If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   The wussification of the UK continues, as a man who tackled drunken teen for attempting to break into his house and then turned the teen over to police is arrested for assulting the teen   (thesun.co.uk) divider line 414
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

10790 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Nov 2007 at 10:59 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



414 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-11-04 05:36:21 PM
Ok Meekychupper did you not just nitpick? You just proven a point of mine. Rather than look at it as a whole, you decided to break it down and take it out of context. Did you not just ignore that opening part of the post?

Sorry that I did not included the disclaimer, "This is a reused post, some parts may or may not apply to you. If the latter occurs please ignore and continue reading."

meekychuppet: "All along I have been pointing out that there is a lack of evidence here, so for you to say this is just silly.
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.
None of this is relevant to anything I have said.
You're asking me a different question to any of the ones I have addressed here.
This is an invalid comparison - he hadn't stolen anything.
Charles de Menezes fled. Was he guilty?"

Ok, seriously dude get a life/job/sense of humor. It was meant as a joke, but also meant to make you think. What you have argued throughout this topic is that "you shouldn't be able to defend your property, how do you know he wanted to harm you, how did you know he wanted to take your stuff. and therefore that guy was wrong for chasing him".... (anyway that's how it appears)

If I was serious about insulting you then I wouldn't have had 'Kidding' there. I would have just posted, "You're an Idiot."

The question isn't different at all, ANSWER it.

Yes it is a valid comparsion. The act of stealing and the attempt can be considered the same, and both are punishable by the law. If you try to rob a bank and fail, you're still gonna go to jail. ANSWER it.

Sorry but not familiar with the Charles de Menezes case, so I cannot refute that.
 
2007-11-04 05:37:42 PM
stiletto_the_wise: 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".

Maybe you shouldn't drink so much that you might end up wandering into the wrong home.

Believe it or not, you are responsible for your safety, not me.
 
2007-11-04 05:40:03 PM
A user name: The question isn't different at all, ANSWER it.

You're asking generic questions, not specifically relating to this case. My replies may have implications for other crimes but it is up up you to infer our own conclusions. I am referring to this case only so I will not answer your question.

Yes it is a valid comparsion. The act of stealing and the attempt can be considered the same, and both are punishable by the law. If you try to rob a bank and fail, you're still gonna go to jail. ANSWER it.

No it can't, so I won't. The homeowner had no reason to chase him if no possessions had been taken.

Sorry but not familiar with the Charles de Menezes case, so I cannot refute that.

ANSWER IT.
 
2007-11-04 05:40:43 PM
Dimensio: Believe it or not, you are responsible for your safety, not me.

You are if he's on your property.
 
2007-11-04 05:42:04 PM
meekychuppet: You will have. Stoln copyrighted music, used foul language, something.

A) I get my music legally (and for free, isnt this fun?)
B) Oh noes! I have never heard of a law that has no standing in today's society! Shall I refrain from singing in a public place whilst wearing my swimming trunks? (Yes, that is a law where I live.)
 
2007-11-04 05:43:52 PM
stiletto_the_wise: Because in a civilized society you don't kill people over "stuff".

People don't break and enter into my dwelling, much less steal my "stuff", in a civilized society.
 
2007-11-04 05:56:22 PM
meekychuppet Charles de Menezes fled. Was he guilty?

I assume you mean Jean Charles de Menezes. He didn't flee and he wasn't guilty.
 
2007-11-04 05:57:45 PM
meekychuppet: You are if he's on your property.

Not if I didn't invite him and he entered illegally. Any society that demands that I be held responsible for the personal safety of a criminal who invades my home is tyrannical.

Of course, if such an event occured, I would expect you to lie about the reported facts of the case so as to claim that the intruder was a victim. It's your MO.
 
2007-11-04 06:01:34 PM
Dimensio: Not if I didn't invite him and he entered illegally. Any society that demands that I be held responsible for the personal safety of a criminal who invades my home is tyrannical.

Then go ahead andmine your garden.

BarryJV: I assume you mean Jean Charles de Menezes. He didn't flee and he wasn't guilty.

He didn't flee? I think you're reaching.
 
2007-11-04 06:12:11 PM
Dimensio: Any society that demands that I be held responsible for the personal safety of a criminal who invades my home is tyrannical.

VERY well said.
 
2007-11-04 06:13:26 PM
And mine.

Oops.
 
2007-11-04 06:21:31 PM
meekychuppet: BarryJV: I assume you mean Jean Charles de Menezes. He didn't flee and he wasn't guilty.

He didn't flee? I think you're reaching.


Do you work for the met?

He walked into the station, got onto a train and sat down. He only stood up when the police told everyone to clear the carriage. All the stories about him leaping the barriers and running through the station were invented by the police.
 
2007-11-04 06:36:46 PM
stiletto_the_wise: 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".

Then don't get so piss-drunk you can't even tell your own house, Einstein. Sheesh, using "I was just drunk!!" seems to be an excuse for anything these days.

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.

Once again, in the actual ARTICLE (remember that?), nobody shot a damn thing. And, of course, it's only hillbillies who own weapons. And the government was behind 9-11.
 
2007-11-04 06:40:50 PM
American Gunowner of the Year.

Thanks, I think. :)
 
2007-11-04 06:51:47 PM
HomerButt: Then don't get so piss-drunk you can't even tell your own house, Einstein. Sheesh, using "I was just drunk!!" seems to be an excuse for anything these days.

So it's reasonable to expect to get shot if you accidentally enter someone else's house?

HomerButt: Once again, in the actual ARTICLE (remember that?), nobody shot a damn thing. And, of course, it's only hillbillies who own weapons. And the government was behind 9-11.

I think we're so far from the article now that I forget what thread this is.
 
2007-11-04 06:56:19 PM
meekychuppet: A user name: The question isn't different at all, ANSWER it.

You're asking generic questions, not specifically relating to this case. My replies may have implications for other crimes but it is up up you to infer our own conclusions. I am referring to this case only so I will not answer your question.

Yes it is a valid comparsion. The act of stealing and the attempt can be considered the same, and both are punishable by the law. If you try to rob a bank and fail, you're still gonna go to jail. ANSWER it.

No it can't, so I won't. The homeowner had no reason to chase him if no possessions had been taken.

Sorry but not familiar with the Charles de Menezes case, so I cannot refute that.

ANSWER IT.


Ok. Google is your friend. Seems to me to be a different case than what you are saying. It does not relate to this topic at all. It seems after a quick glance to be a case of police going over the edge. Even though that's not a question, I still looked it up.

Oh why, oh why won't you answer my questions? Because they're hard? They do relate to the topic whether you wish to believe it or not. The answer may not sound good so you cast blame and try to muddy the issue and discredit my points. Now rather than go typing away saying, "Your points are invalid since they are general instances and I have only talked about this topic (which you and I know to be untrue)," just think about what you stand for? The wrong or the wronged?

"You're asking generic questions, not specifically relating to this case. My replies may have implications for other crimes but it is up up you to infer our own conclusions. I am referring to this case only so I will not answer your question."

Wait....What? So you can make general statements but I cannot. Also by doing so my arguements become invalid. You seem to be one confused individual. Rather than answer a harmless question you insist on dodging around it looking for any excuse to not.
 
2007-11-04 06:57:11 PM
What some people fail to realize is that most gun owners would give an intruder plenty of time to flee. In most cases, it wouldn't be a situation where the gun owner shoots first and asks questions later. That's irresponsible. You make sure it's not your wife sneaking in a birthday gift or your kids sneaking in from a night of drinking. Always identify your target and what's behind it first.

Once you've identified it as an intruder, you show the weapon and tell them they have 20 seconds to comply. They leave, you lock the doors and call the police. They don't leave after seeing a gun pointed at them, you assume that they're drunk, high, or intend to do you harm. At most you give them a second warning before pulling the trigger.

Criminals anywhere do not want a confrontation. There have been many interviews with criminals in jail about their targets, and the last thing they want is an armed homeowner. Someone defending his home and family is far more adamant about defense than someone just looking to make a quick buck. If they wanted to work and have stress, they'd get a real job. Confronting a homeowner is stressful, and so is the possibility of getting caught. If you're arrested with no one home, you might get a few months or years in jail. If you're arrested after confronting someone, you might get a much longer jail sentence.

There are the exceptions, but by and large thieves want to get in and out as quickly as possible and fence the goods quickly so they can get cash.
 
2007-11-04 06:58:32 PM
meekychuppet:

Yes it is a valid comparsion. The act of stealing and the attempt can be considered the same, and both are punishable by the law. If you try to rob a bank and fail, you're still gonna go to jail. ANSWER it.

No it can't, so I won't. The homeowner had no reason to chase him if no possessions had been taken.


A lot of folks obviously disagree with you and have explained why.

There are enough good reasons for the homeowner to chase him down. You've previously stated that it's not your job. It's not your job to call the cops either, but would you at least do that?



Sorry but not familiar with the Charles de Menezes case, so I cannot refute that.

ANSWER IT.


As I understand it, he was guilty - just not guilty of what they suspected.
 
2007-11-04 06:58:40 PM
stiletto_the_wise: So it's reasonable to expect to get shot if you accidentally enter someone else's house?

Personally, I would not shoot someone instantly upon entering my house. I would give them a fair warning that I'm armed, and give them the chance to scarper.

And most armed people would do the same. I think the problem here is that we're going to extremes... it isn't either "shoot him!" or "OMG, let him take everything, and quiver in fear while he does so!"

In real life, it's almost always a shade of gray between the two. I think most of us here arguing can agree on that. It's just fun to argue sometimes.

I think we're so far from the article now that I forget what thread this is.

Perfectly understood :-)
 
2007-11-04 07:06:20 PM
altinos: What some people fail to realize is that most gun owners would give an intruder plenty of time to flee. In most cases, it wouldn't be a situation where the gun owner shoots first and asks questions later. That's irresponsible. You make sure it's not your wife sneaking in a birthday gift or your kids sneaking in from a night of drinking. Always identify your target and what's behind it first.

See, you said it first. Damn my slow typing! As my dad (always armed redneck) taught me, "don't aim at something you're not going to shoot. Don't shoot something unless you're going to kill it. And only kill it if you're going to eat it, or it's going to kill you first."
 
2007-11-04 07:07:50 PM
stiletto_the_wise: HomerButt: Then don't get so piss-drunk you can't even tell your own house, Einstein. Sheesh, using "I was just drunk!!" seems to be an excuse for anything these days.

So it's reasonable to expect to get shot if you accidentally enter someone else's house?


Yes.

Is it reasonable to enter other people's houses without their consent?
 
2007-11-04 07:18:51 PM
HomerButt: As my dad (always armed redneck) taught me, "don't aim at something you're not going to shoot. Don't shoot something unless you're going to kill it. And only kill it if you're going to eat it, or it's going to kill you first."

Except for that last sentence, that's probably the first thing I ever learned about gun safety and I learned it at a very young age.

I still wouldn't shoot something that I didn't plan to eat or wasn't a threat to me or my loved ones - well, nothing living anyway (and that includes saguaros, dammit - stop shooting cacti whoever is doing it!)
 
2007-11-04 07:19:56 PM
mud_shark: So it's reasonable to expect to get shot if you accidentally enter someone else's house?

Yes.

Is it reasonable to enter other people's houses without their consent?


See, for every thoughtful answer like HomberButt's answer above, you get a half a dozen idiotic answers like this. And like the people above who advocate shooting people over televisions.

What, are you all living in war-torn Somalia or something, where it's OK to kill people willy-nilly because they maybe, JUST MAYBE, might possibly be A SCARY ARMED HOME INVADER??

See, in civilized society, we've come up with brilliant solutions to the problem of property crime, such as courts, insurance, and jails. I know these things must seem foreign to folks in whatever backwoods part of the country where you apparently fight in duels to see who gets to keep a horse that ran loose.
 
2007-11-04 07:25:09 PM
stiletto_the_wise:
See, for every thoughtful answer like HomberButt's answer above, you get a half a dozen idiotic answers like this.


What is idiotic about suggesting that it is not reasonable to enter another person's dwelling without their consent?


What, are you all living in war-torn Somalia or something, where it's OK to kill people willy-nilly because they maybe, JUST MAYBE, might possibly be A SCARY ARMED HOME INVADER??

Someone who has entered my home unlawfully is a home invader. Suggesting that I should not be allowed to assume that they may be armed and thus act accordingly is idiocy.

If someone breaks into my home, I have every right to assume the worst. If they don't want to risk their life, maybe they should consider not entering my home illegally.

See, in civilized society, we've come up with brilliant solutions to the problem of property crime, such as courts, insurance, and jails.

In civilized society, people are allowed to defend the sanctity of their homes without whiners complaining about the terrible state of affairs that creates such unfair job hazards for burglars.


I know these things must seem foreign to folks in whatever backwoods part of the country where you apparently fight in duels to see who gets to keep a horse that ran loose.

Wow. Your position must be truly weak if you think that the above is an apt analogy.
 
2007-11-04 07:32:13 PM
Dimensio: Wow. Your position must be truly weak if you think that the above is an apt analogy.

I have no idea if it is. I've never lived in such a place. I simply can't imagine living in a hellhole where it is actually socially acceptable to kill someone over a TV.
 
2007-11-04 07:32:39 PM
If it's in the Sun, it didn't happen.
 
2007-11-04 07:36:00 PM
stiletto_the_wise: I have no idea if it is. I've never lived in such a place. I simply can't imagine living in a hellhole where it is actually socially acceptable to kill someone over a TV.
 
2007-11-04 07:38:19 PM
stiletto_the_wise: Dimensio: Wow. Your position must be truly weak if you think that the above is an apt analogy.

I have no idea if it is. I've never lived in such a place. I simply can't imagine living in a hellhole where it is actually socially acceptable to kill someone over a TV.


Stupid buttons.

I can't imagine living in a place where it is considerd socially acceptible to steal someone's TV.

I will also note -- because you have dishonestly ignored this fact repeatedly -- that I don't advocate killing over a TV. On the other hand, someone who has broken into my dwelling may want more than my TV. Given that they have already demonstrated that they are unwilling to respect my privacy or my property, it is completely unreasonable to demand that I give them the benfit of the doubt regarding any other possible nefarious intent, and I will act accordingly.
 
2007-11-04 07:41:55 PM
meekychuppet: Dimensio: Not if I didn't invite him and he entered illegally. Any society that demands that I be held responsible for the personal safety of a criminal who invades my home is tyrannical.

Then go ahead andmine your garden.


You again demonstrate your utter dishonesty by shamelessly lying about what I have said. My garden is not my home. It may be my property, but it is not my home.
 
2007-11-04 07:53:34 PM
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's the perfect time to whack them in the head with your Louisville Slugger.
As stated in a post a few days ago, my un-corrected eyesight sucks. In case of a night-time B&E, I wouldn't trust myself to fire a weapon (excect perhaps a sawed-off shotgun, which I don't have). It is good enough for swinging a bat or a sword (I have both).

So it's either choppity-chop, or whackity-whack!
 
2007-11-04 07:56:00 PM
stiletto_the_wise: mud_shark: So it's reasonable to expect to get shot if you accidentally enter someone else's house?

Yes.

Is it reasonable to enter other people's houses without their consent?

See, for every thoughtful answer like HomberButt's answer above, you get a half a dozen idiotic answers like this.


Actually, I think your reply is pretty idiotic. Perhaps it would be better to say you "shouldn't be surprised" if you get shot instead of "expect", but that's splitting hairs IMO.

I notice you completely ignored my question. How reasonable do you think it is to enter other people's houses without their consent?

What backwards-assed part of the country do you live in where that is okay?


I simply can't imagine living in a hellhole where it is actually socially acceptable to kill someone over a TV.

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an intruder in your home whose intentions are not clear.
 
2007-11-04 08:39:32 PM
The law isn't there to prevent crime; the law is there to preserve crime.
 
2007-11-04 08:45:02 PM
In their quest for utopia, Europe has done the exact opposite.
England is just ONE of many examples of how liberal socialist
societys will and must fail.

Multiculturalism has created a great and vast divide between the
well meaning of the Brits and the immigrants who want a mile when
given an inch (perhaps that should be want a kilometer when given
a meter?)

The British crime rate has soared in the last 15 years in large
part due to an over liberal justice system that punishes the
victims rather than the criminals when the victims of the
criminals attempt to defend their own lives, and/or property, by
force if necessary.

Apprehension of a criminal should be part of the crime victim's
defense if they so choose to attempt an apprehension before the
criminal successfully escapes the scene. But not in England. In
England, a victim apprehending a criminal by ANY force is a crime
in and of itself.

England has always had an "ignore it and it will go away"
philosophy about bad things happening on their little island.
That is, until V2 rockets and enemy bombers start laying waste,
then it's okay to defend yourself. Many people have to die or
endure great suffering before the Brits will do anything about it.

...wussification indeed. It's been going on a long time.
 
2007-11-04 08:56:42 PM
Meatzilla: We use miles here in England. Jus' sayin'.

We aren't known to panic ourselves into a gigantic drama like America, sure. It prevents us from doing such retarded things as detaining a member of parliament from another country because of the colour of their skin, twice, and then say it's in the interest of national security.

Additionally, even though the article is trying to get sympathy for the guy, it doesn't mention that the teen attacked him or in any way provoked him into the grapple. It was just some dumb, drunk teen who ended up on his window ledge whilst doing dumb, drunk things, who likely could have just been sent on his way.
 
2007-11-04 08:57:53 PM
England really has turned into a shiathole. I was there last summer and the people were fat, Lot's of dirty immigrants, and these white kids who dress like eminem and act like gangster wannabes. They were everywhere.

It's worse than the U.S now, not the England I once knew.
 
2007-11-04 09:11:47 PM
mud_shark: I notice you completely ignored my question. How reasonable do you think it is to enter other people's houses without their consent?

Dimensio: I can't imagine living in a place where it is considerd socially acceptible to steal someone's TV.

I never said it was acceptable to break into someone's house or steal someone's TV. I'm just saying it is unacceptable to kill someone for doing it.
 
2007-11-04 09:39:26 PM
stiletto_the_wise:

I never said it was acceptable to break into someone's house or steal someone's TV. I'm just saying it is unacceptable to kill someone for doing it.


So what should I do when someone breaks into my home? Give them the benefit of the doubt that they won't physically harm me or any other lawfully present occupant? Let them rummage through my posessions and make sure that they don't hurt themselves on anything sharp?
 
2007-11-04 09:43:43 PM
Dimensio: So what should I do when someone breaks into my home? Give them the benefit of the doubt that they won't physically harm me or any other lawfully present occupant? Let them rummage through my posessions and make sure that they don't hurt themselves on anything sharp?

Exactly what I recommended more than six hours ago--use the good judgment you were born with.
 
2007-11-04 09:56:30 PM
Rohaq: Meatzilla:
We aren't known to panic ourselves into a gigantic drama like America, sure.


No? It seems you've panicked enough to place limits on free speech and put cameras everywhere.


It prevents us from doing such retarded things as detaining a member of parliament from another country because of the colour of their skin, twice, and then say it's in the interest of national security.

Of course, you're lying. If it were simply because of the color of his skin, then wouldn't we be detaining EVERYONE his shade? Furthermore, he claims it was because of his religion, not his skin color, but we don't routinely detain Muslims either.

I myself have been chosen for extra scrutiny by the TSA (not DHS as Malik claimed on his website) and I'm white and blonde and definitely NOT a Muslim. Do you think they detained me because I don't go to a Christian church?

Malik also claimed the screening took 40 minutes, when in fact a review of the security tapes showed it was only 8 minutes which is NOT unreasonable when you are chosen for extra scrutiny at a TSA checkpoint before boarding a flight.

You and Shaid Malik should quit. You're both full of shiat.

BTW, this is NOT the first time Malik has made false claims of harassment. In 2001, he claimed he was beaten by police during a riot in Bumley but that turned out to be BS too.

Oh - and nice job trying to be too vague about it for us to google the REAL story. I guess you hadn't anticipated that Americans are not as ignorant as you thought.

Additionally, even though the article is trying to get sympathy for the guy, it doesn't mention that the teen attacked him or in any way provoked him into the grapple.

Attempting to break into a house is plenty of provocation for a homeowner to detain the would-be burglar. It's perfectly reasonable to suspect that a struggle might ensue and the poor kid might get a bruise.

And if you don't think he was going to break in, I'd like to hear your theories on what he was doing there - on a 2nd floor window ledge of a private residence that was not his own.

It was just some dumb, drunk teen who ended up on his window ledge whilst doing dumb, drunk things,

The article didn't say that. How can you be so sure unless it was you.

who likely could have just been sent on his way.

Ah - "likely". So you admit you're not sure.
 
2007-11-04 10:14:42 PM
stiletto_the_wise

I'm just saying it is unacceptable to kill someone for doing it.

I personally would not approach an intruder and just start shooting. I honestly don't think most people would either, bravado in this thread notwithstanding. I would point my weapon, and yell as sternly as I could (I'm lucky enough to have a rather loud, sharp voice) "STOP! GET ON THE GROUND! DON'T WALK TOWARDS ME OR I WILL SHOOT!"

If they turn to leave, I (unlike what many here seem to imply) wouldn't shoot someone who was escaping. And I would guess that person probably isn't going to return knowing I'm armed and (apparently) willing to shoot.

But if they make any move towards me, I'm going to shoot, probably more than once to make sure I hit them. As I explained earlier in the thread, because of disability I am unable to defend myself short of a firearm. There is absolutely nothing "unacceptable" about protecting myself.

Also as many others here have said, there's a very simple solution to avoid getting shot: DON'T BREAK INTO MY HOUSE! And don't worry, you won't "stumble in drunk" because I always leave the front door locked. I go in and out the back door almost exclusively.
 
2007-11-04 10:21:40 PM
fatassbastard:

That sounds like a pretty good plan to me. Certainly better than "shoot first--because I can!"
 
2007-11-04 10:49:33 PM
stiletto_the_wise: mud_shark: I notice you completely ignored my question. How reasonable do you think it is to enter other people's houses without their consent?

Dimensio: I can't imagine living in a place where it is considerd socially acceptible to steal someone's TV.

I never said it was acceptable to break into someone's house or steal someone's TV. I'm just saying it is unacceptable to kill someone for doing it.


And I'm saying if you break into someone's house, don't be surprised if you get shot. Chances are you won't be, but it HAS happened before. Now, the owner might just show you he (or she) is armed and you can either run or put your hands in the air while he calls 911.

Or maybe they have dogs. Know what's black and brown and looks good on a burglar? Dobermans.

Or maybe they'll hold the door for you while you carry out their TV - and maybe they'll even run after you to give you the remote that goes with it because after all, without a TV it's not going to do them any good.
 
2007-11-04 11:54:42 PM
Being the Sun, I'd say there is more to the story. Being England, there is a good chance there isn't.
 
2007-11-05 12:52:27 AM
He chased him into the street, off his property, and pummeled him. Once the guy is off your property, you don't have lawful ability to restrain or attack someone.
 
2007-11-05 12:52:31 AM
Harriet Vane: It seems the American posters continue to persist in their strange belief that everyone else in the world wants the kind of society they have. What odd people. Here's a tip for you: we don't.

Also, never believe what you read in The Sun.


Do also understand that Americans live in a society where they have to build a wall to keep people from other countries out.
 
2007-11-05 12:52:33 AM
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.


Alright. I'll feed the troll too. How is dragging him back to wait for the cops not apprehending him?
 
2007-11-05 12:54:54 AM
stiletto_the_wise: buckler: What did, pray tell? "Oh, hello old chap! Here to burgle the place, are you? Damned bad luck for me tonight, eh? Well, since you're well on about it, then, the wallet's in my trousers over there...sorry about the take, damned taxes you know. Haven't gotten around to the plasma TV yet, but the old one's over there in the corner; ought to fetch a few quid in any event. There's a few bottles of Watney's in the kitchen if you're thirsty - can't have been easy work on the window. Say, I think there's a few settings of my great-grandmother's Sterling service lying about; let me see if I can't get them out for you..."

No "stuff" is worth hurting or killing someone over. It's just STUFF, people. If thieves broke into my place and all they wanted was my TV, I would consider myself LUCKY and hold the door for him while he walked out.

Save the Rambo tactics for when someone breaks in intent on hurting your family.

Internet tough guys. All of you.



Care to post your address?

Got anything good?
 
2007-11-05 01:07:30 AM
LocalCynic: mikaloyd: More like justice in this case. The man says he didnt hit the yob. The theiving yob says the man hit him. You naturally side with the drunken theiving coont while I naturally side with the guy who did not start any of this.

I'm glad to see that we treat the use of deadly force just like a regular schoolyard brawl where "the one who started it" is always at fault, and the one who didn't start it has unlimited license to use whatever degree of force they choose. Unless we're talking about the Jena 6.


You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Kid had a fat lip. Explain how that is anything remotely resembling deadly force.
 
2007-11-05 01:48:25 AM
meekychuppet: 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".

Careful there, you're sounding rational...


NEITHER of you would know rational if it bit you in your collective ass.
 
2007-11-05 02:08:41 AM
stiletto_the_wise: 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.


You live in Virginia. The FARK IT IS frowned upon. You are just like all other knee jerk reactionaries of both the left and right wing variety in that your group of friends/associates is so insular you've deluded yourself into thinking everyone thinks like you.

I bet you'd be shocked at how large the majority is of people who believe it is not only their right, but their DUTY to defend their homes and their stuff. Because, see, it ISN'T about the stuff. It's about the violation. It's about NOT being the victim. Not being the scared puppy rolling over on his back and pissing on himself to prove he's not a threat as a defense method. And last but not least it's about KEEPING it a civilized society by making sure the guys who don't follow the rules set down by said society aren't allowed to just run rampant.
 
Displayed 50 of 414 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report