Top Poster: Lawn Tennis
Welcome to our newest member, RX48
0 members and 141 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 601, 08-31-2009 at 08:36 PM.
I am an old Brit ! not into any form of politics, look where they have got us today !!!
That's very true, Harwin. I don't know much about UK politics but have learned earlier this year that in the UK the right to bear arms was taken away from the people. The government of Australia, as far as I know, did the same and I've read that the result for them was a significant increase in crime.
I read some article, or maybe it was a video, about a man living in the UK whose home was being broken into. He had a gun, so he defended himself and his home with it. If I'm not mistaken, one of the thieves was killed and the other was sentenced to 18 months or so in prison. The victim, the homeowner, was sentenced to something like 20 to 25 years because he protected himself. I was shocked when I learned about that. It's definitely a sad state of affairs when a government makes it illegal for victims to protect themselves and/or their property.
Not certain if protecting yourself is a crime. It's all about the Bernard Ghetz issue I believe. If I'm coming into your home at night unaware that someone is actually there. If I'm confronted by you and I choose to make a run for it and you shoot me, that's basically assault with intent to kill. If I should die, then that's manslaughter.
The whole point is, we have a right to protect our bodies & property but we don't have a right to take the law into our own hands. If it's apparent that someone is trying to get away, then we must give that person every opportunity to do so. If we shoot them in the back, while they are going out the door, the Court views that as an obvious decision to enact self-appointed justice.
If however the perp is shooting at you within your home and you fire back and kill them or render them unable to respond, you are within your right at that time. No law in the World is going to rule against you defending yourself. But when someone is running away, it is no longer protecting yourself.
It's a very fine line I know and the Law can be interpreted in many ways but at the end of the day, it always seems to be in favor of the perpetrator. It appears that the Law defines defense as allowing someone to shoot at you first before you can respond. Well sometimes, it only takes one shot and you're done.
If someone enters my home at night and presents a threat to me and my family, I will do everything possible to end that situation and deal with the Court later. I'm not advocating violence but I'm no Lawyer either, so I'm not about to wait and figure out what is allowed and what isn't.
I don't believe we are talking about the same case. I searched on Google for 30 minutes or so but cannot find the one I was referring to. It definitely was not a case of a thief being shot in the back or the victim taking the law into his own hands. The victim was imprisoned because of defending himself with a gun. It really was a travesty of justice. I suppose they do things a bit differently across the pond with regards to those issues. I also searched for Bernard Ghetz, but could not find any related info on that person, either. (I think maybe Google is broken tonight. This is the first time in years that I couldn't find what I'm searching for within minutes there.)
Anyhow, I would never suggest or condone shooting someone in the back who is trying to flee. To do otherwise, in my opinion, would be akin to revenge. However, I do fully believe in each person's right to defend themselves. I believe that is a natural right that exists without saying. In addition, people really have very little choice regarding self defense. If there are no alternatives and you must protect yourself, then you must do what you've gotta do.
That's probably because I didn't spell his name correctly. Bernhard Goetz
Originally Posted by John
Law of Household Defense in the UK
U.K. Government Policy on Household Self-Defense
This was first brought to our attention by a Feb. 1, '05 news release from Bloomberg News. The Crown Prosecution Service in the U.K has issued a leaflet defining the self-defense rights of householders. In brief
* "Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime."
* "If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully."
* You may pursue, hit, or tackle a fleeing perpetrator to recover your stolen property and make a citizen's arrest
Still one should try to call the police first, only use reasonable force, and not set traps. Read the complete statement on the U.K. government website. Download the Crown's leaflet
All of this sounds very brave and pro-people until you learn that the Labour government has outlawed guns, knives, pepper spray, batons, and other means of effective self-defense by the average person against criminals. Labour has aided and abetted criminals by making victums safe for them, causing a boom in violent crime.
This was taken from the information I found here
I vaguely remember hearing something about that sort of incident, maybe that exact one, years ago. That was at a time, though, when I wasn't really paying attention to this sort of news.
Originally Posted by Coach
I read through that wikipedia article and that must have been quite a media/political firestorm in NYC at the time.
The Goetz case I suppose is somewhat similar to the UK case I mentioned. The one in the UK, I believe it was either Wales or England, but I don't recall which. Anyhow, the guy lived by himself in the far outskirts of town - basically in a secluded / wooded area. Far enough away from even neighbors that nobody would have been able to hear him call for help. It was at nighttime when the thieves broke into his home. I do not recall the details of exactly what whet on inside, but 1 thief was killed, the other was injured & sentenced to approx 18 months and the homeowner/victim was sentenced to 20-25 years or so. I recall that his sentence was due to him defending himself with a gun, but maybe it wasn't so much about the defense and mostly that he owned and used a gun. I read in the wiki article that Goetz was also sentenced only in regards to having an unlicensed/illegal gun or something like that, but not for the actual use of the gun in self defense.
Thanks for posting that. I didn't know the bans in the UK extended to things such as pepper spray & batons. I find some of those laws to be so odd. People should have an undeniable right to defend themselves in whatever way is necessary. By necessary I also mean at a reasonable level as well.
Originally Posted by Coach
I could understand those laws existing in order to specify the illegality of using various weapons while committing a crime, but not when someone is defending themselves and especially if the person believes their life is at risk.
Did anyone watch the McCain / Obama debate tonight?
I only caught a few minutes of it while they were talking about the Russia/Georgia conflict.
Sorry but I'm not interested in listening to pandering. In my opinion, politicians will say whatever they need to say in order to accomplish one goal only and that's get elected.
Originally Posted by John
If McCain is the best the Republicans have to offer, then the republicans are in a World of hurt and all I've ever heard from Obama is what his speech writers tell him to say which is evident to how he stutters & stumbles in live interviews.
There were so many inconsistencies from Obama that I could no longer feel he was ready for the highest office in the land. Bottomline for me is, should Obama become president, who he gets around him are going to be who is actually controlling the country for these next four years.
This time around, I actually thought Mrs Clinton would have been the better choice for America but it's been a very long time since we got it right in electing a President. Promises are easy to throw around and God Knows we've heard tons of them but what these presidential hopefuls don't tell you is it's all about what Congress decides and who will have the ear of Congress.
Should the Repubs take control over the House & Senate, then McCain will have a better shot of making things happen and vice versa. I lost respect for Obama during the Rev. Wright controversy given he basically lied about what he knew about Wright and he only denounce him when it became clear he would suffer a loss to Hillary if he defended him. For him to say, I attend his Church and he's the God father of my children and has come to my home for dinner several times and I never knew of his ideology, just doesn't cut it.
McCain, although did good in picking a female running mate did horrible in picking that female running mate. She's off her rocker. If McCain were much younger, then it really wouldn't matter but this guy is old and she could wind up being the President and God help us if that should happen.
Last edited by Coach; 09-27-2008 at 10:19 AM.
I am a Brit, we have a gracious lady "The Queen" who serves this Country of ours well. As for the politicians, well they just "Feather their own nests! I won't waist any time on them !!!
Originally Posted by Harwin
I always wanted to know how is power divided or shared between the Queen and the Prime Minister?
On another note, I felt the same amount of sadness for Princess Diana's death as I did when John Kennedy was killed. To this day, that tragedy continues to bother me about society and what we allow in the name of profit.
Last edited by Coach; 09-27-2008 at 01:13 PM.
Same here. The few minutes I watched was actually by accident. We were watching a recorded show on Tivo and when that finished the live channel had the debate on.
Originally Posted by Coach
I don't like either of them. If it was a 3 person race with Hillary in it, she would be my preference - even though I didn't support Hillary during the primaries.
I agree. McCain definitely is not the best the GOP could offer. Not by a long shot.
Originally Posted by Coach
I believe the best Republican candidate was Ron Paul. Learning about Dr. Paul and his political platform is probably the best thing I ever did, in regards to politics. I can thank whoever it was that put up the hundreds of signs I saw between the Tampa Airport and St. Petersburg back in December 2007. Even a few months after he dropped out of the race I still see more signs and bumper stickers for him wherever I go - more than for McCain & Obama (and probably all the others) combined.
I've also noticed that Obama doesn't seem quite right without his teleprompter. I stumbled upon a short video at YouTube a while back where Obama's teleprompter goes out while he's speaking in front of an audience (some sort of town hall type event) and he just about completely loses it. McCain seems to speak better when he isn't using a teleprompter and Obama does way better with one. My guess is that McCain is better at memorizing stuff and Obama is better at reading out loud.
Originally Posted by Coach
In my opinion, neither of them speak much about things that they truly understand or believe in. When people are speaking about topics in which they have a great deal of knowledge and passion for, they never need to read their answers or look back at their notes before answering a question. A perfect example of this is probably you with all your knowledge about tennis. I bet just as you are reading this, without any preparation or notes, you could deliver a great presentation or debate about the sport without any problem. It's because you really know the stuff.
McCain & Obama... bleh...
You mention Ron Paul and I have as well recognized under-grade Candidates that have terrific ideas on how to move this Country forward. The argument about abolishing the two party system is so vitally important for Americans yet running for President has become huge business. No third Party Candidate can even come close to raising the amounts of money required to give themselves a shot.
Money is what elects Presidents. Personality and Charisma are who we vote for. Ideas take a back seat because Americans essentially feel, it doesn't matter who is sitting in the Oval Office these days, it's who he has around him that's making the decisions and of course our checks & balances is Congress.
Well America, I bear witness to two disasters where that theory didn't work out so well for us. Viet Nam, which I was involved in and now Iraq, that was shoved down our throats because Americans are not about to take a blow from anyone like that and not strike back. Problem is, we didn't strike the right people. Saddam was a horrible man and deserved being removed from power but that was for another day. And to think capturing or killing Osama Ben Laden, will dent or damper terrorism is nothing less than a joke at this point. There are so many fractured groups that he doesn't even have control over that we must deal with. Point is, when he's gone, they will still be there.
In the name of Allah, is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Allah (GOD) doesn't want death, destruction or terrorism to prevail. God is all about Peace, Love and Community amongst Mankind. Anything other than that is self-indulgence.