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

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

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    And? Tony Martin shooting someone who was running away from him was (to me) also completely ridiculous.
    Why?
    I think it was perfectly reasonable.


    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.
    Your example is ridiculous and stands helplessly on the coastlines of stupidity.

    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    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?
    The first example would be different. If you knew where they lived, you couldn't then go after them once they have left the scene of the crime. I support defence not vigilante justice.

    In your first example, the police would have to do it.

    However, I entirely agree that if they just burgled your home, you should be able to run down the street after them and bash their brains in. The case of Mr Hussain - I 100% totally agree with Mr Hussain. He was right in what he did. The burglar has absolutely no sympathy from me what so ever.


    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    ...or the mentally ill farmer who baits and boobytraps his house for burglars and then shoots them in the back as they run off?
    Two comments

    1/ That is an extremely different circumstance because it has premeditated intent to cause harm. Chasing after a burglar and beating them is different.

    2/ Though, to be fair, I should be able to leave my house open, windows open, doors open, expensive and priceless objects on display without a single individual touching it. So, either way the burglar was a burglar and got shot for it. As with my other comments, the burglar has no sympathy from me. Though the farmer should be looked at...

    You are by law but it has to be proportionate.
    The law should say grossly disproportionate.
    They wield a knife, I shoot them in both legs. Under proportionate, I am liable. Under grossly proportionate, I don't believe I would be.

    Shooting the postman or cutting off the head of some little scrote who's running off with your tv doesn't cut the mustard
    Cutting off someones head and beating them is quite different...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    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.
    Revenge is never right. Retribution when required yes, but that's always the duty of the state.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Revenge is never right. Retribution when required yes, but that's always the duty of the state.
    I said revenge is just impractical and potentially unfair, when carried out by individuals without due procedure. It's not wrong though, an eye for an eye is appropriate in circumstances where the original aggressor is primarily to blame for the suffering inflicted, and when violence stops at punishing the aggressor proportionately as an individual.
    Legal retribution should be to punish people for wronging their victims and show them the full weight of their crimes, relative to the harm caused.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Retribution is just impractical. Retribution should be to punish people for wronging their victims and show them the full weight of their crimes, relative to the harm caused.
    So you'd torture those two boys then?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    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.
    Alright, then just imagine that I put the words "If you take this article seriously" before the rest of my post, then my point still stands. The whole article is just a hilariously misguided diatribe lacking any visible basis in reality. No, I don't personally believe that the fates of criminals should be placed in the hands of psychotic vigilantes like Hussain, but that doesn't mean I believe all citizens are aggressors or whatever. No right thinking person can possibly describe the actions of Martin and Hussain as 'self defence'.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Two comments

    1/ That is an extremely different circumstance because it has premeditated intent to cause harm. Chasing after a burglar and beating them is different.
    1) The guy was running away - he was no longer a threat

    2) Mr Hussain armed himself - premeditation

    3) They didn't just subdue the guy until the Police arrived, they beat him half to death - disproportionate

    2/ Though, to be fair, I should be able to leave my house open, windows open, doors open, expensive and priceless objects on display without a single individual touching it.
    In an ideal world sure, but we don't live in an ideal world - you need to take responsibility for your own possessions.

    So, either way the burglar was a burglar and got shot for it. As with my other comments, the burglar has no sympathy from me. Though the farmer should be looked at...
    Sure the burglar was a criminal but does he deserve to be shot to death over a petty crime? No - he should be tried, it's impartial and it's fair.

    The law should say grossly disproportionate.
    They wield a knife, I shoot them in both legs. Under proportionate, I am liable. Under grossly proportionate, I don't believe I would be.
    If you genuinely feared for your life and/or this guy posed a significant threat to you then it would be proportionate - however you would have to justify this at a later date.

    Cutting off someones head and beating them is quite different...
    In some ways it's different and in some ways it shares many similarities (ie; disproportionate).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I support defence not vigilante justice. However, I entirely agree that if they just burgled your home, you should be able to run down the street after them and bash their brains in.
    Please, read that sentence back to yourself. The examples cited are actually no different from one another - in both instances, no crime is taking place, is it? For all intents and purposes, you are safe, the aggressor are gone, and according to your own logic, it's a matter for the police to deal with. Why the inconsistency?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    2) Mr Hussain armed himself - premeditation
    He didn't plan it out. He grabbed a weapon and chased the criminal.
    What does the law expect? People not to be exceptionally angry and to act entirely logically? No.

    People act on anger. Anger clouds logic and resulted in this criminal being beaten. Mr Hussain should have received a not guilty verdict straight away.

    3) They didn't just subdue the guy until the Police arrived, they beat him half to death - disproportionate
    Again, the criminal has no sympathy from me.
    He had a history of criminal activity and got what he deserved frankly.

    In an ideal world sure, but we don't live in an ideal world - you need to take responsibility for your own possessions.
    Two comments

    1/ Even if I leave my house open anyone who enters or steals should be punished regardless.

    2/ I will take it into my responsibility, and I will ensure it with a cricket bat.


    If you genuinely feared for your life and/or this guy posed a significant threat to you then it would be proportionate - however you would have to justify this at a later date.
    I agree.
    I am just stating that the law should allow me to shoot them.

    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Please, read that sentence back to yourself. The examples cited are actually no different from one another - in both instances, no crime is taking place, is it? For all intents and purposes, you are safe, the aggressor are gone, and according to your own logic, it's a matter for the police to deal with. Why the inconsistency?
    No, they are different.

    Here are two examples:
    1/ I am the victim of a burglary. My family are threatened with weapons. As soon as the burglars have taken what they wanted, they run. My brother and I run after them with a couple of bats. We catch up and bash them in the head to knock them down, and break their ankles to prevent them running away.

    2/ I am the victim of a burglary. My family are threatened with weapons. The burglars escape, but I know where they live. I gather a group of friends and pay them a visit.

    The first one is justified, in my opinion, the second one is not. The second one should be carried out by the police. I see no inconsistency.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    The first one is justified, in my opinion, the second one is not. The second one should be carried out by the police. I see no inconsistency.
    Why shouldn't the first one be carried out by the police? Oh yeah, I remember, it's not in the confines of the law, and is vigilante justice.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Why shouldn't the first one be carried out by the police? Oh yeah, I remember, it's not in the confines of the law, and is vigilante justice.
    It can be carried out by the police. What I am saying is that people should be able to run after the criminal and catch them. A civilians arrest if you will.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    It can be carried out by the police. What I am saying is that people should be able to run after the criminal and catch them. A civilians arrest if you will.
    Yes, arrest. Not viscious beatdown.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Yes, arrest. Not viscious beatdown.
    Meh, can't say the burglar didn't deserve it, because he did.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Meh, can't say the burglar didn't deserve it, because he did.
    In your opinion. In mine, toddlers who go into my garden deserve to be horribly butchered. What's the difference?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Meh, can't say the burglar didn't deserve it, because he did.
    Perhaps he did. That's irrelevant, though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    The majority of posts on here just seem to confirm what Gerald Warner said in the article.

    The presumption in PC circles is that a criminal – any criminal – is a victim. From the outset, therefore, he is vested with a moral superiority over the non-criminal. The householder being burgled, the pedestrian being mugged, may be model citizens; their persecutor may carry a knife or gun, he may be bent on murder, torture, robbery or rape – but, in the liberal perspective, he is the goody. He is the disadvantaged victim of a capitalist, racist, uncaring society; so the laws of the land must be recalibrated to protect him from the citizenry – the baddies – who expose him to unreasonable temptation by owning houses or mobile telephones or handbags.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    The majority of posts on here just seem to confirm what Gerald Warner said in the article.
    Please, quote 2 posts which validate that quote. I can't see a single one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I can imagine very few standard citizens would be capable of establishing what is reasonable force and implementing it while terrified, pumped full of adrenaline and very angry. Shame the law doesn't reflect that.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.