Today I'm angry about.....

[Worthy4England]

Indeed. Had they not been in the house in the first place, the incident would never have occurred. I have no sympathy. Their own fault. I wouldn't care had it happened three months later in a different country.

hence my question... why the need for a police force, a court system and gaols?

Because not everyone is capable of defending themselves in answer to 1)

Because we still need a system to hand out punishment in answer to 2) (after they've been given a good hiding)

And we need as part of a lock the feckers up system jails in answer to 3)

[Prufrock]

I'm with LK, WtW and thebish. You wanna live in a vigilante paradise, then f*ck off to Gotham City. Normally intelligent posters turning into moronic club bashing thugs talking about retribution and teaching folk a lesson properly depresses me. Yey let's go back to being cavemen.

[americantrotter]

I'm with LK, WtW and thebish. You wanna live in a vigilante paradise, then f*ck off to Gotham City. Normally intelligent posters turning into moronic club bashing thugs talking about retribution and teaching folk a lesson properly depresses me. Yey let's go back to being cavemen.

+1

I understand where it comes from, but having the courts pay more attention to common sense does not equal a license to kill.

[Worthy4England]

I'm with LK, WtW and thebish. You wanna live in a vigilante paradise, then f*ck off to Gotham City. Normally intelligent posters turning into moronic club bashing thugs talking about retribution and teaching folk a lesson properly depresses me. Yey let's go back to being cavemen.

Instead, well just let the lunatics take over the asylum.

Turn a blind eye to violent robbery in people's homes.

Continue to get trampled on by thugs that perpetrate such crimes and allow the scrotes to effectively bully the population and take what the feck they want in what they make into their own private "feck society" club.

Lets continue being soft arsed wets. No fighting back. You know it's the only way forwards.

[General Mannerheim]

I'm with LK, WtW and thebish. You wanna live in a vigilante paradise, then f*ck off to Gotham City. Normally intelligent posters turning into moronic club bashing thugs talking about retribution and teaching folk a lesson properly depresses me. Yey let's go back to being cavemen.

Instead, well just let the lunatics take over the asylum.

Turn a blind eye to violent robbery in people's homes.

Continue to get trampled on by thugs that perpetrate such crimes and allow the scrotes to effectively bully the population and take what the feck they want in what they make into their own private "feck society" club.

Lets continue being soft arsed wets. No fighting back. You know it's the only way forwards.

Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

[thebish]

When 'bad people' lose human rights all people do. Because then they are no longer universally applicable. You may not care about this. I do.

So you're just glossing over the fact that the 'bad people' have abused the human rights of their victims in the first place. Does your rule of universal applicability not apply to the right to be safe in your own home?

I don't think he's even beginning to gloss anything over - how do you get that from what he wrote??

I get it from the fact he's clearly glossing over the original loss of human rights.

how so?? WtW described it as a heinous crime and would advocate the full force of the law.

[thebish]

I'm with LK, WtW and thebish. You wanna live in a vigilante paradise, then f*ck off to Gotham City. Normally intelligent posters turning into moronic club bashing thugs talking about retribution and teaching folk a lesson properly depresses me. Yey let's go back to being cavemen.

Instead, well just let the lunatics take over the asylum.

Turn a blind eye to violent robbery in people's homes.

Continue to get trampled on by thugs that perpetrate such crimes and allow the scrotes to effectively bully the population and take what the feck they want in what they make into their own private "feck society" club.

Lets continue being soft arsed wets. No fighting back. You know it's the only way forwards.

as CAPSLOCK reported above - a blind eye is not turned... 3 year gaol sentence wasn't it?

[Worthy4England]

I'm with LK, WtW and thebish. You wanna live in a vigilante paradise, then f*ck off to Gotham City. Normally intelligent posters turning into moronic club bashing thugs talking about retribution and teaching folk a lesson properly depresses me. Yey let's go back to being cavemen.

Instead, well just let the lunatics take over the asylum.

Turn a blind eye to violent robbery in people's homes.

Continue to get trampled on by thugs that perpetrate such crimes and allow the scrotes to effectively bully the population and take what the feck they want in what they make into their own private "feck society" club.

Lets continue being soft arsed wets. No fighting back. You know it's the only way forwards.

as CAPSLOCK reported above - a blind eye is not turned... 3 year gaol sentence wasn't it?

And you're telling me, that's out of an eye that can see? 18 months with good behaviour. Can apply for parole after 12 months.

[Prufrock]

I'm with LK, WtW and thebish. You wanna live in a vigilante paradise, then f*ck off to Gotham City. Normally intelligent posters turning into moronic club bashing thugs talking about retribution and teaching folk a lesson properly depresses me. Yey let's go back to being cavemen.

Instead, well just let the lunatics take over the asylum.

Turn a blind eye to violent robbery in people's homes.

Continue to get trampled on by thugs that perpetrate such crimes and allow the scrotes to effectively bully the population and take what the feck they want in what they make into their own private "feck society" club.

Lets continue being soft arsed wets. No fighting back. You know it's the only way forwards.

Go on then, find me where I said that. Where exactly did I mention anything even vaguely close to having anything to do with possibly being along those lines. 'Oooh wish washy liberals, soft arses blah blah blah. There are only two options. One is being violent vigilante thugs who kick the sh*t out of paediatricians. Anyone against this is a soft arse who thinks prisons should have swimming pools and sky and michelin star chefs and that in fact prisons contravene bloody human rights. Did I mention PC, and 'ealth and safety?. They want to give 'em free teddy bears and counselling coz commiting a crime can be very upsetting. I know, sounds daft but that's genuinley what anyone who reckons beating the living sh*t out of somebody in a premeditated act outside the law might not be 'OK' thinks. They do, it's scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact. And don't let 'em try talking about a 'middle ground' it's a trick.'

There was me thinking we could have proper prison terms not in Butlins for what was originally, a horrible crime, and, (guess what AND, not OR, or EITHER or some sort of made up rhetorical choice) then we could have like society as well. Imagine that. I have a dream.

[Cheese]

In regards to this argument, as soon as someone says something to the effect of "how would you feel if you caught them anally raping your daughter?", everything they ever say again on the matter can, and should, be ignored.

[Worthy4England]

I'm with LK, WtW and thebish. You wanna live in a vigilante paradise, then f*ck off to Gotham City. Normally intelligent posters turning into moronic club bashing thugs talking about retribution and teaching folk a lesson properly depresses me. Yey let's go back to being cavemen.

Instead, well just let the lunatics take over the asylum.

Turn a blind eye to violent robbery in people's homes.

Continue to get trampled on by thugs that perpetrate such crimes and allow the scrotes to effectively bully the population and take what the feck they want in what they make into their own private "feck society" club.

Lets continue being soft arsed wets. No fighting back. You know it's the only way forwards.

There are only two options. One is being violent vigilante thugs who kick the sh*t out of paediatricians.

To touche you, where did I say that? Lets jump from helping people in a scenario where they're looking to protect their home, straight to kicking paediatricians to death, in internet overstatment shocker.

My contention is that if someone is where they shouldn't be (as in "in your house", "in your car",

a) they have no "rights"

b) the incumbency should NOT be on the householder to assess what might constitute "reasonable force" and weigh up carfully whether they could subdue the people who are where they should not be by (for example) tickling them.

c) An invidivual should be able to defend their property (should they so wish - running away is still open to them) using any means necessary.

And before someone rolls out the "what about the scenario where someone meets someone else in the pub and takes them home, and they fall out" blah, blah. That scenario can happen today. I'm sure the police force that people are putting their faith in to resolve these problems will get to the bottom of it.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

I'm with LK, WtW and thebish. You wanna live in a vigilante paradise, then f*ck off to Gotham City. Normally intelligent posters turning into moronic club bashing thugs talking about retribution and teaching folk a lesson properly depresses me. Yey let's go back to being cavemen.

+1

I understand where it comes from, but having the courts pay more attention to common sense does not equal a license to kill.

Bloody rich, coming from someone who lives in a society populated by good old boys who would blow you away if they caught you stealing their barbecue.

[americantrotter]

I'm with LK, WtW and thebish. You wanna live in a vigilante paradise, then f*ck off to Gotham City. Normally intelligent posters turning into moronic club bashing thugs talking about retribution and teaching folk a lesson properly depresses me. Yey let's go back to being cavemen.

+1

I understand where it comes from, but having the courts pay more attention to common sense does not equal a license to kill.

Bloody rich, coming from someone who lives in a society populated by good old boys who would blow you away if they caught you stealing their barbecue.

Are you kidding me? I don't live in that part of the country nor do I AGREE with it. Which of course is the point in a discussion.

Anyways. To all the folks who want to have their way with the law, meet your idol.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

I've not got a clue who he is so the impact may have been lost.

[thebish]

I've not got a clue who he is so the impact may have been lost.

dick cheney

[Prufrock]

I'm with LK, WtW and thebish. You wanna live in a vigilante paradise, then f*ck off to Gotham City. Normally intelligent posters turning into moronic club bashing thugs talking about retribution and teaching folk a lesson properly depresses me. Yey let's go back to being cavemen.

Instead, well just let the lunatics take over the asylum.

Turn a blind eye to violent robbery in people's homes.

Continue to get trampled on by thugs that perpetrate such crimes and allow the scrotes to effectively bully the population and take what the feck they want in what they make into their own private "feck society" club.

Lets continue being soft arsed wets. No fighting back. You know it's the only way forwards.

There are only two options. One is being violent vigilante thugs who kick the sh*t out of paediatricians.

To touche you, where did I say that? Lets jump from helping people in a scenario where they're looking to protect their home, straight to kicking paediatricians to death, in internet overstatment shocker.

My contention is that if someone is where they shouldn't be (as in "in your house", "in your car",

a) they have no "rights"

b) the incumbency should NOT be on the householder to assess what might constitute "reasonable force" and weigh up carfully whether they could subdue the people who are where they should not be by (for example) tickling them.

c) An invidivual should be able to defend their property (should they so wish - running away is still open to them) using any means necessary.

And before someone rolls out the "what about the scenario where someone meets someone else in the pub and takes them home, and they fall out" blah, blah. That scenario can happen today. I'm sure the police force that people are putting their faith in to resolve these problems will get to the bottom of it.

That's my point re:internet overstatement shocker. If you can go from my contention that cricket batting someone brain damaged in a thought out attack might not quite constitute justice, to me being a 'soft arsed wet', then it's fairly easy to take 'retribution supporting majority' and extend it to 'paediatrician mob'. That's what they thought they were part of. I'm sick of a refusal to be part of a pitchfork wielding vigilante mob being seen as some indicator of 'softness', and not 'civilisation'. Do I think 3 years for rape is a joke? Yes. Do I think often sentences are too lenient, and do I think the idea of dramatically reduced sentences for 'good behaviour' is a joke? Yes. Do I think the only alternative is personal violence and individually exacted violence? No. I think that when defining 'reasonable force', the benefit o fthe doubt should be with the home owner. That doesn't mean anything goes.

As for human rights, they are unconditional. That's why they are called human rights, not white people rights, or female rights, or non-criminal rights. I'm also perplexed when the same people who, whenever burkhas, or multiculturalism come up, preach on about 'British values' are the first to disregard two of the cornermost, human rights, and justice, at the first oppurtunity for bloodlust.

[CrazyHorse]

When 'bad people' lose human rights all people do. Because then they are no longer universally applicable. You may not care about this. I do.

So you're just glossing over the fact that the 'bad people' have abused the human rights of their victims in the first place. Does your rule of universal applicability not apply to the right to be safe in your own home?

I don't think he's even beginning to gloss anything over - how do you get that from what he wrote??

I get it from the fact he's clearly glossing over the original loss of human rights.

how so?? WtW described it as a heinous crime and would advocate the full force of the law.

He hasn't in the quote I've used; he doesn't mention heinous crimes or that he'd advocate of the full force of the law. He's said that when bad people lose their human rights all people do. Because then they are no longer universally applicable.

It's the bad people who stopped it being universally applicable not the vigilantes who take the law into their own hands. But of course this fact contradicts the point he's trying to make which is why he's glossed over it.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I'm with LK, WtW and thebish. You wanna live in a vigilante paradise, then f*ck off to Gotham City. Normally intelligent posters turning into moronic club bashing thugs talking about retribution and teaching folk a lesson properly depresses me. Yey let's go back to being cavemen.

+1

I understand where it comes from, but having the courts pay more attention to common sense does not equal a license to kill.

Bloody rich, coming from someone who lives in a society populated by good old boys who would blow you away if they caught you stealing their barbecue.

Talk about stereotyping, Zulus. THE USA is a big country and you won't find too many handgun toting good old boys in Maine where AT hails from. Actually you won't find much of anything in Maine. It's a bit like suggesting the Outer Hebrides are full of chavs because Manchester is (if it is - I wouldn't know).

[Montreal Wanderer]

He hasn't in the quote I've used; he doesn't mention heinous crimes or that he'd advocate of the full force of the law. He's said that when bad people lose their human rights all people do. Because then they are no longer universally applicable.

It's the bad people who stopped it being universally applicable not the vigilantes who take the law into their own hands. But of course this fact contradicts the point he's trying to make which is why he's glossed over it.

Surely they both (baddies and vigilantes) took the law into their own hands. They are both guilty though perhaps not in equal measure. A man who goes beserk because someone is raping his daughter, killing the assailant, has broken the law but has several defences. Clearly there was no mens rea and the charge would likely be no more than manslaughter. He would probably get off completely under a self-defence or temporary insanity plea. However, he should be charged and the matter investigated - perhaps the alleged rapist was actually a boyfriend having consensual sex... You can't give people a license to kill carte blanche IMHO. I also believe that human are indivisible. By breaking the law you may give up your right to freedom but not to be human.

[thebish]

So you're just glossing over the fact that the 'bad people' have abused the human rights of their victims in the first place. Does your rule of universal applicability not apply to the right to be safe in your own home?

I don't think he's even beginning to gloss anything over - how do you get that from what he wrote??

I get it from the fact he's clearly glossing over the original loss of human rights.

how so?? WtW described it as a heinous crime and would advocate the full force of the law.

He hasn't in the quote I've used; he doesn't mention heinous crimes or that he'd advocate of the full force of the law. He's said that when bad people lose their human rights all people do. Because then they are no longer universally applicable.

It's the bad people who stopped it being universally applicable not the vigilantes who take the law into their own hands. But of course this fact contradicts the point he's trying to make which is why he's glossed over it.

but he did in the rest of the post you quoted - so to suggest he didn't is disingenuos in the least...