Myleene Klass + 2yo daughter confronted by intruders; warned by police

[Amp34]

The entire point of the straw man term - do you even know what it means? - is that someone is arguing an easy point even though it isn't actually the point in hand. You can't argue against it if it's not even relevant.

Yes I do, unfortunately it's just used now as a copout for not answering a difficult question. Godwins Law was "brought about" because people would just call someone Hitler when a difficult point was raised. Very similar TBH.

I almost replied to that before realising you were trolling.

No I was being serious actually, however I know so many people get hysterically overreactive so I can believe it's true unfortunately. Mostly because the media has worked people us so much (entirely relevant to this topic considering the number of people that think it is illegal to defend yourself with reasonable force in your own home)...

 

[Energize]

Yes I do, unfortunately it's just used now as a copout for not answering a difficult question. Godwins Law was "brought about" because people would just call someone Hitler when a difficult point was raised. Very similar TBH.

The comparison to Hitler was itself a straw man (and an ad hominem/guilt by association), hence the creation of Godwins Law. You can't answer a question based on a straw man, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by "not answering a difficult question", could you point out some examples where this has happened?

 

[Amp34]

The comparison to Hitler was itself a straw man (and an ad hominem/guilt by association), hence the creation of Godwins Law. You can't answer a question based on a straw man, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by "not answering a difficult question", could you point out some examples where this has happened?

You may not be able to answer a question based on one, however "straw man" is used a large number of times when the question is completely relevant yet the person can't answer it.

For example [TW]Fox's question was completely relevant to my mind yet "straw man!", so it didn't need answering.

 

[[TW]Fox]

If you learnt some critical thinking skills you wouldn't have the term directed at you so often. You can't make flawed analogies and then complain when people inform you of it.

I've displayed the same critical thinking skills/lack of critical thinking skills/inability/ability/whatever on these forums for years and read many debates. It seems that a few months ago Dolph spent the afternoon on Wikipedia and decided that no debate was complete without 12 references to a fallacy and 7 strawman posts and everyone else seems to have jumped soundly on the bandwagon. Obviously I know what the term is but outside of this forum and even inside of it further than 6 months ago it was virtually unused.

You didn't mention an age in that post so I assumed a realistic situation. It doesn't matter what age they are, one is a threatening criminal activity one isn't, to suggest people would respond in the same way to both situations is not based in reality.

My point, which you took to bleating about strawmen instead of trying to properly understand, was that its very possible for things to become blurred and the lack of a hard line to take shape.

Lets consider it on a sliding scale.

1) A youth in a hood climbs over your fence, smashes into your house and charges at you with a knife.

Do you attack?

2) A youth in a hood climbs over your fence, smashes into your house and picks up your bluray player.

Do you attack?

3) A youth in a hood climbs over your fence and smashes into your house.

Do you attack?

4) A youth in a hood climbs over your fence and walks through your open back door.

Do you attack?

5) A youth in a hood climbs over your fence

Do you attack?

Surely you must see my point? If everyone was intelligent and reasonable then yes, perhaps we could be trusted with a law which says that if people come onto our property we can deal with them. But come on. This is the UK. A country where HALF of the population decided the X-Factor final was really good. If you allow people to use judgement then it wont be long before a hooded youth climbs over a fence without the intention of butchering somebody or stealing a blu-ray player and ends up getting attacked.

We've already got one person in this thread who is suggesting that if somebody comes onto his land he should be allowed to kill them. I mean come on, seriously?

 

[helpimcrap]

wow. i didn't realise the nutty bird even had a kid. and she's well old too... i missed that one..

 

[rypt]

Shooting someone in the back as they are running away is certainly not reasonable force (tony martin).

Yes it is, in my eyes.

If the scum were not there to begin with, and as we know had not harassed Martin in the past, they would not have been shot.

I think this is more endemic of society than the police. The police work with in the laws passed by the judicial system. We've all seen and heard of the politically correct world that lets criminals walk on some legal loop hole or soft sentencing.

Socialy no longer respects, hard working public servants like the police and other emergency services ( stones being throwen at firemen etc ).....with the exception of our armed forces.

In many of those roles, your damned if you do and damned if you dont !

Society no longer respects the police because the police no longer do their job properly. It is all about targets, and speed cameras, now rather than locking up the scum.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Yes it is, in my eyes.

How? Even a soldier at war is not permitted to shoot an enemy combatment in the back, yet you think its 'self defence' for a civilian to do so?

Shooting somebody in the back as they escape is not 'self defence'. It is an act of revenge.

If the scum were not there to begin with, and as we know had not harassed Martin in the past, they would not have been shot.

I'm sorry but who made you a judge, jury and an armed police officer in one go?

 

[Vonhelmet]

You guys don't seem to know what Godwin's law is for either. The law states that as an Internet, originally Usenet, discussion goes on, the probability of a comparison to Nazism tends to 1. It doesn't mean any poster gets called Hitler. It could be that a government is compared to the Nazis, or police tactics being compared to the Gestapo, or whatever. Ironically, Godwin's law was originally intended for cases where the comparison was unwarranted, but is now used any time anyone mentions Hitler - ie it would be absurd to Godwin someone if discussing totalitarean regimes.

 

[Energize]

I've displayed the same critical thinking skills/lack of critical thinking skills/inability/ability/whatever on these forums for years and read many debates. It seems that a few months ago Dolph spent the afternoon on Wikipedia and decided that no debate was complete without 12 references to a fallacy and 7 strawman posts and everyone else seems to have jumped soundly on the bandwagon. Obviously I know what the term is but outside of this forum and even inside of it further than 6 months ago it was virtually unused.

Hey I went on a critical thinking course years ago at school so I didn't get it from him.

Surely you must see my point? If everyone was intelligent and reasonable then yes, perhaps we could be trusted with a law which says that if people come onto our property we can deal with them. But come on. This is the UK. A country where HALF of the population decided the X-Factor final was really good. If you allow people to use judgement then it wont be long before a hooded youth climbs over a fence without the intention of butchering somebody or stealing a blu-ray player and ends up getting attacked.

The article was about the police whining about someone waving a knife, no one has stabbed anyone, or is advocating that people be allowed to be stabbed. We are just saying how ridiculous it is that someone was lectured over waving a knife at burgulars at a long distance because they were fearful.

 

[Vonhelmet]

By the way, I must say I sympathise with Myleene - if she turned up in my garden I'd find it very hard to resist waving my weapon at her.

 

[rypt]

How? Even a soldier at war is not permitted to shoot an enemy combatment in the back, yet you think its 'self defence' for a civilian to do so?

Shooting somebody in the back as they escape is not 'self defence'. It is an act of revenge.

In the past armies have attacked and killed retreating units.
I'm pretty sure that you are also allowed to shoot retreating soldiers is they refuse to surrender and are instead fleeing the battle field, as you cannot be sure of their intentions ... they could for all you know be leaving to regroup and re-attack.

In the Tony Martin case they were still on his property when shot, and as such were still intruders.

Does that mean that police cannot shoot at armed robbers who are "escaping" after carrying out a robbery ... after all, they are fleeing and should be left alone.

 

[mmj_uk]

It must be a good career being a burglar these days, your victim isn't allowed to lift a finger to defend their property and the police are too busy chasing tourists taking holiday photographs in case they might be terrorists, if you do by some miracle get caught you end up in a 5 star luxury prison.

I'm struggling to see any real deterrent.

 

[helpimcrap]

Yes it is, in my eyes.

If the scum were not there to begin with, and as we know had not harassed Martin in the past, they would not have been shot.



Society no longer respects the police because the police no longer do their job properly. It is all about targets, and speed cameras, now rather than locking up the scum.

2 very valid points there. they were thieves. capital punishment is very fitting for them.

 

[Richie]

Society no longer respects the police because the police no longer do their job properly. It is all about targets, and speed cameras, now rather than locking up the scum.

You are so out of your depth with your arguments its not even worth a response. I will, however, say this for the benefit of anyone silly enough to believe you - Safety Cameras (fixed type) are run, primarily, by the local council and not the police.

Targets - I suppose it is a target to "reduce housebreakings by xx%" or reduce assaults/murders/rapes/road crashes by xx% as well.... Lets not forget who these targets are for - The Public... The public pay for the police and they ask for results. Unfortunaetly, the only tangible result that can be given is like the ones stated above. So who are the "targets" (and I use the term "targets" loosely) for ?? - The public....


As for this case... Without knowing the full facts and what was said, its hard to judge. According to some posters on this thread she was merely given words of advice, while others seem to think she was been told off for her actions.

Any normal person would do what she done. Unfortunaetly, and in the cases where the householder DOES assualt the housebreaker, the police will, most probably, arrest the householder. "Self defence" IS a defence but only in court. The police are there to report the circumstances of the offence, they are NOT the judge and jury. The Crown Office ultimately make the decision whether to proceed and prosecute or not....

Bearing in mind, just because someone is charged with the offence, doesn't mean they will even get to court let alone convicted.


Here is an example regarding self defence very recently - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/8446817.stm

 

[Bluraybunny]

It is all about targets, and speed cameras, now rather than locking up the scum.[/QUOTE]

And where do those targets come from ?.....the government.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Targets, lack of qualifications and lack of training. Add 'discriminatory' attributes such as height and age and our police force is about as effective as a chocolate teapot.

Do you need A levels or a degree to exercise common sense, know how to speak to people and not fill your pants when confronted with violence ?

Also, age and height restrictions were binned a long time ago.

Whilst I'm not sure the police should be intimidating (although this is what Sir Peel wanted - and certainly what other countries have), they should be able to do their job.

And do that job they do, day in and day out but that doesn't sell papers.

You could have legions of PhD educated police officers but they will tell you the same as the knock on wood ones in that not one of them, from Pc to Chief Constable, will ever advise you to pick up a knife when confronted and her words of advice are basically an arse covering exercise .... such is the litigational world we live in.

You can do just about whatever you like in terms of force to protect yourself, others and property when it is under threat but it must be justifiable and proportionate and in all honesty I don't think Ms Klass's actions warranted picking up a knife from what I have read.

What I do see is a canny attempt at smearing and berating the police by the Daily Mail which is indeed a rarity [ sarcasm warning ] and some good PR by Ms Klass and whatever publicist she hired to speak for her.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Society no longer respects the police because the police no longer do their job properly. It is all about targets, and speed cameras, now rather than locking up the scum.

Sorry rypt but that is complete bovine extretia.

 

[semi-pro waster]

It seems that a few months ago Dolph spent the afternoon on Wikipedia and decided that no debate was complete without 12 references to a fallacy and 7 strawman posts and everyone else seems to have jumped soundly on the bandwagon. Obviously I know what the term is but outside of this forum and even inside of it further than 6 months ago it was virtually unused.

I've seen it used on here for far longer than the past few months albeit mainly within SC and not as much in the rest of the forums. With no disrespect intended to Dolph I think you may be crediting him with too much influence.

You guys don't seem to know what Godwin's law is for either. The law states that as an Internet, originally Usenet, discussion goes on, the probability of a comparison to Nazism tends to 1. It doesn't mean any poster gets called Hitler. It could be that a government is compared to the Nazis, or police tactics being compared to the Gestapo, or whatever. Ironically, Godwin's law was originally intended for cases where the comparison was unwarranted, but is now used any time anyone mentions Hitler - ie it would be absurd to Godwin someone if discussing totalitarean regimes.

I thought the law was to the effect that the tendency of anything being mentioned tends towards 1 if the debate is long enough but it has always been primarily associated with Nazism.

In the Tony Martin case they were still on his property when shot, and as such were still intruders.

They were still on his property, you're correct in that much but trying to justify it as self defence is not even vaguely plausible, he shot a retreating burglar and left him to die. Don't use him as a poster boy for unfairly persecuted homeowners - what he did was significantly beyond what could be classed as self defence.

Does that mean that police cannot shoot at armed robbers who are "escaping" after carrying out a robbery ... after all, they are fleeing and should be left alone.

It's not even close to being the same thing. We, as a society, have given the police additional powers to tackle criminals that we do not and should not have as individuals.

 

[ethan]

Sorry rypt but that is complete bovine extretia.

It would be more suited to inner city areas and sink estates where he does have a point.

he shot a retreating burglar

Unfamiliar with the specifics but was he retreating or merely trying to get away with the stash? (I'm sure you will correct me on this).

what he did was significantly beyond what could be classed as self defence.

In the Uk perhaps and this could be conceived as the problem.

 

["andy"]

things like this make me wonder why im bothering to work hard at uni. maybe a life of crime is the way forward. could rob some nutter and sue them after they beat the hell out of me

and those of you blaming the police. stop. in most cases the police do the most that they can. its our country's out of date laws that are the problem