oh dear, what a shame.
Comments
-
Slowbike wrote:
Yes, those responsible for the children have effectively failed - but in this country at least, there's a system in place for safeguarding children - we have to trust it and assume the authorities are doing their bit too.rjsterry wrote:
If one is taking retribution for some crime one has manifestly failed to protect against that crime.Slowbike wrote:Yes - very easy to write and a perfectly natural reaction - if anyone harmed little slowbike, you'd have to arrest me before I did something I'd regret (my only regret would be that I'd be punished for carrying out retribution taking time away from being with the family.).
It is perfectly natural - if you look at the animal world - it's full of protecting your own kind when under attack. But restraint is what sets us apart.
Little slowbike is at school - we have to trust that his teachers, assistants & other staff are safe to leave him with. Other than taking him out of mainstream education, we have no choice other than to put this trust in them.
Having been taught by someone who went on to become a convicted pedophile I can tell you that it's not simple to detect - the bloke concerned was a good teacher who had enthusiasm and knowledge of his subject - he was just stupid not to keep it in his pants. His crime wasn't obvious and even those staff closest to him were not aware.
I think it is fair to say that there has been a sea change in child protection since you or I were at school. I've also heard people from my parents' generation muttering about the need for records checks just to help out with a school trip and how it was never a problem in their day. It was a problem; everyone just didn't want to admit it. Your own example shows precisely why labelling them 'monsters' is not helpful. "Oh he can't have done that. He's such a great teacher."1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You were not talking about catching someone but it was retrospective as in punishing the abuser after the event.
But to play your revisionist scenario I'd do only what I needed to do to get my child to safety no matter how angry I was inside. I don't see how going violently vigilante on the abuser protects my young child. Will he really understand it or see daddy being scarily violent? Will he be scared of me too? Would it not result in something else for my child to deal with? When he probably needs the protection of his daddy, his daddy is away beating up the abuser.
No, better to take your child away from danger, violence and abuse. Then give him what help, reassurance and even cuddles if that is what he needs.
Sorry I take the opinion that physical retribution is about what makes you feel better. That's selfish.0 -
I recently had an enhanced DBS check so I could become a skilled assistant with the local scouting group. Not a full leader but someone who provides the skills needed to allow an activity to go ahead.
Although I had the enhanced certificate I am still not allowed to help until I have provided two independent references and been subjected to an interview by the group's safeguarding officer.
Long way from my day in Cubs where any parent was allowed to wear the leader uniform and take kids away camping for example with only another leader for crowd control purposes. One camp our troop did on our own had only one leader present. His tent was a little away from ours.
In schools too there were no checks on teachers. Any complaints first resulted in the parents being threatened as troublemakers and it reflecting on their kids. If that didn't put parents off then the head purely left it a couple of weeks then wrote to parents saying there's no evidence supporting their complaint so the case is closed. That sort of action was well known among parents of children in my primary school. Some of us kids knew about the complaints and even witnessed the cause of the complaints. One class it was a daily occurrence.
Truth is these days are simply in another league than when I was young in terms if child safeguarding. It's not 100% successful now but it's better than its ever been I reckon.0 -
Yes - and that's what I was referring too - I'm pretty certain my initial reaction would be shrouded in rage - and a rather obvious outlet for that - and I assume I'm in a majority who would have similar reaction.PBlakeney wrote:
There is a huge gulf of a difference between a heat of the moment action and a structured strategy.Slowbike wrote:What would be your response if you walked in on an adult doing something entirely inappropriate with your son? Would you be all polite and say "excuse me please" ... or would you be a bit physical - I know it'll depend on the circumstance - and the build of the adult - but I'll bet that internally you'll be full of rage - I certainly would. There's nothing "Internet warrior" about it.
I'm not suggesting any response would be a good thing though
I know from other "issues" within my family that the response is one of protection - and if initially that seems to need a physical reaction then it would be - at the time of thought. It's only when you stop and think about the consequences ....0 -
- Define "after the event"Tangled Metal wrote:You were not talking about catching someone but it was retrospective as in punishing the abuser after the event.
Perhaps you've given this more thought about how the longer term than I have - it's not something I think about. Reaction would definitely depend on the circumstance of finding out - discovering it first hand would be totally different to being sat down by a police officer and informed about events. I think I'd still have an initial desire to inflict pain.Tangled Metal wrote:But to play your revisionist scenario I'd do only what I needed to do to get my child to safety no matter how angry I was inside. I don't see how going violently vigilante on the abuser protects my young child. Will he really understand it or see daddy being scarily violent? Will he be scared of me too? Would it not result in something else for my child to deal with? When he probably needs the protection of his daddy, his daddy is away beating up the abuser.
No, better to take your child away from danger, violence and abuse. Then give him what help, reassurance and even cuddles if that is what he needs.
I'm not sure I entirely believe you - or anyone else - would be completely calm and rational if faced with the situation.
I never said it would make you feel betterTangled Metal wrote:Sorry I take the opinion that physical retribution is about what makes you feel better. That's selfish.0 -
rjsterry wrote:I think it is fair to say that there has been a sea change in child protection since you or I were at school. I've also heard people from my parents' generation muttering about the need for records checks just to help out with a school trip and how it was never a problem in their day. It was a problem; everyone just didn't want to admit it. Your own example shows precisely why labelling them 'monsters' is not helpful. "Oh he can't have done that. He's such a great teacher."
enhanced DBS check is ~£40 (although I've seen £50 mentioned and free for volunteers) - I can see why it's a PITA - takes up to 8 weeks and whilst it doesn't have an expiry, the information is only valid at the time of issue - so any organisation would want to refresh it at suitable intervals.
For those with responsibility for the children - I can see why it's a pain, as they would have to answer for any "why did this happen" questions - and if there was no DBS check carried out and the outcome of that could've impacted on the participation of the adult concerned then it's difficult to argue against it - yet it's potentially another hoop to go through for anyone wanting to help with childrens activities - and still doesn't guarantee the safety of the children.0 -
rjsterry wrote:
If one is taking retribution for some crime one has manifestly failed to protect against that crime. I guess it's helpful to have an external focus for the inevitable sense of guilt at that failure. Perhaps people should focus on prevention rather than some online p***ing contest about what they'd do after the fact.Slowbike wrote:Yes - very easy to write and a perfectly natural reaction - if anyone harmed little slowbike, you'd have to arrest me before I did something I'd regret (my only regret would be that I'd be punished for carrying out retribution taking time away from being with the family.).
It is perfectly natural - if you look at the animal world - it's full of protecting your own kind when under attack. But restraint is what sets us apart.
So are we to assume that the woman raped walking home from work is to blame for her predicament since she "manifestly didn't protect against the crime". this is what your suggesting. that victims of child abuse and rape or any other violent crime have only got themselves to blame?
This is what you're suggesting0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
There is a huge gulf of a difference between a heat of the moment action and a structured strategy.Slowbike wrote:What would be your response if you walked in on an adult doing something entirely inappropriate with your son? Would you be all polite and say "excuse me please" ... or would you be a bit physical - I know it'll depend on the circumstance - and the build of the adult - but I'll bet that internally you'll be full of rage - I certainly would. There's nothing "Internet warrior" about it.
I'm not suggesting any response would be a good thing though
The final sentence makes the most sense.
Id say walking in and finding someone abusing my child would entirely justify an instant ultraviolent response.0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:rjsterry wrote:
If one is taking retribution for some crime one has manifestly failed to protect against that crime. I guess it's helpful to have an external focus for the inevitable sense of guilt at that failure. Perhaps people should focus on prevention rather than some online p***ing contest about what they'd do after the fact.Slowbike wrote:Yes - very easy to write and a perfectly natural reaction - if anyone harmed little slowbike, you'd have to arrest me before I did something I'd regret (my only regret would be that I'd be punished for carrying out retribution taking time away from being with the family.).
It is perfectly natural - if you look at the animal world - it's full of protecting your own kind when under attack. But restraint is what sets us apart.
So are we to assume that the woman raped walking home from work is to blame for her predicament since she "manifestly didn't protect against the crime". this is what your suggesting. that victims of child abuse and rape or any other violent crime have only got themselves to blame?
This is what you're suggesting
It completely isn't.0 -
If you were in the US it's quite likely that someone would be shot dead - whilst I accept that being violent would be a natural reaction, I don't think it could "entirely justify" that action. Which is basically where we came in, with a self confessed Pedophile being killed - quite likely because of his crimes - for which he was already paying the price (set by the judicial system) and no longer a threat to any more victims.Alejandrosdog wrote:Id say walking in and finding someone abusing my child would entirely justify an instant ultraviolent response.
Many would say he got off lightly ...0 -
This thread is about a predator being killed in prison. I assumed people would take after the event as in not during the event such as walking into the room as it is happening but some time later when the child is not subject to abuse. I think you probably understood what I was talking about.Slowbike wrote:
- Define "after the event"Tangled Metal wrote:You were not talking about catching someone but it was retrospective as in punishing the abuser after the event.
I replied to your post as I honestly as I could based on my own morals and principles. I have never thought about it before. I have been in a situation where other people were behaving aggressively and violently towards each other a few years back with my son present. My first thought was to take my son away so he didn't have to see it there's enough time when he's older to see and experience the more violent habits if mankind but as a 6 year old I try to delay that as long as possible.Slowbike wrote:
Perhaps you've given this more thought about how the longer term than I have - it's not something I think about.Tangled Metal wrote:But to play your revisionist scenario I'd do only what I needed to do to get my child to safety no matter how angry I was inside. I don't see how going violently vigilante on the abuser protects my young child. Will he really understand it or see daddy being scarily violent? Will he be scared of me too? Would it not result in something else for my child to deal with? When he probably needs the protection of his daddy, his daddy is away beating up the abuser.
No, better to take your child away from danger, violence and abuse. Then give him what help, reassurance and even cuddles if that is what he needs.
As to being rational, I don't see it as being negative or hard thing to manage. Perhaps I'm different to you in that I'm more rational or less prone to anger response. It does take a lot to "push my buttons" in that way. Whether you believe me or not I know that I would never have the thought to want to beat the carp out of the abuser. It's not in my nature. Plus my rational side would be looking at what's best for my child. As it was when I described the violent incident in the above situation we saw in town.
No it would make you feel better. But is that really where your priorities should be if you walked into a room and saw your child being abused? As a parent I believe your first thought should be about your child. Removing them from harm is first and most important action. What you've posted implies that it's more important to get retribution through violence against the abuser. That's to your benefit nobody else's.Slowbike wrote:
I never said it would make you feel betterTangled Metal wrote:Sorry I take the opinion that physical retribution is about what makes you feel better. That's selfish.0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:rjsterry wrote:
If one is taking retribution for some crime one has manifestly failed to protect against that crime. I guess it's helpful to have an external focus for the inevitable sense of guilt at that failure. Perhaps people should focus on prevention rather than some online p***ing contest about what they'd do after the fact.Slowbike wrote:Yes - very easy to write and a perfectly natural reaction - if anyone harmed little slowbike, you'd have to arrest me before I did something I'd regret (my only regret would be that I'd be punished for carrying out retribution taking time away from being with the family.).
It is perfectly natural - if you look at the animal world - it's full of protecting your own kind when under attack. But restraint is what sets us apart.
So are we to assume that the woman raped walking home from work is to blame for her predicament since she "manifestly didn't protect against the crime". this is what your suggesting. that victims of child abuse and rape or any other violent crime have only got themselves to blame?
This is what you're suggesting
No, it isn't. Try again.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Ok - wires crossed.Tangled Metal wrote:
This thread is about a predator being killed in prison. I assumed people would take after the event as in not during the event such as walking into the room as it is happening but some time later when the child is not subject to abuse. I think you probably understood what I was talking about.Slowbike wrote:
- Define "after the event"Tangled Metal wrote:You were not talking about catching someone but it was retrospective as in punishing the abuser after the event.
Thankfully that sounds like a completely different scenario - your child wasn't being physically hurt - and I'd concur that it would be perfectly natural to first move any child away from that situation.Tangled Metal wrote:I have been in a situation where other people were behaving aggressively and violently towards each other a few years back with my son present. My first thought was to take my son away so he didn't have to see it there's enough time when he's older to see and experience the more violent habits if mankind but as a 6 year old I try to delay that as long as possible.
we're all different - I recognise my own short commings in having a short(er) fuse ... not that I'm good at fighting anyway!Tangled Metal wrote:As to being rational, I don't see it as being negative or hard thing to manage. Perhaps I'm different to you in that I'm more rational or less prone to anger response. It does take a lot to "push my buttons" in that way. Whether you believe me or not I know that I would never have the thought to want to beat the carp out of the abuser. It's not in my nature. Plus my rational side would be looking at what's best for my child. As it was when I described the violent incident in the above situation we saw in town.
Not what I intended to imply - only what I believe a natural reaction would be.Tangled Metal wrote:
No it would make you feel better. But is that really where your priorities should be if you walked into a room and saw your child being abused? As a parent I believe your first thought should be about your child. Removing them from harm is first and most important action. What you've posted implies that it's more important to get retribution through violence against the abuser. That's to your benefit nobody else's.Slowbike wrote:
I never said it would make you feel betterTangled Metal wrote:Sorry I take the opinion that physical retribution is about what makes you feel better. That's selfish.
Just a thought - working through what the possibilities are - you walk in to find a child (let's depersonalise this a little) being abused by an adult male - do you think you can walk in - take the child and walk out without any reaction from the adult male - or do you think they may just want to prevent you from doing that - and being found out .. wouldn't it be more sensible to disable the adult male prior to any reaction? Reduces the chance of entering into a prolonged fight? Get the first hit in - take them by surprise and you've got the upper hand. Does it harm the child to see you take that action? would it be understandable if you believe it will offer a safer exit for the child.
I suggest it could depend on the balance of power - if it was obvious that you were the weaker party then getting the surprise attack in may be your only chance - if you were obviously stronger then perhaps you may do it differently.
Again - before you vilify me for posting the above - it's a thought of the possibilities and a discussion point - not an attempt to justify violence.0 -
Alejandrosdog, if you killed a rapist or anyone else, you would go to jail and that would be right. You need to somehow try Thinking Really Hard and realise that most of your privileges come from Rule of the Law which Lynch supporters are so eager to undermine.
Also, it seems likely that you might somehow come to conclusion that my words are pro-rape. Please, put effort into Trying to Understand why that is not the case.0 -
Realistically though, what are the chances of your scenario? Do child abusers do their abusing where they'll get caught or even a chance of it happening?
But let's go along with your scenario. Do you think the abuser is going to fight? They're targeting a vulnerable person. Are they likely to get into a fight?
Another assumption, let's go along with the idea they do fight, to enable their abuse to carry on a bit longer I suppose the motives would be. So you have to fight. It's self defence and defence of others so you're not going to get into trouble I guess. But if all this happens, unlikely in the extreme, then I guess I'd follow what my old martial arts instructor taught me
Self defence is first about not being in a dangerous situation but if you are the first priority is to get away. Minimal fight to enable it. You're posts come across to me as going beyond this.
You're talking about a preemptive strike without knowing if the abuser is violent. You're the aggressor = harder to argue self defence I suppose.
All very much hypothetical and unlikely situation but first punch isn't where I'd be going in this theoretical situation.
I think you've put it better up thread you've got a shorter fuse. It might not be possible for you to do anything else but react with aggression. It's not my tendency. I can lose it but not with violence.
Having said that when the red mist comes down it's very aggressive and intimidating but no actual violence. I am 6'5" tall with a very loud voice when I do lose it. Talk about hairdryer moment from someone tall enough to stand over a lot of people. I don't get like that easily and getting older in can say it's been 10 to 15 years since I last lost it.
We're both different. I think it's fair we'll always have different pov on this. Shall we leave it at that?0 -
No you're wrong Mamil. it depends entirely on the circumstances. There are plenty of examples of people killing people and being perfectly entitled to do it.
The law and the rule of law provides for it in fact. In here there are frequently calls of prove it or we won't believe it followed by dubious publications, here are some primary legislation suggestions
Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act (2008)
1 A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime,
or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of
persons unlawfully at large.
Here is some common law clarifying things courtesy of Lord Keith of Kinkell - Beckford V the Queen 'The common law is that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he believes them to be, in defence of himself or any other person’
He went on to qualify reasonable force and belief thus ‘There are two separate matters: (i) the
defendant's belief as to the circumstances; and (ii) the degree of force which the defendant is entitled to
use. Reasonableness plays no part as to (i) but only as to (ii). If a defendant took steps for his own
protection genuinely believing that he was in imminent danger, that belief does not have to be
reasonable for him to have been acting in self-defence. A genuine belief, however unreasonable,
entitles a defendant to be acquitted on the ground of self-defence.’
between 1990 and 2005 there were ‘only 11prosecutions of people who had attacked intruders in houses, commercial premises or private land. Tony Martin being a particular high profile one.
in 2010 the then coalition government introduced legislation to amend s76 of the criminal Justice and immigration act (2008) in part to clarify what was and still is a very misunderstood area of law. despite the low number of prosecutions and a well established body of law, the government was keen to ensure people were more confident.
Specifically they highlighted that
the householder no longer has a duty to retreat and avoid conflict if possible. AND
The householder may defend his property and, if in doing so, should he place himself in danger then he will be entitled to use a defence of self defence.
The Government’s intent was clarified by the Justice Secretary Mr Clark , who commented to the
BBC5 about ‘constant doubt’ regarding the right to self-defence in the home, and his belief that the
Bill would make things ‘much clearer’. He went further; claiming ‘an old lady taking a knife and
stabbing an intruder would not have committed a criminal offence’… and that the government ‘would
make it quite clear’ that ‘you can hit the burglar with the poker if he’s in the house and you have a
perfect defence when you do so.’
concerns from the chair of the Criminal Bar Association that the changes might encourage vigilantism appear to have been completely without foundation most especially since there was already legislation and common law providing the same protections.
So yes if you walk into your house and find someone attacking your son you can justifiably attack that person and if as a consequence he dies then that it is (dependent on the circumstances) pretty much his tough shi t
DROPS MIKE exits stage left0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:Realistically though, what are the chances of your scenario? Do child abusers do their abusing where they'll get caught or even a chance of it happening?
You're talking about a preemptive strike without knowing if the abuser is violent. You're the aggressor = harder to argue self defence I suppose.
this is a commonly held misunderstanding .
most of us will never have more of a brush with the law than the odd speeding offence. it is no surprise that there are widely held misconceptions0 -
I suppose - very small - so small that it's hardly worth considering.Tangled Metal wrote:Realistically though, what are the chances of your scenario? Do child abusers do their abusing where they'll get caught or even a chance of it happening?
That's an unknown ...Tangled Metal wrote:But let's go along with your scenario. Do you think the abuser is going to fight? They're targeting a vulnerable person. Are they likely to get into a fight?
Why would they fight? To delay/prevent them being reported - to allow them to get away? They're twisted enough to abuse to start with - I wouldn't like to consider their thought process.Tangled Metal wrote:Another assumption, let's go along with the idea they do fight, to enable their abuse to carry on a bit longer I suppose the motives would be. So you have to fight. It's self defence and defence of others so you're not going to get into trouble I guess.
Ah - there you have an advantage - isn't Martial Arts primarily about control?Tangled Metal wrote:But if all this happens, unlikely in the extreme, then I guess I'd follow what my old martial arts instructor taught me
Ah - again - you've got the size advantage there - I'd compete on volume though ...Tangled Metal wrote:I think you've put it better up thread you've got a shorter fuse. It might not be possible for you to do anything else but react with aggression. It's not my tendency. I can lose it but not with violence.
Having said that when the red mist comes down it's very aggressive and intimidating but no actual violence. I am 6'5" tall with a very loud voice when I do lose it. Talk about hairdryer moment from someone tall enough to stand over a lot of people. I don't get like that easily and getting older in can say it's been 10 to 15 years since I last lost it.
We're all different - I think the bit we'd probably agree on is that any consequence (not wanting to use punishment here) is best left to the authorities.Tangled Metal wrote:We're both different. I think it's fair we'll always have different pov on this. Shall we leave it at that?0 -
Hey I know short women who have a good right hook courtesy of their girth not height. Let's just say it's possibly better to have a bit of meat behind your swing!
Martial arts is very controlled but self defence, which was what he was teaching that evening, is different. More about awareness and evasion.0 -
The thread started with the story of a murder of a convicted peadophile. At what point did self defence come into that A.dog?0
-
Alejandrosdog wrote:So yes if you walk into your house and find someone attacking your son you can justifiably attack that person and if as a consequence he dies then that it is (dependent on the circumstances) pretty much his tough shi t
DROPS MIKE exits stage left
As you say, it's dependent on the circumstances. I'd imagine in that scenario you'd have to have reasonable evidence that your use of force was reasonable to stop the crime happening. Chasing the guy down the street and bludgeoning him to death or if you saw something happening and went back to the kitchen to get a big knife first it probably wouldn't count (although I can totally understand why that might happen if you were acting out of emotion). I might have misread it but is the gist of it if you kill someone because you wanted revenge for committing a crime you would be prosecuted, but if you killed them whilst attempted to prevent a crime you wouldn't?0 -
HaydenM wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:So yes if you walk into your house and find someone attacking your son you can justifiably attack that person and if as a consequence he dies then that it is (dependent on the circumstances) pretty much his tough shi t
DROPS MIKE exits stage left
As you say, it's dependent on the circumstances. I'd imagine in that scenario you'd have to have reasonable evidence that your use of force was reasonable to stop the crime happening. Chasing the guy down the street and bludgeoning him to death or if you saw something happening and went back to the kitchen to get a big knife first it probably wouldn't count (although I can totally understand why that might happen if you were acting out of emotion). I might have misread it but is the gist of it if you kill someone because you wanted revenge for committing a crime you would be prosecuted, but if you killed them whilst attempted to prevent a crime you wouldn't?
very dependent on the circumstances but quite possibly. And here are two cases where the householder DID go to the kitchen and arm themselves with a big knife
here is the case of Edward Pitkin who went to the kitchen and armed himself with a knife https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cleared ... 69686.html
and one that reflects the circumstances of the hypothetical conversations in here. Xiopeng Wang who armed himself with a meat cleaver when his wife was being assaulted.
Sentencing the surviving scrotes at the time, Judge Michael Stokes said: “It is difficult to imagine a more terrifying prospect for a young couple in bed in their house, with their two-year-old child, than to hear and see two men breaking into their home and then attacking them in this vicious way. They must have been absolutely terrified.” Meat cleaver to the head = one dead scumbag
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... rglar.html0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:The thread started with the story of a murder of a convicted peadophile. At what point did self defence come into that A.dog?
The thread evolved. It happens
For example, your comments include statements about how you would react and how physical defending your child is selfish.
the points I made re the law were to help clarify some points of Law that were raised around the protection of property and self.
Its what happens in discussion. You've made your position perfectly clear, you consider it selfish to use physical force to protect your child. That is fine, that's your prerogative but its clearly not the view or feeling of everyone else. Nor it appears is there a legal requirement to avoid confrontation. An Englishman's home truly is his castle.0 -
Rolf F wrote:john80 wrote:Whilst he may have got his come uppance as some seem to believe. I do question what risk the killer poses if he gets out of jail. We have taught him that killing someone appears to have no consequence. Maybe he is a maniac on a life tariff but then maybe he is not.
I think Adog would probably kill the killer as well. Unless he thinks that it is generally OK to kill someone as long as they are also a killer in which case you'd just have to hope another killer killed the first one etc etc. Sounds like what is needed rather than prisons is a big pit full of knives. Or maybe Lions. We could have a sort of arena thing and watch it. Sounds like a very forward idea - very 21st century.
If he cant find the killer it looks like the entire jails population may need to be killed unless the killer steps forward.0 -
It is funny how people say that future punishment is not a deterent. I abide by the law and social norms not just because it make life easier but also because i can imagine just how bad being in a cell with your average uk prisoner would be. Frankie Boyle made a joke about nothing beats a curt "morning" and a bowl of porridge for 20 years.0
-
Murder him?It's not murder it's putting an animal down as you would a vicious dog.rjsterry wrote:Very easy to write. If true, what makes you any different from him? If not true then you'd like someone to murder him for you so you don't have to get your hands dirty or what exactly?
If one of my kids was his victim I'd have no problem slowly killing the piece of Sh!t.Anyone mess with my kids then they have to be prepared for a reaction.As they weren't I'd have no problem sticking it in a room with the parents of the victims and letting them do what they see fit.
Does it make me any better/worse than him?I don't really care.0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:The thread started with the story of a murder of a convicted peadophile. At what point did self defence come into that A.dog?
The thread evolved. It happens
For example, your comments include statements about how you would react and how physical defending your child is selfish.
the points I made re the law were to help clarify some points of Law that were raised around the protection of property and self.
Its what happens in discussion. You've made your position perfectly clear, you consider it selfish to use physical force to protect your child. That is fine, that's your prerogative but its clearly not the view or feeling of everyone else. Nor it appears is there a legal requirement to avoid confrontation. An Englishman's home truly is his castle.
I think his point was more that the punishment/need to take revenge aspect of it was selfish, which it is. Doesn't make it any less compelling though. If you successfully stopped something bad happening to a child then you might want to go on to murder the perpetrator, which is where it probably would be illegal. The protecting part has already happened by stopping the crime0 -
Sniper68 wrote:
Murder him?It's not murder it's putting an animal down as you would a vicious dog.rjsterry wrote:Very easy to write. If true, what makes you any different from him? If not true then you'd like someone to murder him for you so you don't have to get your hands dirty or what exactly?
If one of my kids was his victim I'd have no problem slowly killing the piece of Sh!t.Anyone mess with my kids then they have to be prepared for a reaction.As they weren't I'd have no problem sticking it in a room with the parents of the victims and letting them do what they see fit.
Does it make me any better/worse than him?I don't really care.
Understandable, but illegal. You're need to get revenge is 'selfish' (quite an inflammatory word but I really don't mean it like that) as it only serves to make you feel better. That doesn't make your feelings at the time any less valid but this is exactly why we have a criminal justice system.0 -
john80 wrote:It is funny how people say that future punishment is not a deterent. I abide by the law and social norms not just because it make life easier but also because i can imagine just how bad being in a cell with your average uk prisoner would be. Frankie Boyle made a joke about nothing beats a curt "morning" and a bowl of porridge for 20 years.
The difference between a 12 year sentence and a 15 year sentence probably has no really bearing on that. And also, most crimes aren't committed when you're thinking rationally which is the main reason why it's not much of a deterrent0 -
Sniper68 wrote:Murder him?It's not murder it's putting an animal down as you would a vicious dog.
No, it's murder. You can act like some kind of ruthless macho walt if you like, but it's still murder. It's either a legally sanctioned execution, or it's an extra-judicial killing. One is 'legal' - the other is murder.0
