The off-topic topic

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 16 Mar 2009, 18:14

Yeah, but then the homeowner gets jailed... like that Tony Martin bloke.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 16 Mar 2009, 18:41

Yup, shame.

Tony Martin is my hero, kill them while they run away, thats the way I say.

Dont do the crime, then you wont get blasted to death by Tony Martin.

He should be Prime Minister I say

as I am sure as hell crime is not going down under yet another pathetic government.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Mar 2009, 19:22

Maybe not jailed but hero? Please, he still took it too far and killed someone. Obviously it can be too one sided but taking things that far, certainly isn't the answer.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 16 Mar 2009, 19:29

Well if they never came onto his property, broken into his house and tried to steal his stuff, they would not have been shot by his shotgun.

Simple really. Anything that comes to scum they deserve.
It makes you feel like dog shit having scum in your home, if it happens more than once you feel even worse, its a life ruining event. So in tern they deserve to have their lives ruined, death seems more than fair to me.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 16 Mar 2009, 19:35

Come on Romero, of course a person should defend their property but Fred Barras wasn't the actual burglar (he was an accomplice), Martin shot someone who was LEAVING his house, not entering and he killed someone, thats too far IMO.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 16 Mar 2009, 19:52

grim_tales wrote:but Fred Barras wasn't the actual burglar (he was an accomplice)

are you for real! that is classic.

I guess the fact the scumbag family of innocent little Freddy are also angels, thats why they put out a multiple hits on Tony Martin and a bounty that still stands even now on Tony Martins head. £20,000+ hit thats the sign of normal people.

But again Grim when somoene come into your house, we will see how you feel.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 16 Mar 2009, 20:23

Was Fred Barras the burglar? I can't remember. He shouldn't have been in Tony Martin's house and tried to steal his stuff. Regardless, that doesn't give Martin the right to shoot a 16 year old boy in the back as he was leaving, even if Fred did wrong. Where did I say he was innocent?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Mar 2009, 20:33

I forgot that about Tony Martin shooting someone in the back, pretty cowardly IMO. It wasn't as if they'd come at him. Calling the police would've been the better approach. If they keep doing it taking stronger action but murder? Please. Sure it can be difficult but no matter how useless the police are, it doesn't justify murder.

Romero is right, talking from experience it sucks to be burglarized but shooting them isn't the answer. You're then no better than they are.

grim_tales wrote:Where did I say he was innocent?

You didn't. Romero isn't intelligent enough to spot that though. The fact you're disagreeing, must mean you did.

Anyway, Romero isn't going to agree Grim, so I'll leave it at that.

p.s - I do wonder on the one hand you say this and on the other you call The BNP scum, go figure.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 16 Mar 2009, 21:08

I don't buy into the PC crap like ów, if you do this or that you're no better than they are'. What a BS. Someone decides to enter someone else's property with the sole intention to steal, and maybe even worse.

Now, I doubt I would shoot a man in the back, but I haven't been in that position and I do know I will get pretty fucking mad if I would...
So mad that I could shoot a guy!? I honestly don't know. I'd like to think I wouldn't, but maybe when some guy has just entered the house my wife and kids are sleeping in, disrespecting our privacy and safety, stealing our precious belonging.... I'm not sure what would happen. Also, i'm not sure if in that state of mind you are still capable of rational thinking, or that your mind just goes into a state of 'get them!'.

Yeah it's a crime to shoot and kill a burglar. it's against the law, it's 'wrong', we shouldnt do it... and at the same time I hope the bastard was in severe pain before dying, and spending his last minutes feeling very very sorry about what he did.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Mar 2009, 22:14

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 16 Mar 2009, 22:25

bradavon wrote:ów?

Ow!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 Mar 2009, 01:25

I wouldn't have shot him in the back... I'd have told him to turn around first.

Burglars get no sympathy from me. You break into someone's house you deserve what you get. If they're armed you should be entitled to use any force necessary to protect yourself and your family. Obviously I don't own a gun as I don't approve of them but I'd happily smash a baseball bat across some fucker's skull if he tried to leg it with my property. I'd probably end up in jail because as we all know this society protects criminals over victims. A sad truth.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Mar 2009, 10:54

Yi-Long wrote:Ow!

It still makes no sense

.

If they're armed you should be entitled to use any force necessary to protect yourself and your family.

Was Martin's burglar armed? I didn't realise that.

Obviously I don't own a gun as I don't approve of them but I'd happily smash a baseball bat across some fucker's skull if he tried to leg it with my property.

The fact you'd "happily" do it is worrying indeed.

I'd probably end up in jail because as we all know this society protects criminals over victims.

Yeah, yeah and Hitler didn't set out to exterminate all Jews.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:09

bradavon wrote:
I'd probably end up in jail because as we all know this society protects criminals over victims.
Yeah, yeah and Hitler didn't set out to exterminate all Jews.

I'm not completely sure, but I believe that was indeed Hitler's intention, Brad. Don't tell anyone, but some even considered him quite the anti-semite.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 17 Mar 2009, 14:48

I agree with Mark, you should surely be allowed to defend yourself and your family if someone breaks in or attacks you. But people say you should use "reasonable force"? WTF is that? Thats a subjective term. I don't think you should kill someone though. If they go at you with a gun? I don't know.. I'd try and defend myself, call the police, doesnt mean I'd kill the guy.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 Mar 2009, 15:17

bradavon wrote:Was Martin's burglar armed? I didn't realise that.

Did he not have a knife? I could be wrong as it was a long while back.

The fact you'd "happily" do it is worrying indeed.

Well, I wouldn't exactly be singing and dancing... I meant I'd have no problem doing it. But then you KNEW that.

Yeah, yeah and Hitler didn't set out to exterminate all Jews.

WTF?

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 17 Mar 2009, 15:54

grim_tales wrote:I agree with Mark, you should surely be allowed to defend yourself and your family if someone breaks in or attacks you. But people say you should use "reasonable force"? WTF is that? Thats a subjective term. I don't think you should kill someone though. If they go at you with a gun? I don't know.. I'd try and defend myself, call the police, doesnt mean I'd kill the guy.

The way I see it, if someone breaks into your house without a weapon you should be allowed to restrain them without any long-term physical injury, i.e. no broken bones.

If they break in with a weapon (say a baseball bat), use more force - break bones if need be.

If they break in with a gun, I view it as its their intention to use that thing, so I say they better kill me or they'll end up dead. Use force against force. If the law says different to that, then its dumb.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 17 Mar 2009, 16:29

The law can be an ass at times

Did another talent show audition today, they seem to be really pushing me to sing an emotional song instead of 2 comic things

I'd prefer comedy to something that tugs at the heartstrings (All Over The World, What If). I was only going to do one verse of What If just to see how it sounded but wound up doing the whole track, I dont think it was the best as I hadn't learnt it, I think they liked my voice though and said an emotional song would "show off my range"

I don't mind doing 2 comedy bits, its not exactly X-Factor, LOL

Sorry for the OT there

Mark I could apply for next series of BGT

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 17 Mar 2009, 17:15

IronMonkey wrote:
grim_tales wrote:I agree with Mark, you should surely be allowed to defend yourself and your family if someone breaks in or attacks you. But people say you should use "reasonable force"? WTF is that? Thats a subjective term. I don't think you should kill someone though. If they go at you with a gun? I don't know.. I'd try and defend myself, call the police, doesnt mean I'd kill the guy.
The way I see it, if someone breaks into your house without a weapon you should be allowed to restrain them without any long-term physical injury, i.e. no broken bones.

If they break in with a weapon (say a baseball bat), use more force - break bones if need be.

If they break in with a gun, I view it as its their intention to use that thing, so I say they better kill me or they'll end up dead. Use force against force. If the law says different to that, then its dumb.

Well... even unarmed people can be extremely dangerous and lethal. So when a guy like that is in your house, it's best to assume he's deadly and willing to kill, instead of just going:'ow he's unarmed so I will just hold him till the cops come...'.

I don't like violence, but in cases like this I prefer to show as little 'sympathy' for the villain as possible.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Mar 2009, 17:38

Markgway wrote:Well, I wouldn't exactly be singing and dancing... I meant I'd have no problem doing it. But then you KNEW that.

Seriously I didn't. Both yourself and Romero have some extreme views.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 Mar 2009, 18:33

grim_tales wrote:Mark I could apply for next series of BGT

We'll all vote for you. Promise.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 Mar 2009, 18:37

IronMonkey wrote:[The way I see it, if someone breaks into your house without a weapon you should be allowed to restrain them without any long-term physical injury, i.e. no broken bones. If they break in with a weapon (say a baseball bat), use more force - break bones if need be. If they break in with a gun, I view it as its their intention to use that thing, so I say they better kill me or they'll end up dead. Use force against force. If the law says different to that, then its dumb.

Yes - it's a matter of proportionate violence.

If someone breaks in brandishing a particularly stale breadstick that shouldn't entitle you to blow their head off.

Rough them up though? Absolutely.

Only if you feel genuinely threatened (ie you or your family is at risk of physical harm) should you use extreme force to protect yourself.

If a burglar has a deadly weapon (knife, gun, bat) they've thrown away their right to protection from the law.

bradavon wrote:Seriously I didn't. Both yourself and Romero have some extreme views.

As do you... they just happen to belong to a different extreme.

Besides none of us here know what we'd actually do until it happens (and let's hope it doesn't).

Someone confronts you your instinct takes over. You don't plan out what might be considered reasonable you just do whatever it takes.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 17 Mar 2009, 18:44

bradavon wrote: Seriously I didn't. Both yourself and Romero have some extreme views.

Mine are that way for many reasons, the fact is criminals have been fucking up my life since I was a child and they have changed me, to some maybe for the worse.

Once you have had scum come into your house, more than once, you want to put bear traps under windows and have their legs chopped off and let them die from blood loss.

When your next door neighbour gets stabbed in the eye, after an Ex jumped thru a double glazed window, after tossing bricks thu all the windows in the house becuase he could not break down the door (like my looney next door did a few months back) you know this shit just follows you

The stabber got off with no charges, 5 witnesses and the cops dragged him away fighting, thats the law for you. Thats all I have seen all my life, scum get away with anything they do, no matter how serious and evil the act is the most they get is a fine or comunity service.

Nice.
The Law works so well, as the restraining order agaisnt him is bullshit as well, he comes over next door all the time.

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 17 Mar 2009, 18:47

Yi-Long wrote:
bradavon wrote:
I'd probably end up in jail because as we all know this society protects criminals over victims.
Yeah, yeah and Hitler didn't set out to exterminate all Jews.
I'm not completely sure, but I believe that was indeed Hitler's intention, Brad. Don't tell anyone, but some even considered him quite the anti-semite.

Actually, and sorry here comes my history training, the evidence suggests that Hitler did not set out to kill all jews in the beginning...some believe this but guess which historians? yep the jewish ones, however evidence shows the opposite...
1. no orders were ever given to kill all Jews, he asked his subordinates to 'solve the problem' it was they who came up with the idea, no paper trail has ever been found suggesting that it was planned from the beginning. That however could be a testament to his manipulation ad carefulness, pitting his subordinates against each other to impress him the most and win his favour.
2. the invasion of poland is a very telling event, divided into 3, one was reserved as a large ghetto, the other two were controlled by to officers, both were told to germanize the area. One of them took the genealogies of everyone decided who went to the ghetto and who was pure enough... the other just made everyone swear an allegiance of being german, despite if they were Jewish or Slavic, one the final solution began these people were still safe and considered german and escaped the gas chambers. If he cared so much about this he would not have allowed this to happen.
3. before the outbreak of WW2 in an attempt to rid Germany of jewish people he appealed to the governments of USA and UK and some other countries to allow the jews refuge, we all replied no, no way, despite it being made clear that if we refused then they would solve the jewish problem themselves in which way they could.
4. Germany did not have that many Jews in the beginning of Hitlers reign, however as he invaded Poland, Austria, France and Russia he gained around 3 million more Jewish people to his 'problem.' Historians suggest this increase of the Jewish population pushed the Nazis further towards the idea of the final solution
5. other plans were drawn up and considered as suggestions to the jewish problem, one such plan was exile to madagascar, but was deemed to be no viable due to the cost of transporting them there
6. Upon his pact with Italy he suggested to Mussolini to begin removing Jews from Italy as Germany was doing, however Mussolini killed very very few JEwish people instead exiling them to surrounding islands, Hitler never had a problem with this...

anyway... sorry this is just my history training but its a common misconception, of course we are only taught in school he wanted them all dead even though the evidence suggests otherwise, and many historians have written on the subject, and no 'holocaust deniers' but authors such as Kershaw and Farmer, the stance is officially known as the structuralist view.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 17 Mar 2009, 19:33

Was back at the GP's today. He has sent me for a heap more blood tests and is absolutely disgusted the rheumatologist i saw showed no interest in my dry eyes. to add to that i have a fungal infection on my tongue!