Pretty Funny: UK Gun Crime

[Firethorn]

While I'm aware that Tony Martin perhaps went a bit too far, I'll have to go back to something I've said before:

The most effective way to prevent vigilante acts is effective policing. It's that simple really. Most people DON'T want to take justice into their own hands. It only becomes a problem when the people, by and large, can't see policing being effective.

Tony was robbed multiple times, in what became almost a serial fashion. It's like he was on a shopping list for burglars. Despite this, if I remember correctly they never arrested anybody. If they did, they didn't serve a significant amount of time.

The law failed Tony long before he failed the law. If they'd arrested those responsible a few times the robberies would have likely stopped, and Tony would have never felt the need to shoot a burglar caught in his house in the back.

 

[230RN]

MechAg94 reported:

I believe there were articles a year or so ago. One of the newspapers or TV stations did deal where people could vote on what new law they would like to get passed. A local parliament member promised to introduce the bill. Allowing self defense won out. The paper acted horrified. I am sure there were details I am leaving out.

I wonder if they shouldn't have an "Empty Holster Day" there, like on college campuses here. You can make a representation of a holster out of cardboard.

Or would that be sufficiently politically incorrect that it would land one in gaol anyhow?

--Terry

 

[Zoogster]

Is being forced to endure serial robbery not a form of slavery?

I mean think about it, the person works hard, earns money, and buys possessions.
Those possessions are then taken.
He then earns more money, replaces those possessions and has them taken again.
Over and over the individual is not progressing in the accumulation of the items for which they work to enjoy, they are simply working to exist, little different than a slave which has thier room and board taken care of for them, and is provided with free meals, but must then work for free without personal gain.

The person is legaly restricted from putting a stop to it.
The government might as well just send an agent to collect all his valuables periodicly and call it a safety tax.

In the US things are different. You cannot use lethal force to defend property (other than Texas exceptions.) You can however legaly stop any crime in progress, as men have done since long before there were any police, and usualy only a lone Sheriff many places.
If you choose to stop crime while being armed, and the person then attempts to use deadly force on you, you can defend yourself.

Most people don't know how they would exist without the police, yet do you know the police are relatively new in human history and trace thier origins primarily to a couple agencies in the 1800s? Even then they only slowly spread to very large major cities. Most places did not get police until really modern times.

American history is based on citizens holding other citizens accountable for the laws they vote to create, and not paying for (with taxes) others to do it (or fail to do it) for them.
When the average person has integrity it works like a charm.
Arresting people or taking criminals commiting felonies (which in history used to all pretty much be serious and obvious violent crimes) into custody was never considered vigilante action, and is wrongful use of the term all too common now.

Vigilante action is taking the role of the courts, and dishing out punishment for the crime, instead of giving them thier fair day in court and due process. Stopping a felony crime in progress is not vigilante action, and has not been throughout American history.

What this man did was vigilante action, but be sure to understand the meaning of the term.