Crazy Tesco Car Park Incident

[StriderX]

To my mind it should be the case that, if you commit a crime and your victim (Or those around him/her) turn on you. One of the legal rights that you should lose is the right to self defense.

If you injure or kill anybody trying to escape, even if you are in fear for your life, you should not be permitted to use "Self Defense" as a defense.

Indeed, I would regard any such outcome as Felony Assault/GBH/Murder with appropriate sentences to follow in addition to those imposed for the original offense.

It should be made quite clear that this is one of the risks that one takes should one choose to commit a crime in the first place.

Ok so you stole a loaf of bread, some wierdo has seen it and approaches you with a knucle duster, he begins bludgeoning your head in and it's totally fine because you can no longer defend yourself from being killed?

This sort of ****** argument bores me, can you atleast attempt to stipulate exceptions?

 

[Em3bbs]

Ok so you stole a loaf of bread, some wierdo has seen it and approaches you with a knucle duster, he begins bludgeoning your head in and it's totally fine because you can no longer defend yourself from being killed?

This sort of ****** argument bores me, can you atleast attempt to stipulate exceptions?

Your silly example aside, where would you draw the line?

 

[StriderX]

It's all our own money. And frankly, I think I spend it a lot more efficiently than the State does. So when I donate food to a food bank (and I do), I'm happy to do so as much as it going through my taxes. I literally know people who have given talks to their local community on how to cheat the benefits system. At least when I go through a needs list for the local food bank I know my money is being directly turned into food and not funding forty-two different layers of bureaucracy to achieve the same thing.​

It solves someone not having a meal at night or not being able to feed their kid. Which is what it is meant to solve. Perhaps you mistakenly think a food bank is meant to eliminate poverty and create jobs. It isn't. They do a lot of good.



It is? I'm a Right Winger (and I imagine quite well-known as such on these forums). Since when was Right Wing against charity? In fact, statistically the Right Wing give more to charity than the Left (who tend to believe the State should solve everything). So here's a suggestion - avoid speaking on behalf of other people. You plainly don't know us "right-wingers" half so well as you think.



Case in point.

It ultimately comes down to two things, will everyone that can share a pittance without any judgement whatsoever and does it actually solve the problem for the rest of time?

Considering the state exists in the first place, we can assume that the former was never true and never will be, history teaches us a rather obvious lesson that people that have plenty want to keep it and in this increasingly materialist/selfish ****** world that it would only be worse.

The latter is mostly impossible to answer, but some food isn't going to solve anything much to the adage of "giving a man a fish...", you solve it with education, end of story. In your stateless 'utopia', the latter would be subject to selfish desire and well out of reach of the paupers.

PS. That stateless utopia (or smol govment), never happening, Tories and GOP always increase the size of the state, I laugh at this.

 

[StriderX]

Your silly example aside, where would you draw the line?

Can't help it if others leave an open goal, i wont just assume it was implied when it was clearly absolutist.

The line is drawn only when you have no choice for your own personal survival, although if your life sucks bum, you might as well attempt to be a 'hero'

 

[Em3bbs]

Can't help it if others leave an open goal, i wont just assume it was implied when it was clearly absolutist.

The line is drawn only when you have no choice for your own personal survival, although if your life sucks bum, you might as well attempt to be a 'hero'

What a great example to society you are. "I'm alright Jack".

 

[Hades]

history teaches us a rather obvious lesson that people that have plenty want to keep it and in this increasingly materialist/selfish ****** world that it would only be worse.

And this statement applies just as much, possibly more-so, to the state. The state wants more and more of our money and gives only a little of it back to us in infrastructure, services and help for the needy. But it becomes ever more inefficient because it wants ever more money and power.

 

[doodah]

Car found, no suspects yet.

 

[plasmahal]

Car found, no suspects yet.

Plenty of suspects in the video causing criminal damage at a minimum.

Hopefully all the morons both in the car and surrounding the car are caught and prosecuted.

 

[Angilion]

What a load of irrelevant guff.

Even if I ignore the original meaning of "lynch" and use only the definition you cite, you're still wrong because I didn't say that a lynching had occured.

The 'attack' was initiated on the store and staff by the thieves in the stolen hire car.

Where is your evidence for that? I've been saying all along that the sequence of events is important, you've been saying it isn't and know you say you know what the sequence of events was.

 

[Angilion]

To my mind it should be the case that, if you commit a crime and your victim (Or those around him/her) turn on you. One of the legal rights that you should lose is the right to self defense.

That idea has already been used, most notably by witch-hunters and the famous racist and sexist killers in segregationist USA. They all believed (or at least claimed to believe) that if someone was accused of committing a crime then "good people" were free to attack them and they had no right to self defence.

Even if you mean well with your argument, it's a recipe for a nightmare.

 

[Kenai]

Where is your evidence for that? I've been saying all along that the sequence of events is important, you've been saying it isn't and know you say you know what the sequence of events was.

From the various places I've read, people on Facebook who claim to have been there, etc. to me the sequence seems to be:

Couple steal booze
Try to make quick getaway
Run over two people in the process
People witness this and mob forms
Video starts

 

[StriderX]

We can only trust the video though, so that's immaterial. I have no right to judge whether anything else is accurate, nor does anyone here.

 

[h4rm0ny]

It ultimately comes down to two things, will everyone that can share a pittance without any judgement whatsoever and does it actually solve the problem for the rest of time?

Considering the state exists in the first place, we can assume that the former was never true and never will be, history teaches us a rather obvious lesson that people that have plenty want to keep it and in this increasingly materialist/selfish ****** world that it would only be worse.

The latter is mostly impossible to answer, but some food isn't going to solve anything much to the adage of "giving a man a fish...", you solve it with education, end of story. In your stateless 'utopia', the latter would be subject to selfish desire and well out of reach of the paupers.

PS. That stateless utopia (or smol govment), never happening, Tories and GOP always increase the size of the state, I laugh at this.

I'm trying to work out who you're replying to, because it certainly doesn't seem to be what I was saying.

 

[h4rm0ny]

We can only trust the video though, so that's immaterial. I have no right to judge whether anything else is accurate, nor does anyone here.

Meanwhile in reality, people are able to believe something happened without personally having video evidence of it. You must have been incredibly annoying to your history teacher. (Before you were incredibly annoying to everyone else, I mean).

It's also not much relevant whether you believe they ran someone over or not as you seem perfectly willing to engage in a discussion on a hypothetical basis - at least, up until it doesn't go well for you at which point it's suddenly "we cannot know this happened" rejection of discussion being possible.

 

[StriderX]

Meanwhile in reality, people are able to believe something happened without personally having video evidence of it. You must have been incredibly annoying to your history teacher. (Before you were incredibly annoying to everyone else, I mean).

It's also not much relevant whether you believe they ran someone over or not as you seem perfectly willing to engage in a discussion on a hypothetical basis - at least, up until it doesn't go well for you at which point it's suddenly "we cannot know this happened" rejection of discussion being possible.

Just because it's possible, or even probable in this case, it doesnt mean they deserve to be beat to death.

We live in fake news times and everything is suspect now, so get on IT.

 

[Omaeka]

Any update on the store assistant with the serious injury?

 

[h4rm0ny]

Just because it's possible, or even probable in this case, it doesnt mean they deserve to be beat to death.

"Beaten to death"?

Your strawman makes Nicholas Cage cry.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Any update on the store assistant with the serious injury?

According to GoFundMe organizer (not linking as no certainty it's genuine), she has been returned home and is requesting privacy.

 

[Omaeka]

According to GoFundMe organizer (not linking as no certainty it's genuine), she has been returned home and is requesting privacy.

Definitely not how you want to spend the holidays, hope she recovers. Broken backs are no joke.

 

[Things change I've changed]

Pathetic excuse for a 'mob', the guy that opened the driver door could have easily pulled him out.