Idiots attack PC gamers @ gaming center - and they get PWNED
- Thread starter KatanaDV20
- Start date
Why would he get banned for that?
There's ironic racist humor and there are places for it, it was neither funny nor is this the place for it as a supposedly family friendly forum.
On a lot of forums racism is a bannable offence. I would have thought it would be here as well what with its link to a business and as such the business's reputation being possibly adversely effected.
Well, I dont think it was particularly racist, it may well be the 'same old story', it certainly seems potent enough in certain parts of America.
You cant just go banning people with an opinion different to yours on certain subjects, I'm sure the mods have seen his comment and I assure you if they deemed it to be racist he would have been banned.
I don't think you can be accused of being racist for stating something true, in that case the combination of the facts that:
1) The majority of the population of the US (that is where this happened right?) are white.
2) Black people make up a substantially larger percentage of convictions than any other ethnic group, relative to the total number of black people in the US.
Yes, there are problems with this (ie, racist juries, etc), and no, being black does not make you a criminal, nor are all black people criminals. However, some circumstances (mainly related to wealth AFAIK) cause skin colour and crime to be statistically linked.
1) The majority of the population of the US (that is where this happened right?) are white.
2) Black people make up a substantially larger percentage of convictions than any other ethnic group, relative to the total number of black people in the US.
Yes, there are problems with this (ie, racist juries, etc), and no, being black does not make you a criminal, nor are all black people criminals. However, some circumstances (mainly related to wealth AFAIK) cause skin colour and crime to be statistically linked.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Apparently the main instigator when questioned was complaining about hitbox detection he was going on about being certain it was a headshot but it didn't take the guy down, he asked if the place had any connection to valve.
Or something along those lines, also no, if it happened in the uk people wouldn't get into trouble, and its the states that had the overly litigious era WAY before the UK with problems with people going beyond reasonable force when in danger.
Thats also why they wouldn't have been in trouble in the UK, the robbers who for the record they showed a picture of one black guy but the two friends outside with blurred faces appeared white, because the robbers punched and tried to rob them all, and most of what the customers did was pushing them out and holding one guy on the ground. They didn't get one, drag him into the corner and kill him, or grab a pc and smash it in his face, they certainly didn't go beyond reasonable force and thats the ONLY time people get in trouble in the UK.
People are pretty much always arrested when a serious crime happens no matter if the guy is innocent or not, they turn up and find a dead guy, the guy they think did it is going in to be questioned. The question is will they be charged, and if so will the court find them innocent because it was reasonable, or not, same happens in the states, and most countries, get over it.
Or something along those lines, also no, if it happened in the uk people wouldn't get into trouble, and its the states that had the overly litigious era WAY before the UK with problems with people going beyond reasonable force when in danger.
Thats also why they wouldn't have been in trouble in the UK, the robbers who for the record they showed a picture of one black guy but the two friends outside with blurred faces appeared white, because the robbers punched and tried to rob them all, and most of what the customers did was pushing them out and holding one guy on the ground. They didn't get one, drag him into the corner and kill him, or grab a pc and smash it in his face, they certainly didn't go beyond reasonable force and thats the ONLY time people get in trouble in the UK.
People are pretty much always arrested when a serious crime happens no matter if the guy is innocent or not, they turn up and find a dead guy, the guy they think did it is going in to be questioned. The question is will they be charged, and if so will the court find them innocent because it was reasonable, or not, same happens in the states, and most countries, get over it.
Do you spend all your time locked in a basement with only the Daily Mail as your contact to the outside world?
Direct defence with very reasonable force, all on video. No way would that even get to court, let alone a conviction.
Current legal precedent in the UK is that you can gather people together, get weapons and try to beat someone to death in vengeance and still not go to jail if you get the right media spin on it. Look up "Munir Hussain".
Yeh your right I forgot about that bloke. First initial news reports made it sound like the bloke was going down but was then let off as he was protecting his own.
Remember back along when that farmer type guy shot some teenage burglers? He killed one of them if I remember rightly then went down for it... did he get out of prison in the end, cant remember...
Yeah, the guy who used an illegally held gun to shoot people in the back, having planned to do so, and then went to have a cup of tea while one of them lay either dead or dying.
And he still got away with a manslaughter conviction and only a couple of years in jail.
With a different media spin, people would have been raging about the appallingly light sentence for murder.
This post just made Pixel look very very silly.
Yeah yeah, when did this thread become a Legal Debate between the US and the UK.
The US legal system is run by the media and trials are made a mockery by the public. Honestly, if you really think that the US have better laws and that US citizens have better protection then the UK then you sir are an idiot.
Oh and by the way, sure you can't go ahead and head shot someone that enters your property, but in the US the maximum penalty for 1st degree Burglary is 6 years.
Do you know what the maximum penalty for burglary in the UK is?
14.
The US legal system is run by the media and trials are made a mockery by the public. Honestly, if you really think that the US have better laws and that US citizens have better protection then the UK then you sir are an idiot.
Oh and by the way, sure you can't go ahead and head shot someone that enters your property, but in the US the maximum penalty for 1st degree Burglary is 6 years.
Do you know what the maximum penalty for burglary in the UK is?
14.
Also, the media in the UK will generally report the person being questioned or arrested with the most extreme possible spin, then completely ignore them being released or acquitted.
The police have to take people in. They can't magically determine the truth on the scene and it's hardly impossible for someone to falsely claim defence. If merely telling the police it was defence was enough, nobody could ever be arrested for anything because everyone would say it was defence.
A case I know of:
The police get a call to an address from somewhere else. A neighbour, maybe.
They turn up to find one man dripping blood and another man holding a machete with some blood on it. The man holding the machete says he was defending himself.
Should the police have said "OK sir, no problem, sorry for disturbing you" and left? Bear in mind there was no way for them to have any idea what had actually happened.
So they took the guy with a machete in and held him while they investigated. I forget whether or not they charged him. They released him shortly afterwards, when they were satisfied that it was reasonable force in defence.
Maximums aren't really meaningful it's the average that counts. (if you have to use some blanket stat to define it)
All depends in which state you are in.. Some states allow you to use deadly force if being attacked. If that was in Florida and one of those attackers ended up in say intensive care fighting for his life, the specky **** who planted a perfectly placed right headshot with a keyboard would have walked away without even being arrested. I'm sure in the UK it would at least go to trial.
If a group of people walk into your house in the middle of the night, wake you up, disturb you or assault you and rob you, I can guarantee you under those circumstances the average will be atleast 7-10 years for each of them.
The Media only reports what you want to hear, I don't even understand why people listen to the sun and the daily mail, they are just money making machines and do nothing but infuse society with hate.
In the UK when a judge sentences he has to decide between rehabilitation, deterrence or other forms of punishment. Someone with previous convictions is more likely to be put in jail for 5-14 years then a first time offender, why send a 18 year old kid to prison for 14 years and possibly ruin his life, for what, to make a bunch of middle class idiots happy for 5 minutes until they flip the next page?
This is the same in the US or in the UK and in most other democratic societies.
Obviously someone who saw a couple going on holiday and broke a window to steal a few necklaces to fuel a drug addiction is probably only going to get a year or maybe just face community service, but you can bet if you break in my house, tie me up and rob me for everything you have you're going to jail for a long time. Example: More then 6 years, unlike in the US , where one of those men would probably die because of the gun culture they have. Yes, 1 man dead, 1 having his life ruined either by death or life time imprisonment is much better then our stat 14 year prison sentence
Oh and also, everyone is always ready to attack judges for light sentencing and not throwing everyone who commits a crime in prison but more often then not, this isn't done because of prison overcrowding and the cost to keep someone in prison. By the way, reasonable force is yet to be defined by law, you judge what reasonable force is , but obviously if you tie a burglar up and then proceed to torture him to death, I think that's a bit excessive don't you? You're not going to jail for knocking him on the head.
Last edited:
Of course they'd be arrested, I'd be quite worried if you could stand over a guy beaten unconscious and go "Yeah self defence mate" and the police would just walk on by.
If a group of people walk into your house in the middle of the night, wake you up, disturb you or assault you and rob you, I can guarantee you under those circumstances the average will be atleast 7-10 years for each of them.
The Media only reports what you want to hear, I don't even understand why people listen to the sun and the daily mail, they are just money making machine and do nothing but infuse society with hate.
In the UK when a judge sentences he has to decide between rehabilitation, deterrence or other forms of punishment. Someone with previous convictions is more likely to be put in jail for 5-14 years then a first time offender, why send a 18 year old kid to prison for 14 years and possibly ruin his life, for what, to make a bunch of middle class idiots happy for 5 minutes until they flip the next page?
This is the same in the US or in the UK and in most other democratic societies.
Obviously someone who saw a couple going on holiday and broke a window to steal a few necklaces to fuel a drug addiction is probably only going to get a year or maybe just face community service, but you can bet if you break in my house, tie me up and rob me for everything you have you're going to jail for a long time. Example: More then 6 years, unlike in the US , where one of those men would probably die because of the gun culture they have. Yes, 1 man dead, 1 having his life ruined either by death or life time imprisonment is much better then our stat 14 year prison sentence
Well done for one of the most retarded and completely misdirected rants 've read in quite some time.
You're just like the daily mail types you complained about going off on some emotional rant that doesn't make sense, and even is even more bizarre in the context you posted it.
Like always the two extremes are exactly the same
In the UK you have the right to defend yourself in accordance to what it's done to you, so if someone shoots you, you have the right to shoot him back, if someone punches you, you have the right to punch him back.
If you had a gun and he didn't, I'm pretty sure he would be wise enough to do what you said and you wouldn't have to resort to killing him would you? If he launched himself at you , you could shoot his foot or his knee. Why would you need to shoot him in the head?
when someone is trying to injure you, no matter what they're armed with, if you have a gun, you shoot to put the hostile DOWN. Note that i've not said dead because that's never the goal.
but shooting a determined bad guy in the foot/knee will not cease hostilities.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 May 2008
- Posts
- 1,011
In the uk you have the right to use reasonable force to stop the attacker.