The British have something to say to us Americans!, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 77 times


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 09:46 AM by Helmkat
Originally posted by bovarcher
Some clarification is needed here about Tony Martin.

He received enormous public support over here, and was in the news for months. Most people, including me, believe it was wrong to charge him even with manslaughter.

However it's important to be clear why he was charged, and why he ended up in jail. The law here states a householder may use 'reasonable and proportional force' against an intruder into your home. This includes killing the intruder in certain circumstances: where the homeowner had reasonable grounds to assume his life was threatened, then killing the burglar is OK in law.

The rearon Tony Martin got into trouble with the law is because he pursued the 2 intruders as they left his property, and shot one of them in the back as he was running away. The intruder then crawled, fatally injured, into a ditch and died a couple of hours later. His body was only discovered the next day.

Unfortunately the law here does not support this, and the law has to be enforced in a fatal shooting situation. If the intruder had been in the house, had been armed or even if Martin could have convinced a jury he believed he was in mortal danger, then he'd have been in the clear and there would have been no prosecution. Even if Martin had killed him.

Details are important.


Now now, lets not cloud this all with sticky details.

Anyway recently a store attendant not far from me was not sent to jail in a similar situation. Guy shows up to rob store, takes money and proceeds to flee on his getaway bicycle -snicker-. Attendant steps out of store as robber flees past him (still holding his gun), attendant shots him twice and the man later dies. Honestly I had no problem with the attendant getting no jail time here.

Guns are just a symptom of a larger issue, power. Those who have it and those who don't. Until all sources of guns go away, criminals will always find a place to obtain them. If guns were all gone, they would use something else and if those were all gone, they would use something else and so on and so on.

This issue cannot be resolved totally one way or another because our very natures will not allow it.


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 09:47 AM by stinkhorn
reply to post by tensetek


The funny thing is most people believe the police are there to save you, they can only respond after the fact. look at the new bill HR45 trying to be rammed down our pie holes, they want make it so hard to register a gun or make it impossible to buy bullets, I hate liberal government with a passion.

Police were originally formed to round up run away slaves from the south, not server and protect citizens.


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 09:55 AM by dragonseeker
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tensetek


Well, it's rather apparent, your motives in posting that YT video. Of course, as is usual with ATS rules, there seems to be no real link to the SOURCE of that video from YouTube (unless I missed it)

No matter...it is the same argument seen, ad infinitum, even here in the USA.

Let's take, shall we, a more in-depth examination into this concept.

Firstly, there are MANY laws on the books, in many States, that allow for....well, I'll call it "Eminent Domain". In simpler terms, if your home is intruded upon, and you use deadly force in defence, then you are well within your rights. (I don't know if these laws exist in England....maybe that's why we left in 1772...Oh! No, it's because of religion and taxes....THAT led to the REVOLUTION of 1776!!!!)

Back to "Eminent Domain". Being not a lawyer, it is my understanding that in most of the fifty States a home-intruder incident that results in the DEATH of the 'intruder' absolves the homeowner who used deadly force to protect his home.

Doesn't matter HOW the intruder was killed, once he entered the premises. We all think that a gun is the ONLY way to kill an intruder, but that is obviously untrue.

Let's try a mind-experiment. Let's say that no guns existed, but only 'paint-guns'....that is ALL we have, in this mind game. The 'loser' is the one with the most 'hits', that is, the most paint ball 'hits'.

A really smart person would lure an intruder into a situation where HE, the lurer, would have the upper hand....because, we all know that the intruder(s) are stupid and dull....haven't you been to the movies lately???

On another tack....How many of you who champion gun ownership for all have ACTUALLY fired a gun? AND, how accurate is your targeting practice?

Well, guess what? You're inability to actually hit a target is about as close as the guy who, wishing to be a criminal, is.

Here's a thing to keep in your brain....and STOP looking at Hollywood movies for the answers....in REAL LIFE a Peace Officer will only unholster their weapon when absolutely necessary. It seems that HollyWood has tainted the concept.....and that is a shame, because it leads to such misconception.





I've fired several guns, at the range, and I have a concealed-carry permit. And, this video was excellent. Good find.



reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 09:58 AM by j2000
reply to post by bovarcher



Our laws in the US would not support that either. I've had lots of cop friends throughout my life and a couple of sayings they always pointed too.

The only good witness is a dead witness. As in, the criminal testifies lies and puts things back on you.

The other one, is if you shoot an intruder, shoot to kill, and if they fall out of the doorway, drag them back into the house.
I don't know about that last one anymore. The technical end of investagations is much to complicated to pull this one off.

As far as your explaination of the Tony M. story. If they made it that far away, it's time just to call the cops and not fire at them. At the most, maybe a few shots into the ground nearby to give them the message of not coming back.


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 10:08 AM by Question
reply to post by SLAYER69


Oh my GOD! And people actually voted for this idiot?
I take it back, I no longer consider Obama to even be close to being the anti christ anymore. I didn't think he was at first, but I was leaning towards "Maybe they understand something I don't. But now? I'm sorry after seeing him speak without a teleprompter, he makes Bush sound like shakespeare. The guy is a moron!

You liberal, tree hugging, ganja smoking hippies have fun trying to split hairs and trying to find the difference between "contstrain" and "infringe"


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 10:19 AM by LoneGunMan
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by badgerprints

AND, I would get what I deserved, although I'd expect that a trained Peace Officer would know how to shoot to maim first, unless his life was in immediate danger.


Oh my you are not thinking things through. Police officers are trained to shoot to kill and the reason they do not un-holster there weapon unless necessary is that they SHOOT TO KILL, and that is what they should do. A wounded gunman is a very dangerous gunman on pure survival instinct.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by lernmore



In fact....I hate to raise this spectre, but imagine the old West...NOT the Hollywood version, but the reality of the untamed and largely unlawful reality of the expansion of the Colonials, across the Mississippi into the the 'Promised Land'(s) of the West.


I am glad you brought this up. In the old west (real version not the Hollywood hype) they had less crime because your likelihood of being shot by robbing/raping an armed citizen was pretty high.


Do you see yet? THIS is the reality....it is the REASON for the prevalent gun 'culture' in the USA. Not saying it's good, nor is it bad, it just IS!


No that is not true. We have a prevalent gun culture because our right to bare arms so our government is unable to become tyrants.


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 10:45 AM by Thistled
reply to post by weedwhacker


I love this post, and IMHO I think the first few reponses to the OP should READ and THINK about the above quotation.

I will also remind you, there have actually been less deaths in the UK through the mis-use of firearms than in the US.

Think - Free your mind.



reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 10:48 AM by Thistled
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tensetek


Doesn't matter HOW the intruder was killed, once he entered the premises. We all think that a gun is the ONLY way to kill an intruder, but that is obviously untrue.

Let's try a mind-experiment. Let's say that no guns existed, but only 'paint-guns'....that is ALL we have, in this mind game. The 'loser' is the one with the most 'hits', that is, the most paint ball 'hits'.

A really smart person would lure an intruder into a situation where HE, the lurer, would have the upper hand....because, we all know that the intruder(s) are stupid and dull....haven't you been to the movies lately???

On another tack....How many of you who champion gun ownership for all have ACTUALLY fired a gun? AND, how accurate is your targeting practice?

Well, guess what? You're inability to actually hit a target is about as close as the guy who, wishing to be a criminal, is.

Here's a thing to keep in your brain....and STOP looking at Hollywood movies for the answers....in REAL LIFE a Peace Officer will only unholster their weapon when absolutely necessary. It seems that HollyWood has tainted the concept.....and that is a shame, because it leads to such misconception.





I love this post, and IMHO I think the first few reponses to the OP should READ and THINK about the above quotation.

I will also remind you, there have actually been less deaths in the UK through the "mis-use" of firearms than in the US.

Think - Free your mind.


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 11:17 AM by groingrinder
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tensetek


Here's a thing to keep in your brain....and STOP looking at Hollywood movies for the answers....in REAL LIFE a Peace Officer will only unholster their weapon when absolutely necessary. It seems that HollyWood has tainted the concept.....and that is a shame, because it leads to such misconception.


You must be referring to that kid who got shot in the back by the professional peace officer in California. Or maybe you are referring to the groom in New York who was shot 19 times by professional peace officers.

An armed citizenry is the best deterrent against crime. All the police will ever do is clean up the aftermath and take a report. Protect yourselves, the police cannot and will not.

You can go back to your television now and finish watching "Dirty Harry".

[edit on 1-26-2009 by groingrinder]


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 11:53 AM by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by jBrereton


As a UK citizen, I can assure you that we're doing fine without guns. Home break-ins are incredibly rare,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the governments mismanaging of our economy has put thousands out of work and as result violent crime andhouse break-ins have soared. Put on your thinking head for a moment and consider this; What better way could the government crack down us than creating a situation (the economic crisis) that turns people to crime just so they can survive? That's whats happening here!
And as for the army protecting us. . . For now maybe but as any soldier will tell you they are there to take orders and if those orders meant they turned on us ordinary citizens I don't think they would hesitate for a moment.


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 12:00 PM by Thistled
Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by jBrereton


As a UK citizen, I can assure you that we're doing fine without guns. Home break-ins are incredibly rare,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the governments mismanaging of our economy has put thousands out of work and as result violent crime andhouse break-ins have soared. Put on your thinking head for a moment and consider this; What better way could the government crack down us than creating a situation (the economic crisis) that turns people to crime just so they can survive? That's whats happening here!


Sure, Prime Minister Gordon Brown is responsible for the entire global meltdown.

Thinking heads eh?


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 12:01 PM by Nola213
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by badgerprints


badger, you've just proved my point!!

Number 1....I WOULD NEVER break into somebody's house. Of course, IF (in a concocted scenario) I DID break into a Policeman's house, well OF COURSE he'd defend his FAMILY and property!!!! AND, I would get what I deserved, although I'd expect that a trained Peace Officer would know how to shoot to maim first, unless his life was in immediate danger.



100% wrong. At least here in the states. There is no such thing as "shoot to maim". Your taught from PA on that if you fire your sidearm, you shoot to kill.

Unless of course it's a strange scenario..., like a hostage or just some guy who won't come out his house. But I've seen many clips where police outnumber a gunman, and as soon as the gunman moves towards them..doesn't even raise his pistol..he's dead in a hail of gunfire.

Shoot to maim...,thats how you get yourself killed.

You either don't live in the states or watch too many movies.

I also like your point about criminals being smart enough NOT to break into a cops house. LOL, 90% of criminals are amonst the dumbest people there are. Meth'd out junkies looking for jewelery at 3 a.m. do not case houses.

To the TS, may I ask why America is being blamed for British laws?


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 12:05 PM by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by jBrereton


Aye well I can tell you now that outside of the very stupidest of soldiers, most will question being told to shoot British citizens, especially if those orders came from a government tyrannical enough to order them to do so. At which point the monarchy would probably dissolve parliament anyway for their crimes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobodies talking about them shooting British citizens but if they were told to back up the police and arrest and detain those of who refused to comply then they would, I believe, do so without question. And as for the monarchy dissolving government if it ever got out of hand? Do you honestly believe that the crown who receives all of it's finances from us the tax payers, via the government would ever dare to stand up and be counted? For them it would be financial suicide. The government holds all the cards. . .
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



USDA Forces Whole Foods To Accept Monsanto
  Posted 12 days ago with 100 member flags
Greece wipes out Citizens Debt!! Tells Bankers to suck it
  Posted 13 days ago with 78 member flags
Obama on the verge of a deal with the banks
  Posted 18 days ago with 23 member flags
Bankers requesting that Greece become their debt slaves
  Posted 16 days ago with 15 member flags
We’re on the brink, warns Greece ahead of summit
  Posted 15 days ago with 15 member flags
Heard a rumor on a disreputable anarchist forum....
  Posted 17 days ago with 12 member flags