Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

"Liberal law sees citizens as aggressors, criminals as victims " Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Revenge is an utterly sadistic concept. Hussain's in the nick for a good reason. I feel sorry for him, but chasing down and beating someone to resemble a salami? Even the police aren't allowed to do that.

    Obviously the Daily Mail will put the "chasing" bit in the smallest print possible.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    As Michael Portillo said last night on This Week, what concerns me most is the way ill-informed public opinion has swayed the result of the appeal trial so much that they came to a completely different conclusion to the first trial.

    Most of the people I spoke to who were up in arms about the first trial had only read the headline and hadn't bothered reading the details.

    Clearly it wasn't self-defence; clearly Mr Hussain is a complete psycho; clearly he should be in jail.

    However we appear to have let the editors of the Daily Mail decide the outcome of this case, which is very, very worrying.

    Tony Martin was another nutter - read what he actually did, rather than just the headlines in the right wing press.
    Very true indeed. I should point out too that I agree with you, despite being very much right-wing myself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    As Michael Portillo said last night on This Week, what concerns me most is the way ill-informed public opinion has swayed the result of the appeal trial so much that they came to a completely different conclusion to the first trial.

    Most of the people I spoke to who were up in arms about the first trial had only read the headline and hadn't bothered reading the details.

    Clearly it wasn't self-defence; clearly Mr Hussain is a complete psycho; clearly he should be in jail.

    However we appear to have let the editors of the Daily Mail decide the outcome of this case, which is very, very worrying.

    Tony Martin was another nutter - read what he actually did, rather than just the headlines in the right wing press.
    Yes well I don't think anything Michael Portillo says these days has much credibility ... a former arch Tory reduced to being Dianne Abbot's mate on This Week... and systematically rejecting all of the policies and ideals that got him elected in the first place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobo1234)
    I regard myself as being fairly liberal-minded, but I do believe I have the right to defend myself and my property. If someone breaks into my house and threatens me, I believe I have the right to threaten him back. I believe in measure-for-measure sort of stuff basically- if he steals something from my house then he is damaging my property, so I should have the right to go shoot his car outside with a gun and damage it. If he shoots at me, I have the right to blow his head off, and if he tries to stab me, then I have the right to gouge his eyes out with a fork.

    I should NOT have the right to kill him just for breaking in, or for only threatening me, but anything he does, or makes a swrious attempt to do, to me or my family, should be something I'm allowed to do back to him.

    Precisely - if someone broke into my house I might hit them with a cricket bat. I might even chase him down the street and hit him in the knees so he couldn't run away any further whilst I waited for the police.

    Would I continue to pound my cricket bat into the bleeding skull of an unconscious man despite onlookers repeatedly begging me to stop? Probably not...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    Well I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't see citizens as aggressors. Nor do I see criminals as "goody"s.
    That seems to be something largely made up by people who want a justice system based on revenge and disproportionate punishment, and read altogether too many right wing newspapers.

    Articles like this skip over the fact that plenty of liberals are also law abiding citizens and can also be the victims of crime. Liberals feel the effects of crime too. Doesn't mean I want to kill someone for breaking into my house. That just doesn't seem fair.

    I believe in proportional and useful punishment. That's not something that the Victorians had. They hung 12 year olds for stealing. Empathy for the criminal in some cases does not mean you don't have a greater sympathy for the victim.

    I would say most liberals are just more interested in a punishing in proportionate, reformative and utilitarian way. There is not some evil motive for this. It's just trying to be the most understanding and fair towards all parties, and do what is best for society. People with different opinions often don't seem to accept that there is no evil motive/bias for liberal attitudes so they make up a bias or an evil incentive, when it doesn't really exist.

    Sorry I have not phrased this well at all.


    Another thing:
    I often hear people saying "he broke the law so he has to accept whatever punishment is coming, regardless of how disproportionate that punishment is, or any extenuating circumstances" - for instance with regard to that man who was executed for drug possession in China.

    Oddly the very same people do not apply this rule to vigilantes who use excessive force on minor criminals.

    (I'm not going to comment on either scenario, just a little hypo-criticism which I have noticed)
    I agree with this. :yes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This sort of abuse of the word "liberal" is becoming increasingly ridiculous. Liberalism is about being able to defend one's self from outside aggression. If you believe people should be allowed to assault and rob others at will you're not a liberal. You might be a socialist, though not always, or perhaps just some sort lunatic, I suppose.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If someone breaks into my house and threatens my family, I want the right to ******* their ******* brains out.

    I want to beat the crap out of them and if they run, I want to be able to shoot them in the leg with a rifle, walk up to them and break their shins. The law should agree with me.

    I agree with the historian on question time on thursday.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    If someone breaks into my house and threatens my family, I want the right to ******* their ******* brains out.

    I want to beat the crap out of them and if they run, I want to be able to shoot them in the leg with a rifle, walk up to them and break their shins. The law should agree with me.

    I agree with the historian on question time on thursday.
    Then perhaps you should move to America.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drew.)
    Then perhaps you should move to America.
    I said I want the right to defend myself under the law to an extent that I feel is necessary. I don't want some crazy culture based around guns and the idea that the use of guns in everyday society is acceptable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I said I want the right to defend myself under the law to an extent that I feel is necessary. I don't want some crazy culture based around guns and the idea that the use of guns in everyday society is acceptable.
    So if a toddler wanders into someone's garden and the owner feels it necessary to kill the toddler with a pickaxe, that would be fine?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    So if a toddler wanders into someone's garden and the owner feels it necessary to kill the toddler with a pickaxe, that would be fine?
    Both you and I know that the example you have provided is absolutely ridiculous under any circumstance and I am also confident you know exactly what I mean.

    I should be able to defend myself against burglars, trespassers and anyone who seeks to inflict harm upon my family, myself or my property.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Both you and I know that the example you have provided is absolutely ridiculous under any circumstance and I am also confident you know exactly what I mean.
    And? Tony Martin shooting someone who was running away from him was (to me) also completely ridiculous.

    I should be able to defend myself against burglars, trespassers and anyone who seeks to inflict harm upon my family, myself or my property.
    The toddler in my example is trespassing. If I want to maul the kid with my power drill then under your "my property, my rules, 'liberals' GTFO" conception of justice I'm completely within my rights to and I can just say that I felt threatened.

    I know, instead of this quite patently ridiculous system, why don't we have, like, courts and stuff to uphold the law and determine whether people were breaking it?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I should be able to defend myself against burglars, trespassers and anyone who seeks to inflict harm upon my family, myself or my property.
    To what point in time? If they leave with loads of your stuff and you find out where they live, do you have the right to break into their home and beat them up and take your stuff back? If you chase them down the street afterwards and smash their brains in to the point that they are a total vegetable, is that really acceptable?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)

    Agree diagree?

    ...waits for the foaming at the mouth liberals....
    Disagree.

    I consider myself liberal and certainly don't believe that. But I must agree deep down because we're all the same right? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Can anyone here defend the rights of the victim of burglary to chase down the burglar to a nearby street, and beat him to the point that he is a vegetable with a cricket bat?

    I'm just trying to get some semblance of how stupid people really are.
    ...or the mentally ill farmer who baits and boobytraps his house for burglars and then shoots them in the back as they run off?

    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Both you and I know that the example you have provided is absolutely ridiculous under any circumstance and I am also confident you know exactly what I mean.
    The claims in the papers concerning the issue of self defense are just as rediculous.

    People defending themselves against attackers and justice being done doesn't sell papers - rare distorted cases to the contrary do. Just in the same way nobody wants to hear about a decent Policeman doing a good job or a footballer who isn't fighting in a club and/or biting peoples' ears off.

    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I should be able to defend myself against burglars, trespassers and anyone who seeks to inflict harm upon my family, myself or my property.
    You are by law but it has to be proportionate.

    Shooting the postman or cutting off the head of some little scrote who's running off with your tv doesn't cut the mustard.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharlieBee_90)
    Disagree.

    I consider myself liberal and certainly don't believe that. But I must agree deep down because we're all the same right? :rolleyes:
    Well there's going to be some beliefs you hold in virtue of which you are liberal. Or some core liberal beliefs you hold in virtue of which you identify yourself as liberal. And when I think of what a liberal is - it's generally going to be those beliefs.

    Of course notice in the article (as some people here have not) that Gerald Warner puts the word liberal in quotation marks - implying that this is not really what happens in a truly classical liberal government.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chriscpritchard)
    I disagree, I'd say that it's ensuring that people who only commit "minor" crimes aren't killed, that's excessive. In our society the key words are "excessive force", if someone was coming at you with a knife, and you hada shotgun (+ license) with you, for example you were hunting, you'd be within your rights to shoot them. But if someone was on your land without your permission you wouldn't!
    If someone is simply trespassing on your land, no. Most of the time, it will be innocent ramblers. Killing someone for trespassing by accident is absolutely disproportionate, definitely manslaughter. Breaking into buildings with the obvious intent of stealing or causing harm is a different matter, people should temporarily forfeit their right to life and liberty whilst they are breaking into buildings or attacking people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Revenge is an utterly sadistic concept. Hussain's in the nick for a good reason. I feel sorry for him, but chasing down and beating someone to resemble a salami? Even the police aren't allowed to do that.

    Obviously the Daily Mail will put the "chasing" bit in the smallest print possible.
    There is nothing morally wrong with revenge carried out only upon those who are responsible for hurt in the first place. Practically however, we know that most people can't control themselves... there is alot of room for mistakes and going too far.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    Well there's going to be some beliefs you hold in virtue of which you are liberal. Or some core liberal beliefs you hold in virtue of which you identify yourself as liberal. And when I think of what a liberal is - it's generally going to be those beliefs.
    Then you are deluded and sheltered. Absolutely nothing described in this article happens either in real life or in the minds of, well, anyone. At least, not in the absurd, sensationalist, simplistic way presented in the article. It's been a while since I've read a piece of journalism more detached from reality than this, in fact when I got to the part about how the Victorians "had the right idea" I was convinced I was reading some British equivalent of The Onion. It's almost like the Telegraph has become a parody of itself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Then you are deluded and sheltered. Absolutely nothing described in this article happens either in real life or in the minds of, well, anyone. At least, not in the absurd, sensationalist, simplistic way presented in the article. It's been a while since I've read a piece of journalism more detached from reality than this, in fact when I got to the part about how the Victorians "had the right idea" I was convinced I was reading some British equivalent of The Onion. It's almost like the Telegraph has become a parody of itself.
    Thank you for your kind comments Captain Haddock.

    I think you got a bit confused there... I was talking about liberalism in general in what you quoted - not what the article was referring to.

    Why start making this personal by with "deluded" and "sheltered" ...

    Idiot.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 25, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.