It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thug Walid Salem Boasts He Is Untouchable [As His Victim Is Jailed]

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
One thought comes to mind. Never leave a wounded enemy.




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Move to Florida or Texas.

If someone breaks into your home and threatens you with deadly violence. You have the right to shoot them dead.

It's a shame to have to kill another human being. But if your life is in danger you should have the right to kill them if necessary.

I also definitely think that everyone should carry a firearm. Because, "An armed society is a polite society."

[edit on 22-12-2009 by grey580]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


You have this right in pretty much all states as long as the intruder is facing you, if your life is threatened you have the right to use deadly force. If this were my house... the intruder would have a 12 gauge slug through his head or chest right off the bat. And I use a 12 gauge slug because it makes a big hole going in... and a bigger hole going out.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Here in Florida Immanent Domain Laws have been further broadened to include the defense of your physical person where ever it might be at the time of attack that warrants defense from an attacker.

All you have to do is demonstrate that what ever surroundings you were in be it on the street, in a store or in your car that there was no safe avenue of retreat from the attacker and you are legally justified to use lethal force to defend yourself if need be.

Florida also has the largest permit to carry concealed weapons population in the country and believe me it makes a world of difference when it comes to creating a deterrent to violent crime.

People who want to own a weapon for their own physical safety and self defense should be allowed to own one just as long as they can demonstrate the safe ability to use it and basic proficiency with it.

I would never own a gun myself but I believe in people’s right to bear arms. I also believe in my right to take them away from them and make them feel silly when I do, but I believe people should be allowed to own them nonetheless, especially because it is our last best defense against the kind of government that is now in the United Kingdom.

By the way I really detest those politicized posters who attempt to make issues like this about Sharia Law.

It’s almost as if such people really imagine the United Kingdom’s problems with government emanate from beyond its own borders, and that is absolute nonsense. What ever is causing the U.K, to turn into a police state has everything to do with the people in the United Kingdom’s Government and nothing to do with Islam or any other religion.

Though clearly such people make a strong case for why mental midgets and misfits should not be allowed to have weapons, its absolutely pathetic that people are laying down in the face of their government’s abuses of power and then don’t even have the good sense to pin it on your own government but want to use it as an issue to exploit against other nations and religions?

Something tells me such posters are very familiar with another type of religious law called Talmudic law.

I have seen story after story regarding the United Kingdom’s Nanny State and it is the politicians of the U.K. who are responsible for it, as well as the ENTIRE population of citizens that ELECT them and ACCEPT these ridiculous laws that they pass.

People who claim that is a result of Sharia law in my opinion are as bad as the government as at best you are advocating challenging all the wrong people in all the wrong places to no end, because they are not the people responsible for these ridiculous dehumanizing laws.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigshow
reply to post by grey580
 


You have this right in pretty much all states as long as the intruder is facing you, if your life is threatened you have the right to use deadly force. If this were my house... the intruder would have a 12 gauge slug through his head or chest right off the bat. And I use a 12 gauge slug because it makes a big hole going in... and a bigger hole going out.


That's just the thing, it wasn't his house. The victim wasn't in any danger, he didn't have anything to defend. The guy was running away. He chased him down the street, and beat him mercilessly with a cricket bat. Even in the US you'd be going to jail for that.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


Actually no all citizens have the right here in the U.S. to apprehend a fleeing criminal from the scene of a crime.

That it might take use of force is simply what it is. The reality is had the man not invaded someone’s home other than his he wouldn’t have been accosted in such a fashion.

A good lawyer here in the U.S. would turn such an action into overnight fame and likely your own reality TV Show, guest appearances on Lettermen and Oprah, a Book Deal, and a Hollywood Movie with possible sequels.

Keep defending your police state, they very much appreciate it! Remember lights out at 10:30 and remember to include the Queen in your prayers! It’s the law!



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I highly doubt anyone could get away with beating a fleeing man until he had brain damage. There's apprehending, and then there's revenge. This was clearly revenge.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


I have watched alleged fleeing criminals beaten to death as in DEAD on the streets by vigilante type individuals and mobs. I have never once seen anyone arrested or charged in such instances.

At that point it really all is about one person’s word or one group of people’s word against another’s with that other either being an accused criminal or a dead accused criminal often with a record of prior arrests and convictions that cause police no loss of sleep that there is one less person in their ‘system’ to worry about.

This situation in the United Kingdom is truly just bad government and people looking for ways to defend bad government because once again what harm would have befallen this man had he not attempted to break into someone else’s home? The answer is none.

Your State really is brainwashing and conditioning its citizens to be totally compliant and subservient and to be absolutely and unquestioningly reliant on the government in all things and all ways.

You have freewill including the freewill to elect to give up your freewill in such a risky and ill advised enterprise and leap of faith.

One should not delude themselves into thinking that such overly restrictive and oppressive government is in the citizen’s best interest it is not.

It is dubious at best in a cause and effect situation which this clearly is to find fault with the effect when there is no fault found with the cause, and that is what is happening in this situation.

It is government dictating every action with a clear intent of limiting the individual’s inherent rights to respond to cause by limiting the type and style of responses in detrimental ways to the citizens.

When you make everything and everyone your business it is very much like attempting to be a Jack of All Trades and ending up being a Master of None.

Government should be small and limited to just the most basic functions that society needs a government for and do those things very well.

When a government starts warning citizens that giving toy guns for Christmas to Children could lead to them being shot by Police you simply have a BAD GOVERNMENT.

Government is after all a reflection of it’s citizens so please, do make bad excuses for that bad government at your own risk!



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 


In my humble opinion, if someone enters someone elses house and they are armed then all bets are off. The homeowner should be able to take on that invader, to subdue them until the homeowner no longer feels threatened. If that results in the death of the tresspassing, criminal piece of scum then so be it.

The law needs changing, if someone enters my home then they're going to get a stick/sword/nunchuk/knife or any of the other weapons i have been trained with used against them.

I feel so sorry for this poor man. He bravely defended his family and he gets shoved in prison whilst his jeering attacker laughs it off.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight
Well, he did nearly beat the guy to death. Just sayin.


Have you ever been attacked with a knife? I have. I can tell you i was trained not to simply subdue an attacker but to destroy them so to be sure they are no longer a threat. The problem with using "reasonable force" is that it's a very fine line and if someone has a knife and you don't go far enough then maybe they'll stand back up and stick that knife in your back.

Also when someone is under attack they are flooded with adrenaline and other hormones which make it difficult to judge how much damage you are doing unless you have been trained to deal with that. Even then it is easy to get carried away.

The law needs changing, you should be able to do anything to defend yourself, your property and other people without fear of arrest.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight

Originally posted by habfan1968
Really, it seems to me that the law had the law in it's own hands around 50 times and failed to protect the countries citizens each time. Law is to serve and protect the innocent not the guilty.


Chasing a guy down and beating him to within an inch of his life with a cricket bat is not a reasonable reaction to being burgled. Granted, the law let the burglar off easy, but one: the guys beating him didn't know that would be the case, and two: it's not their decision to take the law into their own hands. There are laws for a reason; the punishments may not be perfect, but the people of Britain need to work within the system to fix it, not meet out punishment on their own terms. That's just not reasonable.

If every Tom, Dick, and Harry decided that they would be judge, jury, and executioner, the world would be a scary place.


The guy wasnt just mugged on the street. These men entered his home and threatened his family. It is people like you that are responsible for this man being in jail and the criminal running around. I truly hope you represent a small minority and are not spreading your "just give up" attitude around.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 


What a terrible story...

The JUSTICE required here comes from the underside of a rednecks boot...

do you think the home invader would believe he has won a ticket to the "balmy, paradise" that is Oklahoma - full pickup and delivery, sleeping, and travel arrangements provided...

Just Saying



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


Knowing how ineffective the law is in cases like this, I would have possible put an end to that swines life.

I wouldn't care. Break into my house and threaten my family, I will do whatever is in my power to make sure that never happens again. Stuff the law.




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aaron_Justin
The guy wasnt just mugged on the street. These men entered his home and threatened his family. It is people like you that are responsible for this man being in jail and the criminal running around. I truly hope you represent a small minority and are not spreading your "just give up" attitude around.


Look, if I had my way, the burglar would be in jail for the rest of his life. I have no sympathy for him. But you can't just chase someone down the street and beat them until they have brain damage. It's called vigilante justice, and it's just not acceptable in a civilized world. We have courts for a reason. Are you saying we should get rid of the court system and let people take matters into their own hands?

If he were just defending his home, that's one thing. If he had chased him down and detained him, that would would be acceptable, as well (two grown men are perfectly capable of detaining another man without beating on him in the meantime). But that simply wasn't the case.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ha`la`tha
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


Knowing how ineffective the law is in cases like this, I would have possible put an end to that swines life.

I wouldn't care. Break into my house and threaten my family, I will do whatever is in my power to make sure that never happens again. Stuff the law.



Then you're no better than he is.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight Chasing a guy down and beating him to within an inch of his life with a cricket bat is not a reasonable reaction to being burgled.


Perhaps not when the burglar is an amusing clown, but what if the burglar threatens to kill your spouse? Only a law-abiding goody-goody-two-shoes coward would let that slip, let the burglar walk, and live in fear ever more. The fact that the burglar survived tells me that the victim-turned-assailants have goodness within their hearts; goodness that The Law turned into a disadvantage...



and two: it's not their decision to take the law into their own hands.


Yes it is, as the Law has proven time and time again to be incapable of providing justice.



If every Tom, Dick, and Harry decided that they would be judge, jury, and executioner, the world would be a scary place.


And it isn't a scary place right now when one can end up in prison for defending their family from burglars and potential future harassment/burglary/murder?

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Conspiracy Pianist]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidLight
 




Then you're no better than he is.


There's a difference between instigated violence upon unsuspecting innocents, and retaliatory violence directed towards such instigators and/or to protect one's children/loved ones from such threats...

If you don't see any difference you must not have too many loved ones/children?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join