Comments on: Friday snark

By: john b

john b — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:22:00 +0000

So you think there is no risk of harm in confronting thieves, do you? Sorry, there is, that's a fact, not an assertion. If you think otherwise, why not try to arrange such a situation for yourself, and put your beliefs to the test

No, cos if I arranged the situation then I'd be guilty: see Malnick (1989 - Crim LR 451).

By: The Plague Of Losers

The Plague Of Losers — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:58:00 +0000

Oh, now you’re going to try to make people think you’re a sensible person. Sorry, it’s a bit late, and I suspect that if I engage your arguments you’ll just go back to flinging ad hominems at me, so I’m not going to bother, loser boy.

By: European Loser

European Loser — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:56:00 +0000

I'm just trying to establish what it is you actually think needs to be done. Michael actually asked this directly earlier on in the thread. Do you mean that the chance of being wrongfully convicted would stop you going to the assistance of someone who's being raped?

By: The Plague Of Losers

The Plague Of Losers — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:59:00 +0000

European Loser said:-

I'm going to launch ad-hominem attacks on you and insinuate that you really only want to kill someone, and when my target responds in kind by wondering about how I feel about scumbags and psychos who really want to kill people, such as the gang who tried to drown the woman they just raped, I'm going to act as if they are being desperately stupid and not me. This is because I have no answers, so I'm just going to resort to being smug in the hope that idiots will mistake smugness for superiority.

By: European Loser

European Loser — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 07:56:00 +0000

Oh please, that's a really desparate excuse for an ad-hominem attack. You really should try harder - if you're going to put words into my mouth, at least have me saying something plausable.

As I said before, if you really need to kill someone, go for it. You can do that if you want. In fact, if it was a case of you-or-them, I'd say 'good on you', as would any normal person.

But don't go expecting the rest of us to immediately, unquestioningly assume your version of the events is the truth. Let us see the evidence before jumping to conclusions about who-did-what-to-whom.

I really can't see how anyone normal can have such a problem with such a simple idea.

By: The Plague Of Losers

The Plague Of Losers — Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:19:00 +0000

EuroLooser wrote:-

Oh I see, you want the right to kill people in public now, too...

Awww, are you upset that rapists, muggers, and thugs might be get hurt or killed by the next person they try to rape, mug, or knife? Sick boy.

John B wrote:-

assertions (about threats to the person) don't equal facts.

So you think there is no risk of harm in confronting thieves, do you? Sorry, there is, that's a fact, not an assertion. If you think otherwise, why not try to arrange such a situation for yourself, and put your beliefs to the test? Put your money where your mouth is, John.

By: john b

john b — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:52:00 +0000

And, the CPS, which amongst other things, decided that it would be appropriate to bring charges of murder against Osborn? What should be done about them?

"In both cases I'd agree with you that the prosecutors are appalling and should be sacked forthwith." Reading isn't just a town in Berkshire.

It doesn't matter when it was in their home or not, and each of them were faced with a threat to themselves, not just their 'stuff'.

We were talking about the law on burglary (or Andrew and I were; I have no idea what the hell you were talking about) & assertions don't equal facts. In the wise words of Evil Vampire Willow, "bored now".

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:39:00 +0000

Stolen from Backword, here’s the Telegraph guide to the law on self-defence:

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/02/02/nburg02big.jpg

By: European Loser

European Loser — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:05:00 +0000

Oh I see, you want the right to kill people in public now, too…

By: The Plague Of Losers

The Plague Of Losers — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:39:00 +0000

<<Re Telegraph article: Brett Osborn wasn't guilty of murder or manslaughter, wouldn't have been convicted of either, and his lawyer should be shot for suggesting the plea bargain. Same for Garfield Davenport, who had the wit to plead not guilty. In both cases I'd agree with you that the prosecutors are appalling and should be sacked forthwith.>>

And, the CPS, which amongst other things, decided that it would be appropriate to bring charges of murder against Osborn? What should be done about them?

<<Meanwhile, David Kent wasn't in his home; Glen Kinch wasn't in his home or tackling a suspected burglar; Andrew Robinson wasn't in his home or tackling a suspected burglar; Kenneth Hall wasn't in his home or tackling a suspected burglar. They all attacked people in response to simple property crimes that weren't home invasion and did not represent a threat to anything other than their stuff.>>

It doesn't matter when it was in their home or not, and each of them were faced with a threat to themselves, not just their 'stuff'.