UK - British Man Charged with Murder

imported post

Andyet another reason why I'm proud to be an American....where at least I know I'm free!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rnf7DS5YlQ

imported post

A point I remember bringing up a while ago is the idea of justified self-defense, and how America embraces it whereas other cultures may not. Go to the most liberal hang-out in San Francisco, and I doubt you'll find anyone that thinks you can't use violence to defend yourself against an attacker. They might think you can't use a gun to do it... but the idea is still there that it is your right and responsibility to defend yourself, and that the violence you use is justified to stop an attack because you did not provoke it.

Now, to look at it from another perspective, if someone is trying to kill you, but you kill him before he completes his attack, you have still killed a person. And, since one person would have ended up dead either way, there's no greater evil whether the attacker or defender is the one killed. Yes, the attacker provoked the attack... but this perspective would see no difference between who provoked the attack and who received it. Is this an f'ed-up and pathetic way to look at self-defense? Very much so. But it may shed some light onto the response we see here. One who doesn't accept self-defense as legitimite would see the act of violence in a vacuum of intention.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Now, to look at it from another perspective, if someone is trying to kill you, but you kill him before he completes his attack, you have still killed a person. And, since one person would have ended up dead either way, there's no greater evil whether the attacker or defender is the one killed. Yes, the attacker provoked the attack... but this perspective would see no difference between who provoked the attack and who received it. Is this an f'ed-up and pathetic way to look at self-defense? Very much so. But it may shed some light onto the response we see here. One who doesn't accept self-defense as legitimite would see the act of violence in a vacuum of intention.

Click to expand...

I believe the rationale for this viewpoint resides in the crazy but popular notion that there is nothing more valuable in this world than a human life. Whereas the believer in self-defence would say there are principles of life that are more important than life itself. That there are things worth dying for, and worth killing for. It's wrong to kill someone, but isn't it equally wrong to let someone kill someone else, even if that someone else is you? It's a paradox that the pacifist cannot resolve.

imported post

The ultimate conclusion of moral relativism. The victim's life is no more valuable or important than the career criminal, murderer, rapist or child molester.

imported post

according to my English friends, doing anything at anytime during the commission of a crime against you is a felony. No matter if the assailant only gets a few scrapes and bruises or dead. You are still guilty of vigilantism. self defense is completely illegal there unless you are LEO or military on guard detail. From what they told me the police are there to protect you. England fails to realize that the only thing cops can do for the law abiding citizen is to draw their chalk outline after the criminal kills them ( the citizen).

imported post

What I find so appalling in England, in America , and everywhere else that the self defense argument raves, is the hypocrisy behind many of the leaders and the influential persons involved. Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clinton, and the rest seem to think that WE should get rid of our guns, and yet they hire ARMED bodyguards in order to protect them and their families. I am sure Tony Blair has his own contingent of personal security as well as lord whatever his name was, and all teh rest of the members of Parlaiment. Basically what they are saying ( or at least what my right wing gun nut brain thinks that they are saying) is YOU don't deserve to defend yourself, but we do. I wonder if any of them would sit idly by as an attacker proceeded to kill them? would they be sentenced to life in prison for stopping their attacker?

I heard a report ( wish to god I still had the link) that stated that at the same time as Rosie O'Donnell was speaking about teh "evils" of gun use, and gun carrying, that her personal body guard was applying for a CCW. irony, hypocrisy, or just flat out superiority complex? you decide. I wonder if there is sopme sort of weapons ban loophole that allows members of the british government or teh Royal family to carry and own guns for personal defense? Anyone else wish that they could see the trial where the Queen or that big eared prince had killed someone for their own personal defense? sorry, now I'm just ranting...:uhoh:

imported post

Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clinton, and the rest seem to think that WE should get rid of our guns, and yet they hire ARMED bodyguards in order to protect them and their families.

Click to expand...

People need to understand that when the government states that they want to keep us "safe and secure" what they really mean is "managed and controlled." Guns do two things--they keep you safe and they prevent others from controlling you. The reason they are against people owning guns is because those people are more difficult to control. Notice how across the U.S. cities tend to be more restrictive on firearms and rural areas are more loose. That is because areas with low populations are no significant threat to the State, but largely populated areas need to be carefully monitored and controlled. The largest threat to any government is a mass revolution. Taking away people's guns and then watching their every move are great ways to prevent that. That is why it is so important for a free society to have the rights to free speech and bearing arms protected. Government officials who are not interested in preserving these rights are tyrannical and not on the side of freedom.

A gun has a large symbolic meaning to it and that is that you are a soverign individual and refuse to be controlled by others. Let's say it is 1939 and the government wants to start "managing and controlling" the Jews. Let's say that every Jew had a full size machine gun, fully trained on its use, and not afraid to use it. This is probably the best example of why keeping and bearing arms is such an important right.

The government should be afraid of its people, not the people afraid of their government. Which way is America heading? Can we change that?

imported post

protector84 wrote:

. Let's say it is 1939 and the government wants to start "managing and controlling" the Jews. Let's say that every Jew had a full size machine gun, fully trained on its use, and not afraid to use it. This is probably the best example of why keeping and bearing arms is such an important right.

Click to expand...

but that wouldn't happen here in the good old U.S. of A.... [/sarcasm]

This is the exact point that I make many times when dealing with gun grabbers.

It is a little known fact these days (wonder why?) that a series of con control legislation beginning immediately after the treaty of Versailles and continuing on up through 1938 set the stage for Kristallnacht.

from Wikipedia:

[line]

The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

• Gun restriction laws only applied to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4][/suP]
• The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and Nazi party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5][/suP]
• The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[6][/suP]
• The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[7][/suP]
• Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing of firearms and ammunition.[8][/suP]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[9][/suP]


[line]


To be quite sure, it is the last law mentioned, which allowed the holocaust to occur.

Interestingly enough, If you take the time to look at the German Gun laws at that time, and current U.S. gun laws, you will see some pretty striking similarities. The fact of the matter is that when the 1968 Cun control act was being considered, many of its opponents argued that much of the legislation was very nearly word for word from the 1938 Nazi law.

Simply put, trusting the government, ANY GOVERNMENT, is a mistake.

imported post

Mordis wrote:

I have friends in england, and your way off. There was a home owner there once. Who had a permit for a hunting shot gun. Some guy broke in with a knife and came at the home owner, who shot him down with the hunting gun. Well, the homeowner was arrested charged and convicted of murder and got more then 10 years in jail.

Click to expand...

Tony Martin.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/archive/2003/07/30/tony-martin-i-was-violated-89520-13234876/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/archive/2003/07/30/tony-martin-i-was-frozen-with-fear-89520-13234874/

The Burglars had been Breaking into peoples homes and robbing them since as young as 10, and the one who survived was thrown in prison for numerous things previously and since the shooting, things including but not limited to drug dealing, car theft, vandalism, Assault and Battery with GBH, and if my memory serves at least one count of Armed Robbery.

Yet the old Farmer who was defending himself and his property served far more time in prison than that piece of human filth ever did.

In england they dont want you defending your self at all.

Click to expand...

The British Homeoffice actually had the gall to issue a Booklet to all visitors from the US at one time that said if you were robbed that you were to "Cower in a corner and let the criminal do whatever they want" and that "Defending yourself would result in prosecution by the police, if the criminal did not kill you".

And No I am not Making that up, In fact I might still have one of those booklets packed away someplace, if I find it I will scan it and post it if anyone is interested.

imported post

Eagleeye wrote:

The British Homeoffice actually had the gall to issue a Booklet to all visitors from the US at one time that said if you were robbed that you were to "Cower in a corner and let the criminal do whatever they want" and that "Defending yourself would result in prosecution by the police, if the criminal did not kill you".

And No I am not Making that up, In fact I might still have one of those booklets packed away someplace, if I find it I will scan it and post it if anyone is interested.

Click to expand...

So I'm guessing that this guy wouldn't be too welcome: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum60/11164.html

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Eagleeye wrote:

The British Homeoffice actually had the gall to issue a Booklet to all visitors from the US at one time that said if you were robbed that you were to "Cower in a corner and let the criminal do whatever they want" and that "Defending yourself would result in prosecution by the police, if the criminal did not kill you".

And No I am not Making that up, In fact I might still have one of those booklets packed away someplace, if I find it I will scan it and post it if anyone is interested.

Click to expand...

So I'm guessing that this guy wouldn't be too welcome: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum60/11164.html

Click to expand...

I don't feel one bit sorry for the British, or any other citizens of some evil and ludicrous government. They vastly outnumber the demons who control them, so why not rise up and kill them all when they have reached this end?

Evil does not suffer fools.

imported post

You might find this intresting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2019450/Knife-crime-powers-'may-antagonise-youth'.html

------------------------------------------------------

Knife crime powers 'may antagonise youth'
By Vikki Miller Last updated: 9:37 AM BST 24/05/2008

New police powers to combat knife crime could cause increased antagonism amongst young people, the Children's Commissioner for England has warned. Police officers can now search people for knives and guns without reasonable suspicion they may be carrying a weapon.

Sir Al Aynsley-Green called for further research into the effect of the increased powers.

He told the BBC: "There is a balance here. On the one hand for young people to feel safer by having the presence of the police - but on the other hand making sure the new powers don't create further antagonism by increased stopping and searching.
"These are very contentious and I certainly support the case for much more research on the effects of these policies on them."
Sir Al added that young people should be seen as part of the solution, not the problem.

Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Rose Fitzpatrick said officers' work was not aimed at victimising people, but keeping them safe.

She said: "The work we are doing in London in particular is working alongside communities to do robust stop-and-search operations using knife arches and search wands where intelligence tells us that there is the most likelihood that people are carrying knives and weapons."
The move comes following a rise in knife crime in the capital.

The first team of 15 police officers has already been posted in an unnamed London borough.

They have been carrying out spot checks on teenagers suspected of carrying knives in 10 of the worst-affected boroughs, using 550 metal detecting "wands" and 244 detection "arches" outside schools, shopping centres and bus stations.

The operation, named Blunt 2, was launched in response to the deaths of Jimmy Mizen; 22-year-old rape suspect Steven Bigby, stabbed in Oxford Street earlier this month; and 15-year-old Lyle Tullock, stabbed near his Peckham home three weeks ago.

A further five to 10 teams will target areas where intelligence suggests youths are most likely to carry weapons in the next 10 days.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I see they are contenuing with the weapon paranoia in the uk.

what a bunch of morons.

imported post

The story wrote:

Police officers can now search people for knives and guns without reasonable suspicion they may be carrying a weapon.

Click to expand...

Ah, so the British are taking after the United States, now.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

The ultimate conclusion of moral relativism. The victim's life is no more valuable or important than the career criminal, murderer, rapist or child molester.

Click to expand...

True at the other end of the scales too! President and pauper. Cop and crook. Anarchist and activist. Either we are equal or we are not. Citizen is the most equal of all.

This is the point re compromise and values of 'The Mathematical Impossibility of Compromise' that I have posted here - to great critical outcry.

Happy MEMORIAL DAY.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

The story wrote:

Police officers can now search people for knives and guns without reasonable suspicion they may be carrying a weapon.

Click to expand...

Ah, so the British are taking after the United States, now.

Click to expand...

It's strange that a little over 200 years ago, we fought a war against England because of despotism, and now they are frantically trying to match teh level of despotism in this country....:?

imported post

"AUTHOR MESSAGE
RosieInLondon

Female
70 years old
View Profile
13/05/2008 16:26:55
Re:KNIFE CRIME ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE STATE OF BRITAIN
Yes I am very worried about the rise of violent crime of all types, in London in particular. Its become so common many of these violent incidents are no longer reported to the police, so as governments only go by officially reported crime then they can say crime is going down, convenient for Gordon Brown and Jaquei Smith but not the true state of things within society.

The fact that many of these attacks take place during the day in crowded places means we can no longer feel safe anywhere at any time.

I know doubling the number of police on the streets will not be 100% answer , but it will curb it and make people like me feel safe when out shopping etc.


You know at first I felt sorry for them. but then I read this post. we really do have a opposing viewpoint about the best way to defend life. we deserve what they got. maybe one day they will change their minds. let everyone know about this failed social experiment::

imported post

tito887 wrote:

I know doubling the number of police on the streets will not be 100% answer , but it will curb it and make people like me feel safe when out shopping etc.

Click to expand...

I've always found it funny that people feel safe with more officers around.

When I see officers not giving a ticket, I'm thinking "OK, what is going on here that they need law enforcement for?"

Maybe it is just my understanding that police are not really a preventative.

imported post

What was it Ben Franklin said? Those who would sacrifice a small amount of liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security? I think thats right. No, I know thats right, but I'm pretty sure thats who said that.

imported post

Apparently, no it wasn't...

http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

imported post

During WW II America shipped massive numbers of privately-owned small arms to England for the local "militia" to defend themselves. This time we should send non-metallic knives. Good luck Brits, I hope enough of you wake up.