Defending your home against 4 burglars is a crime in "Great" Britain.

Quote from Lucrum:

It's the dumb fuck bleeding heart flaming liberal way. Logic be damned.
More...

It's the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" mind set that is a byproduct of the Catholic religion (not to be confused with biblically based Christianity).......

This mentality claims that he who lies in wait to shed innocent blood is equal to he who defends his life at the expense of the attacker.

I wish to God that we could follow the bible, and take these criminals outside the camp, and put them to death! The two witnesses must be willing to throw the first stones; they must be perfect.

"Be perfect, for I am perfect".............. - a certain Eternal King who also stated "if your brother sins against you and repents, forgive him".........

Notice the key words: "brother", and "repent"
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

Isn't that the argument for all of the wars we're involved in?
More...
No not really all the wars we've fought in had to with making it safe for our govt not our people. You might be right that they the govt implied or actually claimed what you said but "they lie".
 
I suspect there is more to the story than the BBC is telling us. Obviously the so called burglars must have said something that made the police say "Lets just take the whole lot of them to jail and let the courts decide who did what"

For all we know, these 4 men might have just been walking outside and being noisy and the homeowner yelled at them to keep quiet, words were exchanged and the homeowner came outside and shot at them, then said "Oh shit, what did i do?? I better call the police and say they were trying to burglarize me or they are going to take my ass to jail!"
 
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
Somehow doubt our ghoul is gonna chime in on this one, unless this is one of those so called 50% tax benefits he was bragging about earlier.

Imagine how stupid you would feel if you had to pay 50% of your income to stupid fvckers like this, and THIS is the service of protection(newspeak) you get.
More...
I see you still haven't learned to address me directly, my turbulent friend? Now what is it that I can help you with here?
 
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
(In the tradition of Horton hears a who.)

Hark, I hear a queef!
More...
Ah, so it appears that adult conversation remains out of your reach also... Get back to me when you wanna talk, rather than spout childish nonsense.
 
Quote from pspr:

I wonder where you are supposed to retreat to if you are already in your own home.
More...

Believe it or not... if someone breaks into your house in Britain, you're expected to abandon your home to the burglars and go call police. If you confront the burglar and the burglar is hurt, you'll be charged with assault and go to prison for longer than the burglar.
 
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

Somehow doubt our ghoul is gonna chime in on this one, unless this is one of those so called 50% tax benefits he was bragging about earlier.



Imagine how stupid you would feel if you had to pay 50% of your income to stupid fvckers like this, and THIS is the service of protection(newspeak) you get.
More...

Funny how ghoul stoops ,just to deliver personal attacks against me but fails to address the issue and slithers off from whence he came.

I wonder if this post will stimulate him to man up a bit, and chime in.

I'm sure whatever he says is awfully important to understanding the facts wouldn't want him to accuse us of "righteous conviction, based on such shocking ignorance." as before.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=247595&perpage=6&pagenumber=5


euro-weenies:p
 
Quote from tomdavis:
Believe it or not... if someone breaks into your house in Britain, you're expected to abandon your home to the burglars and go call police. If you confront the burglar and the burglar is hurt, you'll be charged with assault and go to prison for longer than the burglar.
More...
This is incorrect... The relevant part of the law (common and statutory both) is as follows:
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in arresting offenders or suspects." English courts have upheld that the above principle is applicable to defence of one's property, since an attack on one's property is a crime.

If you look at the precedent and various rulings, you will discover that English law relating to self-defence is quite complex. The conclusions of English courts have historically been very much based on the specific circumstances. For example, Rose 1883, Duffy 1967 and Hussey 1924 were all cases where the court ruled that use of violence (incl lethal) was justified. There's also cases where the court reached the opposite verdict.

Personally, I don't see anything egregiously wrong with the principle of allowing the court to decide, but I could be wrong and would be happy to hear alternative views.
 
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
Funny how ghoul stoops ,just to deliver personal attacks against me but fails to address the issue and slithers off from whence he came.

I wonder if this post will stimulate him to man up a bit, and chime in.

I'm sure whatever he says is awfully important to understanding the facts wouldn't want him to accuse us of "righteous conviction, based on such shocking ignorance." as before.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=247595&perpage=6&pagenumber=5


euro-weenies:p
More...
Where did I attack you personally, pray tell, my sensitive friend? All I am asking is that, when talking to me and asking me to comment, you address me directly, like a normal human being. As it happens, I have actually responded to the substance of the article, so your wonderfully colorful eloquence was somewhat premature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top