General Chit Chat

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 22899
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: General Chit Chat

Post by BWFC_Insane » Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:22 pm

Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:15 pm
Hoboh wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:09 am
Suprise, suprise, scumbag family of scumbag think.......

Career crook killed by pensioner 'didn't deserve to die', say family

Not like probably 99% of others then.
Having read the reports (which I assume to be accurate) about him, his father and his five uncles' 'exploits' in the past, I'd agree that he and his family are pretty much the very definition of scumbags, and while not exactly agreeing that he deserved to die, I won't be mourning the fxcker either.

What concerns me more is that the innocent householder is now facing a murder charge, and even if ultimately he's not charged, he shouldn't have to go through the shxt he is facing just because an invading scumbag happened to get skewered on his own implement.
I also think that in his, the innocent householder's case, it should be in Justice's interest that his name should have been withheld so that (specifically) the scumbag uncles, scumbag aunties, and all the scumbag family of the perished one cannot vent their misplaced scumbag spleen against him, the innocent one.
Equally that scumbag Pistorius got off first degree murder (or whatever its called over there) claiming he thought there was an intruder in his house.

I'm not sure carte blanch saying its ok to kill someone on your premises is ok. Even a burglar. If they're trying to harm you or your family...but if they're running away?

Just my view....

User avatar
Lost Leopard Spot
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 14802
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.

Re: General Chit Chat

Post by Lost Leopard Spot » Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:35 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:22 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:15 pm
Hoboh wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:09 am
Suprise, suprise, scumbag family of scumbag think.......

Career crook killed by pensioner 'didn't deserve to die', say family

Not like probably 99% of others then.
Having read the reports (which I assume to be accurate) about him, his father and his five uncles' 'exploits' in the past, I'd agree that he and his family are pretty much the very definition of scumbags, and while not exactly agreeing that he deserved to die, I won't be mourning the fxcker either.

What concerns me more is that the innocent householder is now facing a murder charge, and even if ultimately he's not charged, he shouldn't have to go through the shxt he is facing just because an invading scumbag happened to get skewered on his own implement.
I also think that in his, the innocent householder's case, it should be in Justice's interest that his name should have been withheld so that (specifically) the scumbag uncles, scumbag aunties, and all the scumbag family of the perished one cannot vent their misplaced scumbag spleen against him, the innocent one.
Equally that scumbag Pistorius got off first degree murder (or whatever its called over there) claiming he thought there was an intruder in his house.

I'm not sure carte blanch saying its ok to kill someone on your premises is ok. Even a burglar. If they're trying to harm you or your family...but if they're running away?

Just my view....
Wow!

Riva Steenkamp, an intruder!!!

Henry Vincent, career burglar, convicted scumbag, known for targeting pensioners in scams and robberies - armed with a screwdriver, and accompanied by another male, in a 78 year old pensioner's house (with his wife in bed upstairs)!!!

Fxck your view. Seriously.
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 22899
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: General Chit Chat

Post by BWFC_Insane » Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:42 pm

Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:35 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:22 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:15 pm
Hoboh wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:09 am
Suprise, suprise, scumbag family of scumbag think.......

Career crook killed by pensioner 'didn't deserve to die', say family

Not like probably 99% of others then.
Having read the reports (which I assume to be accurate) about him, his father and his five uncles' 'exploits' in the past, I'd agree that he and his family are pretty much the very definition of scumbags, and while not exactly agreeing that he deserved to die, I won't be mourning the fxcker either.

What concerns me more is that the innocent householder is now facing a murder charge, and even if ultimately he's not charged, he shouldn't have to go through the shxt he is facing just because an invading scumbag happened to get skewered on his own implement.
I also think that in his, the innocent householder's case, it should be in Justice's interest that his name should have been withheld so that (specifically) the scumbag uncles, scumbag aunties, and all the scumbag family of the perished one cannot vent their misplaced scumbag spleen against him, the innocent one.
Equally that scumbag Pistorius got off first degree murder (or whatever its called over there) claiming he thought there was an intruder in his house.

I'm not sure carte blanch saying its ok to kill someone on your premises is ok. Even a burglar. If they're trying to harm you or your family...but if they're running away?

Just my view....
Wow!

Riva Steenkamp, an intruder!!!

Henry Vincent, career burglar, convicted scumbag, known for targeting pensioners in scams and robberies - armed with a screwdriver, and accompanied by another male, in a 78 year old pensioner's house (with his wife in bed upstairs)!!!

Fxck your view. Seriously.
Way to miss the point. Just because someone is in your home IMO doesn't mean you can or should be able to lawfully kill them.

If someone has a knife in your house and is robbing you, but as you enter tries to flee, I don't think killing them is justified. I was generalising rather than talking about this specific case.

There is a slippery slope that leads to Pistorius IMHO. I'm quite glad this pensioner did what he did, but I think beyond clear self defence the law shouldn't allow you to kill someone because they're on your property.

User avatar
Lost Leopard Spot
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 14802
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.

Re: General Chit Chat

Post by Lost Leopard Spot » Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:17 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:42 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:35 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:22 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:15 pm
Hoboh wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:09 am
Suprise, suprise, scumbag family of scumbag think.......

Career crook killed by pensioner 'didn't deserve to die', say family

Not like probably 99% of others then.
Having read the reports (which I assume to be accurate) about him, his father and his five uncles' 'exploits' in the past, I'd agree that he and his family are pretty much the very definition of scumbags, and while not exactly agreeing that he deserved to die, I won't be mourning the fxcker either.

What concerns me more is that the innocent householder is now facing a murder charge, and even if ultimately he's not charged, he shouldn't have to go through the shxt he is facing just because an invading scumbag happened to get skewered on his own implement.
I also think that in his, the innocent householder's case, it should be in Justice's interest that his name should have been withheld so that (specifically) the scumbag uncles, scumbag aunties, and all the scumbag family of the perished one cannot vent their misplaced scumbag spleen against him, the innocent one.
Equally that scumbag Pistorius got off first degree murder (or whatever its called over there) claiming he thought there was an intruder in his house.

I'm not sure carte blanch saying its ok to kill someone on your premises is ok. Even a burglar. If they're trying to harm you or your family...but if they're running away?

Just my view....
Wow!

Riva Steenkamp, an intruder!!!

Henry Vincent, career burglar, convicted scumbag, known for targeting pensioners in scams and robberies - armed with a screwdriver, and accompanied by another male, in a 78 year old pensioner's house (with his wife in bed upstairs)!!!

Fxck your view. Seriously.
Way to miss the point. Just because someone is in your home IMO doesn't mean you can or should be able to lawfully kill them.

If someone has a knife in your house and is robbing you, but as you enter tries to flee, I don't think killing them is justified. I was generalising rather than talking about this specific case.

There is a slippery slope that leads to Pistorius IMHO. I'm quite glad this pensioner did what he did, but I think beyond clear self defence the law shouldn't allow you to kill someone because they're on your property.
OK, I apologise for thinking you were talking about what I'd posted. You quite clearly, now you've made that point, weren't and was just generalising.
For what it's worth I agree.
Oscar Pistorius was a murderer, the intruder aspect was his desperate attempt to obfuscate the evidence, and we can dismiss that from the 'debate'.
But, I think there should be a "presumption of innocence", and the householder's name should be kept back, unless clear evidence to the contrary emerges, in cases of invasion.
Tony Martin (if I remember his name right) comes to mind, and this is where I'd probably disagree with you: to me Mr Martin (after the history he suffered) was quite within his right to 'execute' his intruder. In his case it was probably correct to prosecute, and I have no doubt these days a jury would have acquitted.
The big difference to what actually happened in my scheme of things is that, like a rape victim, nobody would have known his name.
With Henry Vincent almost exactly the opposite occurred - the defending householder was named, but the fxcking criminal's name was withheld for two days. Outrageous, in my opinion.
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 35125
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost in the Rubaiyat.

Re: General Chit Chat

Post by TANGODANCER » Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:37 pm

Insaney. Have you ever known anybody of sound mind to seriously claim it is okay to kill another person? The answer is always no according to rationality and tradition right back to some tablets of stone from several millenniums ago. The fact that time and tide has occasionally changed the rules alters nothing. The law,to the best of my knowlege would never ask or answer such a question in this modern era because how could/can they claim impartiality in judging if they did/do? We dispensed with capital punishment in this country back in the fifties, so even the law kills no one any more. What the law will be asking surely, is did the victim have such intent in mind at the time in this particular instance. The answer to that depends more on the skills, evidence and honesty of the prosectution/defence lawyers proving intent or mitigation, and the character of the accused than whether it's ever a rule of law. In other words, has a law been broken deliberately? It boils down to nothing more. I think most folk are of like mind as to the guilt/innocence of the accused.
The wisest and the best of men, nay, the wisest and best of their actions, may be rendered ridiculous by a person whose first object in life is a joke...Darcy. Pride and Prejudice.

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 18694
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: General Chit Chat

Post by Prufrock » Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:36 pm

I think it goes back a bit further than that.

Law on self-defence in homes was right (Tony Martin had a pop art them inside his house and missed - touch and go - and then shot one as he was struggling to get through a window out. You can't be doing that).

They changed the law as a daily mail sop but you were never and certainly will never get convicted of you're just defending your family and home. Only the nutters who tie people up and batter them get done, which seems fair enough to me.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
Lost Leopard Spot
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 14802
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.

Re: General Chit Chat

Post by Lost Leopard Spot » Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:12 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:36 pm
I think it goes back a bit further than that.

Law on self-defence in homes was right (Tony Martin had a pop art them inside his house and missed - touch and go - and then shot one as he was struggling to get through a window out. You can't be doing that).

They changed the law as a daily mail sop but you were never and certainly will never get convicted of you're just defending your family and home. Only the nutters who tie people up and batter them get done, which seems fair enough to me.
You've not addressed my main point that people who are the victims of armed home invasion (the invadees) should have the right not to be named. This to save them from subsequent hassle from the scumbag families, relations and friends of the invaders, whether or not the invader gets 'topped' or not (with his own weapon or not).
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12049
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: General Chit Chat

Post by Hoboh » Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:12 pm

A new driving license system for owners of driverless cars should be considered because of safety fears, a study suggests.

Autonomous vehicle owners could soon be forced to pass a new driving test due to mounting concerns over the safety of the technology.

The study also suggests that new laws might have to be enforced so that the 'drivers' pay attention while the car is moving, instead of sleeping, reading or watching films.


Soooo the point behind owning a driver less (possibly quite expensive) car is......................................?

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 22899
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: General Chit Chat

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:39 pm

Hoboh wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:12 pm
A new driving license system for owners of driverless cars should be considered because of safety fears, a study suggests.

Autonomous vehicle owners could soon be forced to pass a new driving test due to mounting concerns over the safety of the technology.

The study also suggests that new laws might have to be enforced so that the 'drivers' pay attention while the car is moving, instead of sleeping, reading or watching films.


Soooo the point behind owning a driver less (possibly quite expensive) car is......................................?
Probably no point for quite a number of years. I doubt manufacturers will be happy to take liability so no doubt it will still be your responsibility until the technology is robust enough for manufacturers to take on the legal burden. Doubt we'll see that in our lifetime.

Did you see the video where the woman was killed? Not sure anyone would have stopped that accident, whether driverless or human driver.

User avatar
Montreal Wanderer
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12506
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: General Chit Chat

Post by Montreal Wanderer » Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:38 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:37 pm
Insaney. Have you ever known anybody of sound mind to seriously claim it is okay to kill another person? The answer is always no according to rationality and tradition right back to some tablets of stone from several millenniums ago. The fact that time and tide has occasionally changed the rules alters nothing. The law,to the best of my knowlege would never ask or answer such a question in this modern era because how could/can they claim impartiality in judging if they did/do? We dispensed with capital punishment in this country back in the fifties, so even the law kills no one any more. What the law will be asking surely, is did the victim have such intent in mind at the time in this particular instance. The answer to that depends more on the skills, evidence and honesty of the prosectution/defence lawyers proving intent or mitigation, and the character of the accused than whether it's ever a rule of law. In other words, has a law been broken deliberately? It boils down to nothing more. I think most folk are of like mind as to the guilt/innocence of the accused.
More recently than that I'm afraid. The last people executed would have been in about 1964 (just after I emigrated) and the death penalty abolished a year later. It would be another decade before it was abolished in N. Ireland.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
:pray:Image

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 35125
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost in the Rubaiyat.

Re: General Chit Chat

Post by TANGODANCER » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:15 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:38 pm
TANGODANCER wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:37 pm
Insaney. Have you ever known anybody of sound mind to seriously claim it is okay to kill another person? The answer is always no according to rationality and tradition right back to some tablets of stone from several millenniums ago. The fact that time and tide has occasionally changed the rules alters nothing. The law,to the best of my knowlege would never ask or answer such a question in this modern era because how could/can they claim impartiality in judging if they did/do? We dispensed with capital punishment in this country back in the fifties, so even the law kills no one any more. What the law will be asking surely, is did the victim have such intent in mind at the time in this particular instance. The answer to that depends more on the skills, evidence and honesty of the prosectution/defence lawyers proving intent or mitigation, and the character of the accused than whether it's ever a rule of law. In other words, has a law been broken deliberately? It boils down to nothing more. I think most folk are of like mind as to the guilt/innocence of the accused.
More recently than that I'm afraid. The last people executed would have been in about 1964 (just after I emigrated) and the death penalty abolished a year later. It would be another decade before it was abolished in N. Ireland.
Aye, you're right. I was thinking Ruth Ellis in 1955, but she was the last woman, not person to be hanged.
The wisest and the best of men, nay, the wisest and best of their actions, may be rendered ridiculous by a person whose first object in life is a joke...Darcy. Pride and Prejudice.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests