oh dear, what a shame.

124»

Comments

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,638
    Sniper68 wrote:
    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?
    Murder him?It's not murder it's putting an animal down as you would a vicious dog.
    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.
    I didn't say better or worse. If you're happy to join him at least we all know where we stand.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    HaydenM wrote:
    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 crime

    We could talk around this for a long time, eg the protecting part continues when the act of protection is also deterring future re offending or other new offenders. Sending a message is not self indulgent or selfish and that message can come from
    People defending themselves or can come from the law.

    Weve seen parliament sending the exact same message and enacting laws to make that explicit. Im very happy that there are so many people who take a meeker view on this sort of thing, it indicates that society isnt yet an entirely lawless place.
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    HaydenM wrote:
    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 crime

    We could talk around this for a long time, eg the protecting part continues when the act of protection is also deterring future re offending or other new offenders. Sending a message is not self indulgent or selfish and that message can come from
    People defending themselves or can come from the law.

    Weve seen parliament sending the exact same message and enacting laws to make that explicit. Im very happy that there are so many people who take a meeker view on this sort of thing, it indicates that society isnt yet an entirely lawless place.

    We could, I think the main point is that in a trial you'd have to show that what you did was reasonable force to stop a crime happening and not just murder for revenge, some of the macho comments about murdering people who touch their kids would fall foul of the law no matter how understandable that position might be if we were in that scenario
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    HaydenM wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    HaydenM wrote:
    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 crime

    We could talk around this for a long time, eg the protecting part continues when the act of protection is also deterring future re offending or other new offenders. Sending a message is not self indulgent or selfish and that message can come from
    People defending themselves or can come from the law.

    Weve seen parliament sending the exact same message and enacting laws to make that explicit. Im very happy that there are so many people who take a meeker view on this sort of thing, it indicates that society isnt yet an entirely lawless place.

    We could, I think the main point is that in a trial you'd have to show that what you did was reasonable force to stop a crime happening and not just murder for revenge, some of the macho comments about murdering people who touch their kids would fall foul of the law no matter how understandable that position might be if we were in that scenario

    Well thats true murder is murder, but killing an intruder who's abusing your kids could very easily not be.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    HaydenM wrote:
    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 crime
    Am I on my own by only wanting to get my child to safety away from the abuser without wanting to beat the carp out of him? Compelling? Not to me. Seriously, why do people have the need for descending towards the lowest levels of human behaviour.

    Murdering, beating up or any other violent act is wrong. Once you have removed the child from harm, perhaps involving a minimum or violence to achieve, any further violence is not justified. It would be vigilantism which is wrong morally if not legally.
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    HaydenM wrote:
    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 crime
    Am I on my own by only wanting to get my child to safety away from the abuser without wanting to beat the carp out of him? Compelling? Not to me. Seriously, why do people have the need for descending towards the lowest levels of human behaviour.

    Murdering, beating up or any other violent act is wrong. Once you have removed the child from harm, perhaps involving a minimum or violence to achieve, any further violence is not justified. It would be vigilantism which is wrong morally if not legally.

    Fight or flight, both sides and everyone in between will probably feel strongly about this.

    Im sure youre not alone. Though i note that those people offering their spare rooms to people fleeing africa are for the most part not now housing refugees.

    Talk is good but god forbid, if you found yourself in that position you may act differently.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Am I on my own by only wanting to get my child to safety away from the abuser without wanting to beat the carp out of him? Compelling? Not to me. Seriously, why do people have the need for descending towards the lowest levels of human behaviour.

    Murdering, beating up or any other violent act is wrong. Once you have removed the child from harm, perhaps involving a minimum or violence to achieve, any further violence is not justified. It would be vigilantism which is wrong morally if not legally.
    It does seem at least 50/50 ....

    I totally understand the violence thing - the abuser has inflicted pain on an innocent child - shouldn't they feel pain and fear?

    Ok - again, totally hypothetical ... and only as a discussion point ..

    What would you think you'd do if you were on an island without rule of law - you had a small community who muddled along. You discovered one of the adults abusing a child.
    There is no authority to refer to, there is no prison, the abuser admits to it but shows no remorse for doing so.
    Now what ...
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    I don't have kids so I couldn't say what I'd do, I'd imagine I'd be extremely angry even after said child was saved. You do hear some interesting and admirable things about all sorts of crime victims or families about how they deal with that in terms of religion, forgiveness or just not letting it affect them in that way. I imagine it would be hard to think "he's in prison for life, the world has judged him so I'll not let it consume me with hate' but I don't know if I'd be able to or not
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    Slowbike wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Am I on my own by only wanting to get my child to safety away from the abuser without wanting to beat the carp out of him? Compelling? Not to me. Seriously, why do people have the need for descending towards the lowest levels of human behaviour.

    Murdering, beating up or any other violent act is wrong. Once you have removed the child from harm, perhaps involving a minimum or violence to achieve, any further violence is not justified. It would be vigilantism which is wrong morally if not legally.
    It does seem at least 50/50 ....

    I totally understand the violence thing - the abuser has inflicted pain on an innocent child - shouldn't they feel pain and fear?

    Ok - again, totally hypothetical ... and only as a discussion point ..

    What would you think you'd do if you were on an island without rule of law - you had a small community who muddled along. You discovered one of the adults abusing a child.
    There is no authority to refer to, there is no prison, the abuser admits to it but shows no remorse for doing so.
    Now what ...

    hmmm small community that might well mean the offender was related to a chunk of that community. This is possibly more difficult than the situation we're actually in here.

    What do his supporters say. How strong relative to your group is he. what does the community as a whole think? do they agree it was abuse? are the abusers skills unique and essential to the survival of the group. If there's division will the whole community stand safe and secure against other communities in this lawless place?

    one would hope there is a strong leader in that group with clear values and moral direction. (and also hope the abuser is not that person).

    I would think a starting point would be to make sure his crimes were made known infront of the community and his punishment delivered in front of that community. It's a very different situation here in the real world.



    My answer is that it may well be an opportunity to remove the threat, avenge the crime, cement position at the top.
  • meursault
    meursault Posts: 1,433
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    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 left

    You can only justify that if you use 'reasonable force'. This is where you are misunderstanding the law. It doesn't mean you can kill an intruder into your home. Each case is specific and would have to be argued in court.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    meursault wrote:


    You can only justify that if you use 'reasonable force'. This is where you are misunderstanding the law. It doesn't mean you can kill an intruder into your home. Each case is specific and would have to be argued in court.

    yes thank you for that we get that.

    here is an excerpt from the guidelines used by the CPS and police specifically for self defence issues of the type we've been discussing. Theres plenty more I can share but it should be noted that unless the public interest and likelihood of success are present its quite feasible that the homeowner might not even get to court.

    "Subsection (5A) allows householders to use disproportionate force when defending themselves against intruders into the home. The provision came into force on 25 April 2013 and applies to cases where the alleged force was used after that date. The provision does not apply restrospectively. It provides that where the case is one involving a householder (please see the section below for further details) the degree of force used by the householder is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate. A householder will therefore be able to use force which is disproportionate but not grossly disporportionate.

    The provision does not give householders free rein to use disproprtionate force in every case they are confronted by an intruder. The provision must be read in conjunction with the other elements of section 76 of the 2008 Act. The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be (section 76(3)).

    In deciding whether the force might be regarded as 'disproportionate' or 'grossly disproportioante' the court will need to consider the individual facts of each case, including the personal circumstances of the householder and the threat (real or perceived) posed by the offender.

    Section 76(7) sets out two considerations that should be taken into account when deciding whether the force used was reasonable. Both are adopted from existing case law. They are:

    that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action;
    that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.


    There
  • meursault
    meursault Posts: 1,433
    The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be

    I don't think you did get it. Loving that 'there' at the end too.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    meursault wrote:
    The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be

    I don't think you did get it. Loving that 'there' at the end too.


    in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be.

    Never mind that you're really not getting it, the point im making is that there are loads of circumstances where killing someone in the process of protecting yourself, your property or other people is not going to end up with you going to jail or possibly even getting charged.

    eg the meat cleaver to the head.


    Had Tony Martin shot the thieving gypsy scum in the face instead of the back things may have ended very differently for him.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    HaydenM wrote:
    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 deterrent

    In all seriousness if i was going to kill someone the my car seems the obvious choice. Bit of pre planning on the victims movement and either a hit and run approach with no witnesses or just plain did not see him mate. Bit of luck you get a not too bothered copper and a lenient judge and its a couple of hundred victim charge and a driving ban for 12 months. Obviously this post has limited any future plans in this area.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    make it an SUV, with the sun in your face, kids screaming in the back and no sleep for a few days and you can be the victim
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    meursault wrote:
    The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be

    I don't think you did get it. Loving that 'there' at the end too.

    I think we might all be talking cross purposes, I think everyone agrees that there is a level of force which can be justified to protect yourself but stepping over that will land you in jail. Hence the was it/wasn't it murder by Tony Martin (aside from the fact he illegally held a shotgun which is a serious offence in itself)
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    HaydenM wrote:
    meursault wrote:
    The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be

    I don't think you did get it. Loving that 'there' at the end too.

    I think we might all be talking cross purposes, I think everyone agrees that there is a level of force which can be justified to protect yourself but stepping over that will land you in jail. Hence the was it/wasn't it murder by Tony Martin (aside from the fact he illegally held a shotgun which is a serious offence in itself)

    to be fair, Tony Martin sounds a bit of a nut job
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    make it an SUV, with the sun in your face, kids screaming in the back and no sleep for a few days and you can be the victim


    hahah even better if you have diplomatic immunity

Categories