More evidence that the law protects the criminals

[Juggernaut]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stormer2010 @ Jan 21 2010, 07:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

IMO if someone comes into your home and has no respect for your rights and that of your family, they forfeit their own. Simple as that.

But once outside and running away, I would say that some semblence of reasonability is called for. A cricket bat to the head while running is pretty reasonable IMO. A second go at him would have been one step too far.[/b]

:bravo:

My exact views as well.

 

[verapabst32]

It's a common knowledge that some law enforcers were protecting certain people, preferably those criminals who have big money, even their own relatives who got monkey business.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Jan 22 2010, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

No. No. I completely disagree with that point and as the son of someone who served at the height of the troubles that drives me insane.

Various British governments and the civil service between 1950 and 1997 were frankly rubbish. At no point, even in parts under Thatcher's era were the British ever decisive or ever completely agreed that using....armed mobs was a credible tool for restoring order. Yes, there may have been a couple of voices but for the most part British decision making was frankly in paralysis and half the time they were being led around by the Ulster Unionists.

At no point did the Government or the Army condone or back loyalist mobs. Never. I will argue that to the death with you.

Heres a skeleton out of the cupboard, one of my Dad's friends? Sgt Michael Willetts of 3 PARA. He was at the front desk of the Springfield Road RUC station recording a complaint from a young catholic mother whose house had suffered damage from an early morning raid earlier that day. At that moment a youth threw a bomb into the building. He threw the mother and her kid into the corner and covered them and took the blast and saved their lives. When he was stretchered out of the building he was spat on and stoned.

He died later that day.

Did he approve of the mobs? No be bloody didn't. Did he think they were "HM's security force"? No he bloody didn't.

People in Ulster have enough ghosts to deal with but I have a father whose life was irrevocably changed between 1968 and 1972 and because of the immature and childish actions of the two sides in Ulster and the shambolic way the British government handled itself he can't get those years back now so now he and his family have to deal with that and pick up the pieces.

Sorry but that is quite a sore subject for me.[/b]

Prestwick, I just read that post. I respect the background.

I was thinking of the B-Specials, who had many precedents in Ireland and whose influence lasted well into the 1990s.

 

[roksport]

When a person is on your property and breaking into your house then any action against them should be looked at as self defence and that you were scared what would happen to you and your family if you didn't react in the way you did. Why should you suffer just because some loser scum needs money to pay for their next fix. (little stereotype there I know not all burglers are drug addicts). These people are a waste of space and deserve all they get! And as someone said eariler the law should be they give up all their human rights when they are inside a house burgling.
Thats just my opinion.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gavin @ Jan 20 2010, 08:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Perhaps I am too harsh, but in my view you should be able to use as much force as you want when you are in danger. It is also the same with people who have been found guilty of murder and robberies. If they are guilty of murder - death penalty, none of the 20-35 years in prision but only 15 if you are good.[/b]

Define 'you are in danger'. Because you're treading a very thin line if you're authorising people to use force. Necessary force in one man's eyes can be way over the top in another.

If you're in genuine danger - ie. you're being attacked, theres weapons pointed at you etc. etc. then I'd say that it's fair to use violence as self-defence, but only as defence.

If a thief is running away, you are not in danger. Catching and restraining the thief will obviously be on your mind, and so will punishment. But if the law is truly to be respected then punishment must be handed out by the State, and the State alone. If you can catch a criminal, hand him into the police with as little harm as possible.

As for the death penalty... please. I can't be arsed to list all the cons of capital punishment, so I'll just ask you to go away and think about them.