Farm shooting, at last some sense

[Omaeka]

Because human rights should be universal - if they're not then you might as well do away with them entirely. Human rights aren't just meant to be there for people you agree with or like.

Couldn't disagree with this more tbh, there should be a list of actions that completely negate your human rights i.e;

paedophilia
rape
murder
terrorism
etc.

anybody who commits such acts should have zero human rights and be at the mercy of whoever they are given to. I can't remember the last time I was as angry as when it was revealed our troops were torturing confirmed terrorists for information to prevent attacks, and then they got arrested and locked up for it? They are the purest patriots and doing what most people wouldn't have the balls to do in order to save lives.

As for the UK, the biggest flaw is the fact that you can be prosecuted for not only self defence in your own home but also on the street. If somebody breaks into your property or attacks you with credible witnesses, their life should be at your mercy. The only thing America does right IMO. If anybody ever breaks into my property at any point in my life, I will take theirs and if that means prison then I'll emigrate to Mexico.

 

[MrMoonX]

Couldn't disagree with this more tbh, there should be a list of actions that completely negate your human rights i.e;

paedophilia
rape
murder
terrorism
etc.

anybody who commits such acts should have zero human rights and be at the mercy of whoever they are given to. I can't remember the last time I was as angry as when it was revealed our troops were torturing confirmed terrorists for information to prevent attacks, and then they got arrested and locked up for it? They are the purest patriots and doing what most people wouldn't have the balls to do in order to save lives.

As for the UK, the biggest flaw is the fact that you can be prosecuted for not only self defence in your own home but also on the street. If somebody breaks into your property or attacks you with credible witnesses, their life should be at your mercy. The only thing America does right IMO. If anybody ever breaks into my property at any point in my life, I will take theirs and if that means prison then I'll emigrate to Mexico.

you cant have selected human rights, they are universal rights that apply to everyone

How about you get accused of paedophillia, convicted by mistake and tortured like you say above???

If you go down this route then a lot of innocent people are going to be tortured because lets face it miscarriages of justice happen!

 

[Uther]

You have to attribute what the judge says in relation to the facts of the case - its certainly doesn't mean you can shoot people who burgle / trespass on your property with a legal firearm willy nilly

Don't spoilt the moment!

 

[Engy Benjie]

Not sure how I feel about this one. If I could understand the situation that the homeowner was in that the time maybe it would make more sense. to begin with using a firearm should be a last resort. He could have probably delt with the situation without firing a shot, just the act of holding a wepon could have probably defused the situation.

But on the other hand if he honestly thought that the intruders were going for a knife then he is well within his rights to a preemptive strike to protect himself and his family.

I guess knowing how to deal with the situaitons become easier with training.

 

[Richie]

You have to attribute what the judge says in relation to the facts of the case - its certainly doesn't mean you can shoot people who burgle / trespass on your property with a legal firearm willy nilly

Nothing to do with what the judge said.

1. It was a legally held firearm
2. Said holder of firearm used it in self defence
3. CPS agreed that he had done nothing illegal

Legal firearm with legal use defined within law = nothing wrong.

 

[realBabelfish]

Ah but if it were manslaughter/murder in self defence then I doubt very much they would have taken the same view.

A la Tony Martin, different admittedly as he didn't hold a license for the weapon. However, I expect the outcome would have been similar.

tony martin was stupid that he boasted he will kill the bext burglars. that was his downfall really. it showed he intended to kill them.

anyway, a win for common sense... maybe we need to clone this judge to replace the ones who think a 7 year old can be flirtatious with a pensioner.

 

[Omaeka]

you cant have selected human rights, they are universal rights that apply to everyone

How about you get accused of paedophillia, convicted by mistake and tortured like you say above???

If you go down this route then a lot of innocent people are going to be tortured because lets face it miscarriages of justice happen!

I would never get accused of it, and even if I did there would be no way in hell I'd get actually convicted because I don't feel the need to touch kiddies. You honestly think there are any wrongful convictions of pedophiles? I get that you can be wrongly convicted of murder etc but the only way to get done for kiddy fiddling is actually doing it, otherwise there is no evidence or proof.

People that bang on about human rights are soft as hell, no way should somebody have the right to commit a serious crime and get catered for and processed through nothing but luxury. I'm glad that pedophiles eventually face justice in prison, but murderers, rapists etc. do not. They eventually get released to do it again, pedophiles included.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEt3-kuVl5Y

^ this is where sociopaths need to explode with Ak47's, not on innocents. Some of the people in that video make my skin crawl, and then people fight for them to retain their 'human' rights... they aren't human.

Convicted terrorists should be tortured, all the rest should be executed. Do you know how pathetic the people who exposed the torture are? They opened our boys up for similar treatment from the enemy, and for what? To save the 'rights' of somebody who's slaughter millions of innocents with the press of a button if he could? Nothing annoys me more than this. Not only did the terrorist get a little of what he deserved, he also spilled information that no doubt saved real lives.

 

[realBabelfish]

Feet/ankles. No major arteries down there IIRC?

IIRC hitting the knee caps can kill you. something to do with all the nerves in that area. being knee capped IIRC can kill you.

 

[realBabelfish]

I would never get accused of it, and even if I did there would be no way in hell I'd get actually convicted because I don't feel the need to touch kiddies. You honestly think there are any wrongful convictions of pedophiles? I get that you can be wrongly convicted of murder etc but the only way to get done for kiddy fiddling is actually doing it, otherwise there is no evidence or proof.

People that bang on about human rights are soft as hell, no way should somebody have the right to commit a serious crime and get catered for and processed through nothing but luxury. I'm glad that pedophiles eventually face justice in prison, but murderers, rapists etc. do not. They eventually get released to do it again, pedophiles included.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEt3-kuVl5Y

^ this is where sociopaths need to explode with Ak47's, not on innocents. Some of the people in that video make my skin crawl, and then people fight for them to retain their 'human' rights... they aren't human.

Convicted terrorists should be tortured, all the rest should be executed. Do you know how pathetic the people who exposed the torture are? They opened our boys up for similar treatment from the enemy, and for what? To save the 'rights' of somebody who's slaughter millions of innocents with the press of a button if he could? Nothing annoys me more than this.

there are plenty of rape cases where its been proved the 'rapist' wasnt anywhere near... the woman lied.

or another version where 2 people are drunk and sleep together. they wake up and the woman says its rape as she doesnt remember saying yes/consenting

of course we hope that kids wouldnt make up such things, but if grown women can, who knows?!?

"I'm glad that pedophiles eventually face justice in prison, but murderers, rapists etc. do not. They eventually get released to do it again, pedophiles included." - this makes no sense at all. paedoes get the easiest jail time of anybody. put on a separate wing etc.

 

[Omaeka]

there are plenty of rape cases where its been proved the 'rapist' wasnt anywhere near... the woman lied.

or another version where 2 people are drunk and sleep together. they wake up and the woman says its rape as she doesnt remember saying yes/consenting

of course we hope that kids wouldnt make up such things, but if grown women can, who knows?!?

"I'm glad that pedophiles eventually face justice in prison, but murderers, rapists etc. do not. They eventually get released to do it again, pedophiles included." - this makes no sense at all. paedoes get the easiest jail time of anybody. put on a separate wing etc.

I see your point about rape, as for the quote, a lot of prisoners are human beings who have children themselves, so trust me when a Paedo is put in the system they get to them. Very few actually get put into general population but it happens.

The fact they get the easiest jail time and put on separate wings is another pathetic thing.

 

[realBabelfish]

I see your point about rape, as for the quote, a lot of prisoners are human beings who have children themselves, so trust me when a Paedo is put in the system they get to them. Very few actually get put into general population but it happens.

The fact they get the easiest jail time and put on separate wings is another pathetic thing.

the odd one will if they try to keep it under wraps, for example until they case is in the papers. but screws will just tell the cons anyway, then they go on protection wing. not many actually get done over.

you will have a much easier time being a paedo in jail than just being small on a general wing. which, to me isnt right.

 

[Noughtboy]

Feet/ankles. No major arteries down there IIRC?

Mate, like most legal weapons in the UK, it was a shotgun. Shotguns are not designed to be pinpoint accurate rather to spread around the "shot". Even if they were very accurate, the shooter might not be.

Additionally, with a shotgun, you get a fair bit of recoil and this throws the gun up resulting in either you hitting the knees/thighs (with the femoral artery) or the groin or in the worst case scenario, missing the little sticks of shin or ankle all together and having no more shells in the barrel.

Rather do a body mass shot and stop the attack cold or worst case hit the face and stop the attack cold.

Pity and mercy are words and concepts for the Liberals to bandy around after an attack that hasn't happened to them or their wives or children. Maybe they would ask their prospective attackers to sit down for a cup of tea to discuss their philosophy on life citing that it perhaps was their neglected childhood that is causing them to commit these violent acts and criminals really should consider upskilling and becoming a professional.

They can then watch the immediate transformation of a common thug, faced with weakness, moving up the "professional" ladder and turning into a rapist or murderer.

Good luck to them

NB

 

[semi-pro waster]

Couldn't disagree with this more tbh, there should be a list of actions that completely negate your human rights i.e;

paedophilia
rape
murder
terrorism
etc.

anybody who commits such acts should have zero human rights and be at the mercy of whoever they are given to. I can't remember the last time I was as angry as when it was revealed our troops were torturing confirmed terrorists for information to prevent attacks, and then they got arrested and locked up for it? They are the purest patriots and doing what most people wouldn't have the balls to do in order to save lives.

Why draw the line at those selected crimes? Why not extend your retribution further? What makes those suitable for that kind of punishment but other crimes are not as meritorious of the removal of human rights?

It's an entirely subjective measure you've picked:

• Murder encompasses a hell of a lot of potential reasons for the crime, some will diminish responsibility and others won't but do you say all murderers have their human rights removed or just some, the really nasty ones?
• One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter as the saying goes - Nelson Mandela is a famous terrorist yet most people think that with the benefit of hindsight and distance his struggle was ultimately right even if some of the measures taken were not.
• How about rape? That must be a simple one. Statutory rape as well? If the boy is 17 and the girl is 15 then technically it's statutory rape so does that fall within your spectrum of human right removal? Rape cases tend to be the word of one party against another and the issue is about whether consent was given rather than whether sexual intercourse has taken place so maybe you'll have to come up against false claims - bit late to give someone their human rights back when you've already violated them.

It must be quite nice to live in a world of moral absolutes but sadly I can't join you there, the world has almost infinite shades of grey so that's why I have to believe that human rights are universal or they're worthless. You might be fine now but if you're happy to waive away the rights of others then you're heading down a very slippery slope - at what point does it simply become people you disagree with who you're going to subject to inhumane treatment?

Oh and torture is rarely a good way of extracting information, in fact as far as these things go it's terrible. If the threat is sufficient then most people will say anything to get it to stop, that might or might not be the truth but will most likely be what they think the torturer wants to hear. I'd also have to wonder about what exactly it is we're saving if to do so we're stooping to the level of torture - that's not usually the sign of a good democracy.

As for the UK, the biggest flaw is the fact that you can be prosecuted for not only self defence in your own home but also on the street. If somebody breaks into your property or attacks you with credible witnesses, their life should be at your mercy. The only thing America does right IMO. If anybody ever breaks into my property at any point in my life, I will take theirs and if that means prison then I'll emigrate to Mexico.

Credible witnesses? If it's a housebreaking situation then presumably the majority of the witnesses (if there are any) will likely to be related to you or otherwise invested in the home - I don't want to cast aspertions but generally speaking your family is likely to be biased towards you and your interests rather than necessarily acknowledging that you possibly went too far.

I feel it's worth pointing out that even under the Castle Doctrine which exists in only certain states and is the most liberal interpretation of how far you can go to defend yourself and property the chances are that someone like Tony Martin would still have been convicted.

I'm also not sure you'd get the chance to emigrate to Mexico if you've already killed someone, I know our judicial system isn't always perfect but if they've caught you they're unlikely to wave you off at the airport with their best wishes and a snack for the trip.