Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"BBC elites confounded by their listeners" (self-defense related)

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Kharn, Jan 2, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kharn

    Kharn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,999
    Location:
    Maryland
    The American Thinker, 1/2/04:
    :rolleyes:
    Kharn
     
  2. Kharn

    Kharn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,999
    Location:
    Maryland
    Oops, I ran a search on some of the key words but came up empty, this thread's related to this other one. (same events, different article)

    Kharn
     
  3. agricola

    agricola Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,928
    Location:
    Office of the Holy Inquisition, Vatican City
    er......

    i) the BBC is cited as "elitist" despite coming up with this idea and getting an MP to back it, as well as publicizing it so that the MP cannot simply "drop it";

    ii) the Today programme did not claim that the WMD dossier had been sexed up - one of the journalists reporting for it did, and whats more he was clearly correct, as the Hutton Inquiry found out.

    iii) my views on the Sun newspaper are known to most here.
     
  4. AJ Dual

    AJ Dual member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,095
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Agricola,

    WMD, Tony Martin, and charges of elietisim aside, how do you feel about the actual legislation that the majority of Channel 4 listeners voted for?
     
  5. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,213
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    They desperately need a revolution over there....:cool:
     
  6. agricola

    agricola Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,928
    Location:
    Office of the Holy Inquisition, Vatican City
  7. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    Sounds like a great idea to me! :)
     
  8. Kharn

    Kharn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,999
    Location:
    Maryland
    Even Maryland has the Castle Doctrine...

    Kharn
     
  9. Leatherneck

    Leatherneck Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    No. Virginia and Northern Neck
    What? What?

    Ag, how does it feel to be governed by elected officials that call a large constituency vulgar names? Has the collective spine of Brits turned to jelly? :barf:

    TC
    TFL Survivor
     
  10. K-Romulus

    K-Romulus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Somewhere in Monkey County, MD
    MD does have the Castle Doctrine,

    but it only gets you a free pass from the duty to retreat . . .

    Kharn: Any news on the MD CCW front?
     
  11. Kharn

    Kharn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,999
    Location:
    Maryland
    [Warning: thread hijack in progress :D ]
    K-Romulus:
    Sadly, no; its my senior year of college, there arent enough hours in the day. :(

    Kharn
     
  12. K-Romulus

    K-Romulus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Somewhere in Monkey County, MD
    yeah sorry

    I guess that was a hijack!!!

    Now back to the regularly scheduled discussion:evil:
     
  13. seeker_two

    seeker_two Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,616
    Location:
    Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
    Hope your windows are securely locked, agricola...:rolleyes:

    At least the British government has the cojones to insult their voters in public. American politicians still say "please" when they ask you to bend over...:what:
     
  14. AJ Dual

    AJ Dual member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,095
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Agricola,

    Raido 4, and not a majority, simply the winning proposition. Points taken.

    In your opinion, what level of force is a citizen of the U.K. justified in using against an intruder in one's own home? (Side note, what is the perfered collective term for someone from the U.K.? Englishman/woman is only England, Scott, Welsh, etc. Is it "Briton"?)

    If they are in the act of intruding?

    Are caught after intruding?

    If after being caught doing either of the above, they refuse to leave but do not threaten or attack?

    If the intruder threatens force?

    If the intruder makes good on a threat, or attacks?

    How the intruder attacks, body fists/hands/kicks, club/bludgon, Knife, Firearm?

    No flames, just conversation.

    If I've read correctly, you're usually defending the point that the situation in the U.K. is not as bad as the U.K. Right-wing press, and Americans on this board make it out to be. I've also gleaned that you feel that there is some kind of standard of "reasonableness" in the courts, and that the British .gov does not fail the people in matters of self defense in the way that it is often portrayed, correct?

    With the exceptions of "make my day laws" for carjacking, "castle doctrine laws" for homes in some states, the legal standard for justifiable violence commited in self defense in the U.S. is "Reasonable fear for one's, or another innocent's, life, or of grave bodily harm." Now granted it's often construed as "reasonable fear" for a burglar, rapist, robber to enter your home uninvited, since most of our courts feel it's unreasonable for the victim to try and ascertain the culprit's intentions.

    So I am trying to feel out exactly where you stand on violent self-defense, i.e. hitting, stabbing, shooting, etc. when it's OK, etc.
     
  15. Langenator

    Langenator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,689
    Location:
    Ft Belvoir, VA
    Not self defense related, but...

    It would have been funnier if the winning proposition was to end the "BBC tax."
     
  16. Drjones

    Drjones member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,803
    You aren't seriously stating that you do not want such a piece of legislation to pass, are you?
     
  17. romulus

    romulus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    576
    Location:
    on a glacial structure
    hahahahaahahahahahaaha...Ag is showing his true colors. He was mr. reasonable non-doctrinaire back on TFL.
     
  18. fallingblock

    fallingblock Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,574
    Location:
    Between Georgia and Antarctica
    and that's one of the reasons.....

    Britain will continue her descent into a criminal's nation of choice:D .
     
  19. agricola

    agricola Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,928
    Location:
    Office of the Holy Inquisition, Vatican City
    The law as it stands says that you have the right to defend yourself and anyone else - and this includes deadly force, where it is reasonable. the oft-cited case (that of Tony Martin) is bad caselaw, because, as a jury of his peers AND a panel of judges at the Court of Appeal found, Martin was not acting in self defence as Barras was running away - as was the case in Tottenham of last year.

    The law as it stands covers all eventualities effectively; the proposed law, if it makes it onto the statute books, would set a precedent in changing the age-old principle of self defence into something else. What about where the person is invited into the home and then refuses to leave? Or the person who has every right to be in that property but is the victim of a "mistake" by the occupier?

    AJ Dual,

    As I say above, where a violent attack (or a reasonable person could forsee violence being possible) takes place, or is about to take place, common law dictates that reasonable force can be used to prevent or stop such an attack.

    Guys, high-profile cases make bad laws.
     
  20. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,487
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    Refusing to leave my property is claiming some right to it. I've worked for it. That's claiming some right to my labor. That's enslaving me. I'll resist with violence.
     
  21. agricola

    agricola Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,928
    Location:
    Office of the Holy Inquisition, Vatican City
    roflmao

    perhaps "enslavement" might be too strong a term?
     
  22. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,487
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    Help us out here, farmer.

    It doesn't really say that, does it? I mean, even here is blood-soaked Florida, there are going to be lots of questions if I shoot an intruder. We also have a Castle Doctrine, but it only says that I do not have to retreat within my home. I can still only defend myself and others, but not my home itself, or any of my property. Personally, if someone breaks into my home and starts taking my stuff, I think I should be able to defend my stuff, but the law doesn't see it that way. When they ask me why I shot him in the back, answering that it was because his back was the part facing me would land me in the clink for a long time.
     
  23. iapetus

    iapetus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    614
    Location:
    UK
    Briton for singular, British as an adjective. Plural is Britons or British, depending on context (several Britons were involved/ the British do things this way).


    As for British home defence law: I think you're allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself, others and your property, including lethal force if necessary.

    "Reasonable force" is whatever you can convince the jury you genuinely believed to be reasonable in order to stop the threat you perceived.

    Tony Martin went to jail because he couldn't convince the jury that shooting someone in the back as they ran off was reasonable.

    (Also, I think that his description of the events didn't match the evidence. Something along the lines of "I stood here and fire warning shots in the air", when he actually stood here and fired at the burglars, or something along those lines, and that may have influenced the jury. As did the fact he used a completely illegal type of weapon (pump-action shotgun) and didn't have licences for all of other guns).

    From the Daily Telegraph website:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/21/nmart21.xml
     
  24. Quartus

    Quartus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,172
    Location:
    Virginia

    Oh! :what: How dare he hold malice towards criminals! The brute!





    Odd. California passed just such a law. The only noticeable result was a drop in burglaries.


    Funny how that works.



    Leatherneck, the answers to your two questions are:



    1. They like it just fine. :barf:
    2. That happened a long time ago. They are subjects, after all. Oh, there's a happy exception here and there, it's true, but by and large they're happy with they way things are.
      [/list=1]
     
  25. Leatherneck

    Leatherneck Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    No. Virginia and Northern Neck
    Yup. Too bad. But they, as we, get what you demand in government. :banghead:

    TC
    TFL Survivor
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page