Page 2 of 3
Re: "LIFE"?
Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:44 am
by eroticartist
Hi Marty,
Beware of hurting your attacker too much or you could end up getting "life" yourself!!shocked! The state guards its prerogative of violence jealously.
Mike Freeman.
Re: "LIFE"?
Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:51 am
by steve56
yes strange law that.
Re: "LIFE"?
Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:31 am
by eroticartist
Marty,
All your actions would be used against you and you would get "life" because in English Law you would have grossly exceeded what was required in your self-defence. The law needs to be altered so that criminals have no rights inside other people's homes.
Mike Freeman.
Re: "LIFE"?
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:28 am
by Flat_Eric
Marty McFly wrote:
>>>
Damn straight they should.
But instead, we have judges and lawyers sitting in oak-panelled courtrooms in their silly wigs, debating nice, cozy legal concepts like "reasonable force", while some poor bastard who killed or maimed an intruder in a moment of sheer terror, thinking "it's him or me", quavers in the dock.
The whole fucking system stinks and it shouldn't be like that. I think my gut instinct - if faced with an intruder - would be to put the fucker down immediately so that he didn't get up again in a hurry. Because for all I know he may be armed with a knife or some other weapon, in which case hesitation could literally be fatal.
But then of course if I put him down and caused him serious injury I'D be the one in the dock and - to add insult to injury - the law would probably also allow him to sue me for compensation.
What kind of fucked-up "justice" is that??!
eroticartist is also absolutely right - intruders should have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER in other people's homes. Indeed I recall one of the U.S. States (can't remember which one though) introducing some years ago what became known in popular parlance as the "Make My Day" Law, which granted homeowners the right to use deadly force against intruders if they believed they were at risk of being attacked.
But of course the bleeding-heart do-gooders who hold sway these days would never allow anything remotely like that. Because as far as they're concerned, the criminal's "rights" are just as important as those of the victim - everybody's rights have to be "equal" afer all, don't they??!
What a crazy world we live in.
Re: "LIFE"?
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:17 pm
by eroticartist
Eric,
Reasonable force is a concept in English Law that does not take account of the natural instincts and primitive laws of survival. If a person is attacked in their own home it is irrelevant what happens to the criminal in a battle because he is the instigator of the events.
Mike Freeman..
Re: "LIFE"?
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:57 pm
by eroticartist
Hi Wellbeforth,
Thousands of "lifers" have been created since the Abolition of the Death Penalty. This was before the Human Rights Acts under Blair. English politicians have enacted many laws, taking power away from the judiciary and appointing it to themseles, in the form of imposing by legislation mandatory sentences and indeterminate sentences for certain offences. The latter means being found guilty but not being sentenced until many years later.
Mike Freeman.
Re: "LIFE"?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:01 am
by eroticartist
In the Court of Appeal 6 July John Hurst lost his appeal that his right to a trial before being incarcerated in Wormwood Scrubs was denied. He was a "lifer" who had already served 24 years for manslaughter.
He was freed, but stripped of his civil liberties, and so again is imprisoned; this time without a trial and without being charged of any offence.
I reiterate:"Every prisoner should have a fixed sentence."
Mike Freeman.
Re: "LIFE"?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:26 am
by biffalo
Yes Steve, I remember when hanging was abolished and the Government then, just like the Government now lied to us. I was about 13 in 1965 when hanging was abolished and there was a outcry by the general public who felt that a life for a life was a fitting punishment for murder. Then the liberals and those other arbiters of our consciences began their usual 'we know what's best for you' campaign alongside their 'you don't fully understand the issues' campaign (pretty much as they do now) and assured us that "a life sentence will mean life. It will not be an easy option, any one convicted of murder will be sent to prison for the rest of their lives'. This seemed to allay the fears of the majority (after all, we believed that the Government would not lie to us then) and the death penalty for murder was abolished. Since then of course, it is par for the course that the Government will lie to us as they have on such issues as the Common Market, mass immigration and taxes, but these are other topics.
Just don't ever believe a word these bastards say.