ThrobblefootSpectre: You insult someone's intelligence, because of a misspelled word. Call them a dumbass. Then proceed to give us interesting spellings like "rality" and "dsampen"

You officially get the mongo hypocritical retard dumbass of the month award.

But at least you are good for a laugh.

Read the whole thread.

NightGirl: Yes, absolutely. Why on Earth should there be any kind of actual deterrent from committing a crime. After all, it's all just one big game! All the victims of crime, too scared to leave their homes, they should lighten up. After all, if the criminal actually gets away, then it isn't really a crime at all. No damage done! Go about your business as usual.
Criminals deserve punishment. Criminal acts need deterring. "Oh it's ok, he is no longer trying to break into my property, leave him be." Sure, till the next household. "But he is no longer trying to break into a house. Therefore he is no longer a criminal, right? we must protect him! We must look after him! After all, it is not HIS fault he tried to break into someone's house". And as for the guy who actually tried to bring him to justice (if anyone remembers what that word really means) Lock him up! Punish Him! How dare he!
This country sucks. And don't even get me started on the gun laws.

I know. America NEVER has crime!

stiletto_the_wise This thread is sick. So many people that are so attached to their little plastic made-in-China "stuff" that they're willing to hurt or kill over it. I hope I'm not neighbors with any of you sociopaths. The day I stumble home drunk into the wrong house may be the day I eat lead because you Rambos think I'm a "home invader".

The homeowner was concerned about his family, his children. Not made in china plastic stuff. And nobody got shot.

It's nice that you don't believe in the concept of privacy, or property ownership, but at least stop being such a drama queen.

meekychuppet: And another.


I suppose your definition of "goon" is someone who points out the inherent stupidty of your posts in both the areas of execution AND logic... Anyone should be pretty glad to be on that team then.


stiletto_the_wise: ***Spider Rico: That's nice. If someone breaks into my house they are leaving out in a body bag. One warning, with my Glock 19 pointed center mass. If they don't vacate like their hair in on fire I'm putting all 16 in their ass. Home invasion is a hard way to make a living.***

This thread is sick. So many people that are so attached to their little plastic made-in-China "stuff" that they're willing to hurt or kill over it. I hope I'm not neighbors with any of you sociopaths. The day I stumble home drunk into the wrong house may be the day I eat lead because you Rambos think I'm a "home invader".


FAIL.

People aren't willing to kill over their "little plastic made-in-China "stuff"". They are willing to kill because a stranger with no right to be there is breaking in to someone else's occupied home. How do you know that stranger is there just to steal your little plastic made-in-China "stuff"?

And what's really sick is that modern society in all it's spoiling ease and convenience has conditioned some people to be so blindingly naive that they feel the need to twist logic and turn an invader in to a victim. Simple solution to the whole "getting shot in the face while invading someone's home" is: DON'T INVADE SOMEONE ELSE'S FARKING HOUSE.

"I know. America NEVER has crime!"


That is not the point. The point is that we are allowed to protect ourselves. You are not. You are punished for protecting yourself in England. If you find this acceptable, than by all means continue to be a victim. If this would have happened where I live, the kid would have been shot out of the window.

/Tough shiat.
//Can't take the consequences, then don't break into other peoples houses.....

Spoonfed'sBuddy: It's not about the plastic junk, it's about a person's right to both feel and be secure in their own home. Most people who have home defense weapons (myself included) are not eager to end another person's life, but believe that should such events unfold, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the rightful home owner whose safety has been compromised by a home invasion. Quit coddling criminals and lay off the booze.

I agree partially. I have no problem with the idea of using deadly force against an aggressive invader who clearly is there to hurt people. I keep a 9mm at home myself in case such an unfortunate situation arises. But I am not about to use it to shoot someone in the back while he's dragging out my stereo system.

Pert of owning a firearm is being responsible enough to tell the difference between an aggressive invader out to kill and a drunkard or common thief who just wants to pawn something off for a few bucks. One of them is acceptable to defend yourself against with deadly force, and the other is not.

meekychuppet: I'm not exactly sure how a burglary could be in progress when he wasn't on his property.

He was on his property. The homeowner made the decision to arrest the guy when he noticed him at a window on the upper floor of his house. I can't think of any lawful reason why you would go to a stranger's house and scale the drainpipe to the first floor. If I found someone at my upstairs window I would assume he was looking for a way in, and I think that's a reasonable assumption.

If the homeowner had reasonable grounds to believe that the guy was attempting a burglary, he had a right to arrest. I don't think that the suspect's attempt to flee the scene changes anything. People are conflating self defense with the right to arrest. Once the guy ran away, the homeowner could no longer justify force in self defense, but he could still arrest the guy until police arrived, could he not? I'm not saying that he was right to punch the guy (if indeed he did so).

mongbiohazard: How do you know that stranger is there just to steal your little plastic made-in-China "stuff"?

It's part of being a rational adult with good judgment. Some people here seem to not grasp the concept yet. Maybe when they get a little older... Rule of thumb: if both hands are occupied with carrying your CD player, he's probably not an immediate threat.

That is not the point. The point is that we are allowed to protect ourselves. You are not. You are punished for protecting yourself in England. If you find this acceptable, than by all means continue to be a victim. If this would have happened where I live, the kid would have been shot out of the window.

We are allowed to protect ourselves, that's all just bollocks. If you live somewhere where you can shoot some drunk kid who looks like he might break into your house (but is in fact, more likely to fall over and be sick) then that is truly sad. There is nothing pleasurable or heroic about being able to kill someone - regardless of teh situation.

mongbiohazard: I suppose your definition of "goon" is someone who points out the inherent stupidty of your posts in both the areas of execution AND logic... Anyone should be pretty glad to be on that team then.

No, it's someone who doesn't realise when I'm clearly taking the piss.

Captain Darling: He was on his property. The homeowner made the decision to arrest the guy when he noticed him at a window on the upper floor of his house. I can't think of any lawful reason why you would go to a stranger's house and scale the drainpipe to the first floor. If I found someone at my upstairs window I would assume he was looking for a way in, and I think that's a reasonable assumption.

If the homeowner had reasonable grounds to believe that the guy was attempting a burglary, he had a right to arrest. I don't think that the suspect's attempt to flee the scene changes anything. People are conflating self defense with the right to arrest. Once the guy ran away, the homeowner could no longer justify force in self defense, but he could still arrest the guy until police arrived, could he not? I'm not saying that he was right to punch the guy (if indeed he did so).

The chain of events is not made clear.

There aren't enough facts for this matter to be properly discussed.

Worried about home security? Go to the SPCA/RSPCA and get a DOG.

Now STFU, GTFO, and GOML.

Harriet Vane: I've had my house broken into twice, once while out and once while home asleep. While it is an unpleasant experience, I never once thought that the person wanted to do anything more than steal things to pawn. 'Wouldn't it be great if I could shoot them!' never crossed my mind.

I have been broken into 4 times. The last time by a very crazed and very armed (butcher knife) person who wanted to do far more than "steal things to pawn". Assure you if I hadn't opened fire on him (unfortunately missing) he would not have retreated and I would not be here today. Now, when legal, I am always armed.

meekychuppet: R.A.Danny: So he didn't invite the kid in for tea, he should still be able to defend his home.

you clearly haven't read the article. The guy chased him and dragged him back to the police. If memory serves a citizen's arrest can only be made when the crime carries a sentence of 5 years (might be 10). I doubt that "hanging from a window ledge" is a serious threat to anyone's home.

said the little girl who still lives with mummsy and da-da

meekychuppet: Assulting? Thanks for highlighting your intelligence level their dumbassmitter.

By the way, it's The Sun. Despite the penchant Farkers have for racial stereotyping I can assure you that it didn't happen the way it was reported in The Sun, but don't let silly old rality dsampen your stupidity

I don't know if you tried to do that or if you yourself are also at the same level of intelligence their, but either way it is funny.

meekychuppet: Dimensio: meekyshuppet is either a troll or a criminal. In a previous discussion, meekyshuppet outright lied about the content of an article in order to justify claiming that an armed robber who was shot and killed was a victim.

Dimnesio doesn't have a girlfriend/boyfriend or it wouldn't have time to keep records like this.

Your presumptious claims about my personal life does not refute your past documented dishonesty.

anarchy_x: THE
SCUFFLE/ASSAULT
HAPPENED
BEFORE
HE
FLED.

You are arguing with someone who will outright lie about the content of an article. That he is factually wrong is immaterial to his argument.

mark0h:
Death for trespassing is hardly a just punishment...

It is fundamentally dishonest to equivocate engaging in defense with administering punishment.

stiletto_the_wise:
Well, with both hands on a TV they're carrying out the door, you can be sure they can't pull out a gun or unzip their pants for a little rapin.

Please show how it can be determined that they are not accompanied by an armed accomplice.

Also explain why I should allow them to walk off with my property.

meekychuppet: HomerButt: I wouldn't personally run someone down in that situation, but that's because I'm a girl and would get my ass kicked. Adrenaline does strange things to people, though, and an intruder when you have your kids in the home is enough to get most mens "fight or flight" instincts righteously roused. And flight is right out if your family is present. Saying one can't apprehend some punk kid and hand him over to police is essentially emasculating to any homeowner. It makes for a society of either victims or predators, IMO.

He didn't apprehend him, he assaulted him. Personally I think the "protecting my family" excuse doesn't wash. If I felt my boys were threatened then the minute the intruder was gone I'd be checking on them, not chasing after him.

If it was the spur of the moment then again, I could accept adrenaline etc but he had time to think. It doesn't emasculate anyone as it's clear this guy posed no threat.

meekychuppet must be the kid in the story!

meekychuppet: If it happened in the house then that's one thing but running him down when he's fleeing is premeditated assault.

Premeditated? How much planning did he put into that? The guy caught a thief, and you want the thief turned loose and the homeowner thrown in jail.

Your theory seems to be that if the thief tries to run away, he should be allowed to run free so that he can break into another house. I disagree. I think being a thief should *not* be a safe line of work. If you get caught and the homeowner beats the living snot out of you, I'm fine with that.

stiletto_the_wise Quote 2007-11-04 03:08:11 PM


Pert of owning a firearm is being responsible enough to tell the difference between an aggressive invader out to kill and a drunkard or common thief who just wants to pawn something off for a few bucks. One of them is acceptable to defend yourself against with deadly force, and the other is not.


Agreed. If the cops believe you roughed up somebody because you thought they were breaking in and wanted to punish(rather than in self-defense), you better hope you live in Texas. No sympathy for the thief, though.

stiletto_the_wise: ***mongbiohazard: How do you know that stranger is there just to steal your little plastic made-in-China "stuff"?***

It's part of being a rational adult with good judgment. Some people here seem to not grasp the concept yet. Maybe when they get a little older... Rule of thumb: if both hands are occupied with carrying your CD player, he's probably not an immediate threat.


I didn't realize you could read minds, and know that he isn't there to kill and rape your family AND steal your CD player. Also, that you could read from his mind that he wasn't going to beat you to death with it either.

And that you can see the future and know that all people breaking into any place ever are only going in there to do one thing - oh yeah, and that there hands are always full of your stuff and not a weapon.

Now maybe if you could teach the rest of us to read minds and see the future then maybe we wouldn't have to shoot morons who invade other people's homes.

Anyhow you DON'T seem to be able to teach anyone how to be a "rational adult with good judgement" since if you could you'd be able to realize that once someone has broken the social contract in such a dangerous and intrusive manner it's NOT a safe assumption to believe that they - a person you don't even know - aren't willing to break it further.


meekychuppet: No, it's someone who doesn't realise when I'm clearly taking the piss.


A. We can't trust you anyway due to your past history of dishonesty. It's just as likely that you got caught doing something really dumb and have since taken care not to repeat the mistake, and claimed it was intentional to cover for yourself.
B. I also assailed your faulty logic.
C. You still haven't explained your "racial stereotyping" comment, since no one had mentioned race of any kind but YOU.
D. You should leave the piss where it is, that's just nasty.
E. Yes, I know what that colloquialism means. It's still weird.

Dimensio: Your presumptious claims about my personal life does not refute your past documented dishonesty.

Are you going to tell teacher?

Dimensio: It is fundamentally dishonest to equivocate engaging in defense with administering punishment.

First, that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Second, what's dishonest about it? Are you suggesting that it's impossible for an act of defense to also be an act of punishment?

Some of you nancies need to post your home addresses. If I decide to get into the robbery business, I'm going to start with some lady like 'stiletto_the_wise' or one of the other 'no force to protect property!' idiots.

Dimensio: Please show how it can be determined that they are not accompanied by an armed accomplice.


You could always use your eyes and ears. Better to do some recon before you start spraying the shotgun all over the place.

Also explain why I should allow them to walk off with my property.

Because in a civilized society you don't kill people over "stuff". Maybe in uncivilized hillbilly sections of the country, it's acceptable to kill people over a TV, but where I live that kind of thing is frowned upon.

mongbiohazard: I didn't realize you could read minds

Making a judgment call is not the same as mind reading. For those incapable of good judgment, it might seem like mind reading, kind of like how, to a stone-age tribal village, cars seem like they run on magic.

Detroit_Bob: Some of you nancies need to post your home addresses. If I decide to get into the robbery business, I'm going to start with some lady like 'stiletto_the_wise' or one of the other 'no force to protect property!' idiots.

I don't understand this brand of idiot at all. It's as though we've been saying a person shouldn't be allowed to defend their property. Obviously all those hours of shooting lessons would have been better spent reading instead.

meekychuppet: It's as though we've been saying a person shouldn't be allowed to defend their property.

You effectively are.

Britain is trying to steal the surrenders prize from France!

Detroit_Bob: You effectively are.

I'm effectively discussing this case only so effectively you're being effectively presumptuous.

Detroit_Bob Quote 2007-11-04 04:34:16 PM


Some of you nancies need to post your home addresses. If I decide to get into the robbery business, I'm going to start with some lady like 'stiletto_the_wise' or one of the other 'no force to protect property!' idiots.


You're welcome to try my house. If you don't care when the alarm goes off and don't get chewed up by my dogs, I have an arsenal to greet you with.

I think citizen's arrests are OK and reasonable force is OK. You need to realize though that cops are not your friends, and they WILL try to stick it to you if there are indications you inflicted injury unreasonably.

If you think about it, that's not such a bad thing. After all, if you walk into your neighbor's yard and he shoots you because he thinks you're stealing his mower, suddenly the whole issue of reasonable force will seem pretty important.

Obviously, meekychuppet has never been burglarized.

Also, to the people screaming "People are more important than things!":
Yes people are more important than my stuff. But people lose their right to be considered "people" once they become criminals.

Meekychuppet, I just felt like copying and pasting your name into my previous post since you aren't worth the effort to create a whole new post for. You argue the same points over and over again without backing them up with any evidence, lying about info here, and provide no valid points other than nitpicking about others spelling errors, typos, and other bits and pieces that can be taken out of context.

Meekychuppet you're an idiot. I'm sorry but there is no cure for your disease short of suicide, which I would recommend in your case. It will do the world and these forums some good if you off yourself asap. The way and manner of your demise does not matter provided it occurs before Nov. 7th, this gives you time so you may get your life in order and the rest of the Farkers can find your address and take your things, remember you can't hit them or protect your stuff =p. Don't say anything if you wouldn't mind it happening to you. Kidding of course, but seriously listen to yourself. But posting your address surely wouldn't hurt anything... right?

Your facts are what I would consider naive and stupid. Any fact can be taken out of context. Right now there are areas in the US that are crime ridden, just like ANY other country. Until the right people can correct it, it will continue. Laws protecting the rights of homeowners reduce crime. Allowing police to do their jobs reduces crime, same with the Border guards, which isn't a completely different issue, since many of the people crossing the border aren't the innocent families you think them to be.

IMO right now is a battle between the good, the evil, and the people who don't have a clue. Right now most of Europe doesn't have a clue and protects the evil under the guise of being tolerant or protective against the big bad government. The good are the people who hold onto their values and their rights, the result of this? They get arrested, they get their lives uprooted, they are punished for the deeds of others. Any yet.... you defend the wrong, not the wronged. Can you explain WITH Logic why you defend the rights of criminals rather than the law abiding people that government is built on?

The question in this case is easy. Was the teen deemed a threat at the time? Yes he was. Was the man right in chasing him down? Yes he was. Say your wife's(spouse's) purse/whatever is stolen in front of you, would you not chase down the thief and return it? Is that not the right thing to do? Should the man have been arrested for protecting his property and his family?

By the way do the innocent flee? Would it not have made more sense for the teen if he really was innocent to simply explain the situation? Or wait for the cops to show up? I doubt if the teen had went face down and gone prone that he would have been wailed on.

Cypher1014: Obviously, meekychuppet has never been burglarized.

Twice.

But people lose their right to be considered "people" once they become criminals.

Oh please. I have no doubt that you have broken the law, whether or not you were caught.

Animatronik: I think citizen's arrests are OK and reasonable force is OK. You need to realize though that cops are not your friends, and they WILL try to stick it to you if there are indications you inflicted injury unreasonably.

They will try to stick it to you REGARDLESS. It doesn't matter if you saved a bus of burning nuns with your heroic pistol work, they will treat you like a criminal. Which I sort of understand, but it also means you say not a damned thing until your lawyer shows up.

Which brings me to the amusing point of how many people have a firearm for self-defense, but don't have a lawyer on speed-dial...

911, request police and ambulance, hang up, call your lawyer. Unless you think you can get away with it, in which case just taking off could work pretty good.

meekychuppet
BarryJV: Could you live with knowing that you could have stopped that, but didn't?

I could, because it's not my job.

It's not your job, but you're part of society. Shouldn't you do everything you could to help to defend others against criminals?

I'm not expecting everyone to try to tackle criminals, some people are obviously not going to be physically strong enough or sufficiently skilled enough to do that, or they might have other, more immediate responsibilities, but if I was in a position to stop a criminal I'd feel morally compelled to do so.

meekychuppet: I have no doubt that you have broken the law, whether or not you were caught.

I have never committed a crime against another human being, or animal for that matter. Nor have I ever vandalized anyone's property.

And even if I had done something stupid, there is a bit of difference between a "criminal" and a person who takes a candy bar from a store.

A user name: Meekychuppet, I just felt like copying and pasting your name into my previous post since you aren't worth the effort to create a whole new post for. You argue the same points over and over again without backing them up with any evidence, lying about info here, and provide no valid points other than nitpicking about others spelling errors, typos, and other bits and pieces that can be taken out of context.

All along I have been pointing out that there is a lack of evidence here, so for you to say this is just silly.

Meekychuppet you're an idiot. I'm sorry but there is no cure for your disease short of suicide, which I would recommend in your case. It will do the world and these forums some good if you off yourself asap. The way and manner of your demise does not matter provided it occurs before Nov. 7th, this gives you time so you may get your life in order and the rest of the Farkers can find your address and take your things, remember you can't hit them or protect your stuff =p. Don't say anything if you wouldn't mind it happening to you. Kidding of course, but seriously listen to yourself. But posting your address surely wouldn't hurt anything... right?

At no point have I argued that you shouldn't be allowed to defend your property. Also, personal insults = admission of defeat. Obviously I won't post my address for many reasons, identity theft the main one.

Your facts are what I would consider naive and stupid. Any fact can be taken out of context. Right now there are areas in the US that are crime ridden, just like ANY other country. Until the right people can correct it, it will continue. Laws protecting the rights of homeowners reduce crime. Allowing police to do their jobs reduces crime, same with the Border guards, which isn't a completely different issue, since many of the people crossing the border aren't the innocent families you think them to be.

None of this is relevant to anything I have said.

IMO right now is a battle between the good, the evil, and the people who don't have a clue. Right now most of Europe doesn't have a clue and protects the evil under the guise of being tolerant or protective against the big bad government. The good are the people who hold onto their values and their rights, the result of this? They get arrested, they get their lives uprooted, they are punished for the deeds of others. Any yet.... you defend the wrong, not the wronged. Can you explain WITH Logic why you defend the rights of criminals rather than the law abiding people that government is built on?

You're asking me a different question to any of the ones I have addressed here.

The question in this case is easy. Was the teen deemed a threat at the time? Yes he was. Was the man right in chasing him down? Yes he was. Say your wife's(spouse's) purse/whatever is stolen in front of you, would you not chase down the thief and return it? Is that not the right thing to do? Should the man have been arrested for protecting his property and his family?

This is an invalid comparison - he hadn't stolen anything.

By the way do the innocent flee? Would it not have made more sense for the teen if he really was innocent to simply explain the situation? Or wait for the cops to show up? I doubt if the teen had went face down and gone prone that he would have been wailed on.

Charles de Menezes fled. Was he guilty?

BarryJV: It's not your job, but you're part of society. Shouldn't you do everything you could to help to defend others against criminals?

No.

Cypher1014: I have never committed a crime against another human being, or animal for that matter. Nor have I ever vandalized anyone's property.

So you're now backtracking now, saying that only certain criminals cannot be considered people. Will you change your definition every time a valid objection is raised?

Sorry chaps, but my point was, and remains, that in this case, and based on the article, there isn't enough to say whether he was justified, and furthermore, this kind of thing isn't black and white and to act as if it ever is or was is foolish.

hipsellipsis: I just came here to make an ad hominem attack on MeekyChuppet.

I'm an ex-pat Brit and so, so glad not to be living around people with your mentality any more.

THIS.

Hell, people biatch about Florida being crazy, but it's absolute paradise compared to Blighty. Sad to say that, but there you have it.

meekychuppet: So you're now backtracking now, saying that only certain criminals cannot be considered people. Will you change your definition every time a valid objection is raised?

Actually, I haven't yet defined the word "criminal", let alone given clashing definitions.

Cypher1014: Actually, I haven't yet defined the word "criminal", let alone given clashing definitions.

It's not yours to define. The law defines one, and I have no doubt that you, like me have at some point become one and got away with it.

A user name
Right now most of Europe doesn't have a clue and protects the evil under the guise of being tolerant or protective against the big bad government.

What are you talking about, and how much have you been drinking?

meekychuppet:

I'm sorry you're so upset over this article. Maybe you could come over and we could discuss your "feelings"? Say...tomorrow night about 10:30? I'll leave the door unlocked, just let yourself in. :)

meekychuppet:and I have no doubt that you, like me have at some point become one and got away with it.

As I previously stated, I have never "crime against another human being, or animal for that matter. Nor have I ever vandalized anyone's property."
I haven't even taken a candy bar from a store. Sorry to disappoint you.

It's not yours to define. The law defines one
Are you telling me you consider someone who speeds, a criminal? The law does.

Cypher1014: As I previously stated, I have never "crime against another human being, or animal for that matter. Nor have I ever vandalized anyone's property."
I haven't even taken a candy bar from a store. Sorry to disappoint you.

You will have. Stoln copyrighted music, used foul language, something.

It's not yours to define. The law defines one
Are you telling me you consider someone who speeds, a criminal? The law does.

It doesn't matter what I think.

NightGirl: Where have all the real men gone?

I moved to Florida.

Stolen.