I'm done with discussing this however, I'll end by repeating my first post on this - I live in a society with extremely tight gun controls, that control contributes to the safety I feel and the comfort I have living in this society. I am also very proud of this society and community - again the controls on weapons is a contributing factor.

I do not wish to ever live in a society where attitudes like ishigakisensei's are prevelant and gun control is lacking - in that sort of society I would feel much less safe than I do here.
I understand your point and respect your opinion, but get over yourself. How old are you? You most likely never had the right to own a firearm and you probably never will. You don't know what you're missing, as far as that right is concerned. You're welcome to be proud of your country's laws, but listening to you drone on about guns and gun owners, 2 subjects you're not very familiar with, is irritating. Imagine for a second that I live in some part of the world that doesn't allow private car ownership. What would you think if I came on here and said something along the lines of this:

I'm proud to live in a country with strong Car Control laws. The attitudes of you people scare me. Cars kill over 500,000 people a year and injure over 15 million. And they pollute our air and cause global warming. Not that any of you ignorant plunderers care. I ride my bicycle to work. If everyone rode their bicycles to work, your obesity levels would drop. So I think it's obvious that cars cause obesity and therefore heart attacks. So even if you're not killed in a car accident, or drown in the rising ocean levels, or baked to death by the rising global temperatures... you'll die of a heart attack because you're so lazy and fat. I'm glad I don't live in a society of people who have wet-dreams of owning a Ferrari or Lamborghini or some-other gas guzzling Earth killer. You people worry me and I pity you all. I'm done discussing this subject.

What would you say?
 
TomCat said:
I understand your point and respect your opinion, but get over yourself. How old are you?

31 looms over the horizon.

TomCat said:
You most likely never had the right to own a firearm and you probably never will.

Wrong - I could own if I so chose to - but I don't want to.

TomCat said:
You don't know what you're missing, as far as that right is concerned.

No, actually I prefer that 'right' being restricted.

TomCat said:
Imagine for a second that I live in some part of the world that doesn't allow private car ownership. What would you think if I came on here and said something along the lines of this:

I'm proud to live in a country with strong Car Control laws. The attitudes of you people scare me. Cars kill over 500,000 people a year and injure over 15 million. And they pollute our air and cause global warming. Not that any of you ignorant plunderers care. I ride my bicycle to work. If everyone rode their bicycles to work, your obesity levels would drop. So I think it's obvious that cars cause obesity and therefore heart attacks. So even if you're not killed in a car accident, or drown in the rising ocean levels, or baked to death by the rising global temperatures... you'll die of a heart attack because you're so lazy and fat. I'm glad I don't live in a society of people who have wet-dreams of owning a Ferrari or Lamborghini or some-other gas guzzling Earth killer. You people worry me and I pity you all. I'm done discussing this subject.

What would you say?

Apples and Oranges - you can't compare car ownership to gun ownership.

Cars are designed for many purposes and to suit many needs - the fact people are injured, maimed, or killed is an unfortunate side-effect of their use, and manufacturers are constantly working to reduce this toll. Guns however are designed for a single purpose - to shoot objects.

I'm aware of the argument of 'Guns don't kill people, People kill people' and that's true to an extent, but it's also a reason why gun ownership should be restricted to ensure that only people with the correct training and needs are allowed to own a gun - untrained people should not be able to easily and legally obtain a firearm simply because it's 'their right', it's just too dangerous a weapon to be handed out like that.
 
Top