With the election only a few days away, I would like to encourage all of
you to visit my blog. Don't hesitate to leave comments, as I am a big boy, and I support the First Ammendment.
This election is too important to neglect.
http://nationalnewswire.blogspot.com/20 ... t-two.html
Thanks,
Laz
Throw Out The Trash
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Really!
Laz,
Nice hate Bush site. Not safer? Had any terrorists sawing off your neighbors heads lately? Thank God for George Bush. Like any good commander, he chose the battlefield. If you folks have your way, the enemy will choose it.
If we're lucky, the Democrats will put John Kerry up for President again. Go Kerry!
Joe Ribaudo
Joe Ribaudo
Nice hate Bush site. Not safer? Had any terrorists sawing off your neighbors heads lately? Thank God for George Bush. Like any good commander, he chose the battlefield. If you folks have your way, the enemy will choose it.
If we're lucky, the Democrats will put John Kerry up for President again. Go Kerry!
Joe Ribaudo
Joe Ribaudo
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Just A Moment?
Brad,
Sorry you think so little of my mental abilities, as to imagine that I only took a moment on your site. I like to know both sides of an issue, and the "Hate Bush" sites provide wonderful insight into the dangers we face.
There may be a few people out here, who are only a smidgen below you in intellect and have an informed opinion diametrically opposed to the informed opinion that you hold. They do not comment on how you smell, nor call you trash.
Having complete faith in your arguements, frees you from the heavy yoke of resorting to the lowest common denominator in any conversation.
George Bush has been elected President for two terms in a row. As soon as the Bush haters rise to that level of accomplishment, they may have some justification for thinking they have the right answers.
Until then, it's just sour grapes. The day that the soldiers of this country no longer have to shed their blood for our freedoms, is the day the entire nation will start to bleed out their lifeblood. That's what soldiers and patriots do. I believe we need a President that understand that.
My opinion is no better than yours, but I try to refrain from calling the opposition "stinking trash". (loose quote)
Take care,
Joe
Sorry you think so little of my mental abilities, as to imagine that I only took a moment on your site. I like to know both sides of an issue, and the "Hate Bush" sites provide wonderful insight into the dangers we face.
There may be a few people out here, who are only a smidgen below you in intellect and have an informed opinion diametrically opposed to the informed opinion that you hold. They do not comment on how you smell, nor call you trash.
Having complete faith in your arguements, frees you from the heavy yoke of resorting to the lowest common denominator in any conversation.
George Bush has been elected President for two terms in a row. As soon as the Bush haters rise to that level of accomplishment, they may have some justification for thinking they have the right answers.
Until then, it's just sour grapes. The day that the soldiers of this country no longer have to shed their blood for our freedoms, is the day the entire nation will start to bleed out their lifeblood. That's what soldiers and patriots do. I believe we need a President that understand that.
My opinion is no better than yours, but I try to refrain from calling the opposition "stinking trash". (loose quote)
Take care,
Joe
Joe,
Joe,
your comments are welcome, as this is how democracy works.
This is the First Amendment forum, and I'd be a fool if I didn't expect heartfelt vitriol in response to my writing.
In other words, knock yourself out.
See you at the polls,
Laz
your comments are welcome, as this is how democracy works.
This is the First Amendment forum, and I'd be a fool if I didn't expect heartfelt vitriol in response to my writing.
In other words, knock yourself out.
See you at the polls,
Laz
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Vitriol?
Brad,
I am really surprised that a smart guy like you, would label my post as "vitriol" I would suggest you reread it, go back and read your own Blog Site and then research the word, "vitriol".
If, after that, you still think there was "vitriol" in my post, I will bow to your (obvious) higher education.
Many other words would have fit the bill, but that's not one of them. Your site, on the other hand, fits it to a T.
Take care,
Joe Ribaudo
I am really surprised that a smart guy like you, would label my post as "vitriol" I would suggest you reread it, go back and read your own Blog Site and then research the word, "vitriol".
If, after that, you still think there was "vitriol" in my post, I will bow to your (obvious) higher education.
Many other words would have fit the bill, but that's not one of them. Your site, on the other hand, fits it to a T.
Take care,
Joe Ribaudo
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Thanks Not Needed
Brad,
When your right......your right.
No need to thank me. I would do the same for anyone.
Teke care,
Joe
When your right......your right.
No need to thank me. I would do the same for anyone.
Teke care,
Joe
tc askey....why bring me into it? .......that was uncalled for ,and un needed, but not unexpected......if youre the typical republican then no wonder the world is in the mess it is!...........but heres a thought to ponder for joe and whoever, if you think about everything without bias ,and tot up the things bush can take credit for, you know the (questionable) successes etc that type of thing.....then its clear the iraq thing will be his testament to the nation........ridding the world of a horrible tyrant (saddam) and then seeing him replaced with half a dozen new ones. my exact phrase i used some year ago or so on here 2"cast 1 devil out and 7 new devils will take his place" has turned out to be true now every bugger in the world is at each others throat....that bumbling ,gum chewing, root beer swilling,intellectually lacking,swaggering, inneffectual half wit has took this planet to the edge of extinction( by the way i forgot bible bashing) the fact that he was governer of that other shithole goes someway to explaining his ridicolous actions............this isnt just a case of political bias ...its far more....the planets at stake.....vote loony party, vote for the cabbage patch guys ..anybody but dubya.........
now every bugger in the world is at each others throat....that bumbling ,gum chewing, root beer swilling,intellectually lacking,swaggering, inneffectual half wit has took this planet to the edge of extinction( by the way i forgot bible bashing) the fact that he was governer of that other shithole goes someway to explaining his ridicolous actions............this isnt just a case of political bias ...its far more....the planets at stake.....vote loony party, vote for the cabbage patch guys ..anybody but dubya......... Don update your email address
joe....if you call me an armchair terrorist again......ill have to call you an armchair patriot .......no its unfair i guess ,ive got an advantage havent i? i mean tho i might be filmed every time i go out.... i havent got the f.b.i knocking on my door cos i blew a fart at george bush ...damn subversives! they are everywhere you know! in the schools-in the crib- on here- its no wonder georgy boy has got all your phones wired!....so be careful what you say,you never know how it may end up.id hate to see joe languishing in guantanamo bay ......thats genuine and heartfelt CMON BILL -CONTRIBUTE!
...damn subversives! they are everywhere you know! in the schools-in the crib- on here- its no wonder georgy boy has got all your phones wired!....so be careful what you say,you never know how it may end up.id hate to see joe languishing in guantanamo bay ......thats genuine and heartfelt CMON BILL -CONTRIBUTE! Don update your email address
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Quite A Rant
Don,
No need to call me anything, as I don't believe I called you an "armchair terrorist".....lately.
That's quite a rant for someone who feels warm safe and snuggly. I understand they have passed a new law over there, which says you have no "right" to protect yourself, or your family, if you are attacked. I hope I have my countries mixed up, and it's some other country.
Don't really care if the President listens in on my overseas phone conversations. So far, the FBI has not knocked at my door, or anyone else's that I know. If they are knocking at some terrorist's door, I would prefer they do it with a hand grenade.
The American media, who hate President Bush even more than you and Brad put together, have been unable to find one (1) case where someone, other than a terrorist, has had his rights stepped on.
You guys will keep bleating about that, while the terrorist applaud. Your assessment that "Republicans" are responsible for the "mess" the world is in, shows that you are a fair minded and thoughtful person.
Speaking of thoughtful......What evidence do you have that the new leadership in Iraq are "tyrant(s)"? Have they been treating the folks who are killing the men, women and children of Iraq, poorly again? Perhaps you should leave the comfort and safety of you own home, and go over their and give them a piece of your mind.
Let me paraphrase a great hero: George Bush is a terrible leader; He has brought turmoil to vast regions of the world; His policies are a disaster; He is hated by many. As leaders go, he is the worst in the world....."except for every other" leader.
If you and Brad are correct, when President Bush has his power removed,
the world will become a better place. Our economy will rise to new heights, while our National debt will plummet. The world will be a safer place and we will all be happy.
If you are wrong......Who will be the first to know? Will the killing of innocent people stop? When the first nuclear bombs fall on Isral, will you feel safer? Did you feel safer after 9/11? I know the two of you have no earthly concept of what I am talking about, but I felf safer when President Bush moved the battlefield away from America.
I can understand why you, Don, might feel less safe, but I have no idea what smoke filled dreams are motivating Brad.
Take care,
Joe Ribaudo
No need to call me anything, as I don't believe I called you an "armchair terrorist".....lately.
That's quite a rant for someone who feels warm safe and snuggly. I understand they have passed a new law over there, which says you have no "right" to protect yourself, or your family, if you are attacked. I hope I have my countries mixed up, and it's some other country.
Don't really care if the President listens in on my overseas phone conversations. So far, the FBI has not knocked at my door, or anyone else's that I know. If they are knocking at some terrorist's door, I would prefer they do it with a hand grenade.
The American media, who hate President Bush even more than you and Brad put together, have been unable to find one (1) case where someone, other than a terrorist, has had his rights stepped on.
You guys will keep bleating about that, while the terrorist applaud. Your assessment that "Republicans" are responsible for the "mess" the world is in, shows that you are a fair minded and thoughtful person.
Speaking of thoughtful......What evidence do you have that the new leadership in Iraq are "tyrant(s)"? Have they been treating the folks who are killing the men, women and children of Iraq, poorly again? Perhaps you should leave the comfort and safety of you own home, and go over their and give them a piece of your mind.
Let me paraphrase a great hero: George Bush is a terrible leader; He has brought turmoil to vast regions of the world; His policies are a disaster; He is hated by many. As leaders go, he is the worst in the world....."except for every other" leader.
If you and Brad are correct, when President Bush has his power removed,
the world will become a better place. Our economy will rise to new heights, while our National debt will plummet. The world will be a safer place and we will all be happy.
If you are wrong......Who will be the first to know? Will the killing of innocent people stop? When the first nuclear bombs fall on Isral, will you feel safer? Did you feel safer after 9/11? I know the two of you have no earthly concept of what I am talking about, but I felf safer when President Bush moved the battlefield away from America.
I can understand why you, Don, might feel less safe, but I have no idea what smoke filled dreams are motivating Brad.
Take care,
Joe Ribaudo
joe, no right to protect ones self? i dont know where that came from..i know that recently tony blair and several ministers and lawmakers etc accepted that a private citizen could actually kill a burglar for example ,and not be prosecuted, as long as he could show good reason that he feared for his life. but obviously if the citizen overpowered the burglar, hogtied him for example , then proceeded to bludgeon burglar to death with a shovel...he would of course be liable for prosecution. theres always been the law of self defence in this country,tempered by the conditions "justifiable defense" ..whats wrong with that?.......so i think youve been misinformed, indeed if you had thought about that statement before you wrote it ,youd have realised it
you dont mind bushy listening in to your fone calls? amazing stuff! for a guy who supposedly cares so much about freedom, liberty etc ....its strange that you dont see your own freedoms being eroded rather rapidly.
"President Bush even more than you and Brad put together, have been unable to find one (1) case where someone, other than a terrorist, has had his rights stepped on. "
really? whos kidding who? er how about the guys in guantanamo ? mostly "suspects" suspected of what exactly is hard to say, as a lot have never been charged with anything........illegal wire tapping is another rights issue isnt it?....lets see now , how about the rights of the thousands of iraqi civilians blown apart by western bombs? doesnt that count?
the present regime )( and it matters not whether its republican or democrat) is responsible for the mess we are in....... it has succeeded in swelling the terrorist ranksby many thousands by invading iraq, the invasion has caused more tension, more discord, encouraged more unholy alliances, has made the whole of the middle east yearn for nuclear weapons to protect themselves from america bully boy tactics, which have nothing to do with democracy ,but of course everything to do with oil. this administration has blood on its hands,mixed in with the oil, its a disgrace , a government which governs by fear and patriotic double talk..it appeals only to the redneck brigade ,and people who cant think for themselves...... dissent is not allowed , free thinking is not allowed.....remember the words "if youre not with us....youre against us" a phrase which obviously had an implied threat at the time to france, germany etc as well as syria iran and the rest.
no one can deny that the iraq war IS or WAS a disaster,and of course the fact that the war was totally unneccessarry and completely unjustified merely magnifies the disaster..
and how can a guy who issues "dead or alive" warrants in public ,
ever be taken seriously again?
you dont mind bushy listening in to your fone calls? amazing stuff! for a guy who supposedly cares so much about freedom, liberty etc ....its strange that you dont see your own freedoms being eroded rather rapidly.
"President Bush even more than you and Brad put together, have been unable to find one (1) case where someone, other than a terrorist, has had his rights stepped on. "
really? whos kidding who? er how about the guys in guantanamo ? mostly "suspects" suspected of what exactly is hard to say, as a lot have never been charged with anything........illegal wire tapping is another rights issue isnt it?....lets see now , how about the rights of the thousands of iraqi civilians blown apart by western bombs? doesnt that count?
the present regime )( and it matters not whether its republican or democrat) is responsible for the mess we are in....... it has succeeded in swelling the terrorist ranksby many thousands by invading iraq, the invasion has caused more tension, more discord, encouraged more unholy alliances, has made the whole of the middle east yearn for nuclear weapons to protect themselves from america bully boy tactics, which have nothing to do with democracy ,but of course everything to do with oil. this administration has blood on its hands,mixed in with the oil, its a disgrace , a government which governs by fear and patriotic double talk..it appeals only to the redneck brigade ,and people who cant think for themselves...... dissent is not allowed , free thinking is not allowed.....remember the words "if youre not with us....youre against us" a phrase which obviously had an implied threat at the time to france, germany etc as well as syria iran and the rest.
no one can deny that the iraq war IS or WAS a disaster,and of course the fact that the war was totally unneccessarry and completely unjustified merely magnifies the disaster..
and how can a guy who issues "dead or alive" warrants in public ,
ever be taken seriously again?
Don update your email address
-
critter
- Part Timer
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:14 pm
- Location: Second star on the right and straight on till morning
Just the facts
FACT: The attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001 happened on George Bush's watch and after clear indications of an impending attack, which were summarily ignored by the administration.
FACT: There is no connection between Iraq and the attacks of Sept. 11th.
FACT: The Iraq War is illegal under international law.
FACT: According to international law, resistance to violations of international law are condoned.
FACT: vitriol means criticism.
FACT: Republicans are stupid, cowardly, they stink, and should be thrown to the curb like trash.
FACT: There is no connection between Iraq and the attacks of Sept. 11th.
FACT: The Iraq War is illegal under international law.
FACT: According to international law, resistance to violations of international law are condoned.
FACT: vitriol means criticism.
FACT: Republicans are stupid, cowardly, they stink, and should be thrown to the curb like trash.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Facts?
Critter,
Could you provide sources for any of your "facts", other than 9/11 taking place on President Bush's "watch"?
Just to make it easy on you.....start with this one:
"FACT: vitriol means criticism."
I would be interested in seeing any source for that definition. I don't have the "Hate Bush Dictionary", so something more contemporary would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Joe Ribaudo
Could you provide sources for any of your "facts", other than 9/11 taking place on President Bush's "watch"?
Just to make it easy on you.....start with this one:
"FACT: vitriol means criticism."
I would be interested in seeing any source for that definition. I don't have the "Hate Bush Dictionary", so something more contemporary would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Joe Ribaudo
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
True?
Don,
Is this true or false?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The withdrawal of Englishmen’s right to self-defense is having dire consequences in Great Britain: higher crime rate, weak sentences for assailants, and even the victims end up thrown in jail, says historian Joyce Lee Malcolm.
This did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years, she says. Those include the strictest gun laws of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. The impacts have been stark:
One is six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City.
More than half of English burglaries occur when someone is at home, while the frequency of such “hot burglaries” is only 13 percent in America.
Since handguns were banned in 1998, handgun crime has more than doubled.
Offenders under the age of 21 are almost never sent to prison; criminals that end up in prison are routinely released after serving half the sentence. .
Overall, with the exception of murder, violent crime in England and Wales is far higher than in the United States. The British police are now, for the first time in their history, routinely armed, and have even sought the advice of American policemen to deal with gun crime
Victims of crime risk imprisonment for defending oneself. Fending off robbers in one’s home with toy pistols will get one charged by the police; killing an assailant results in a life sentence, while if one manages to knock an attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault, says Malcolm.
Source: Joyce Lee Malcolm, “Self-Defense: An Endangered Right,” Cato Institute, Policy Report No. 2, March 2004.
For text http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Joe
Is this true or false?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The withdrawal of Englishmen’s right to self-defense is having dire consequences in Great Britain: higher crime rate, weak sentences for assailants, and even the victims end up thrown in jail, says historian Joyce Lee Malcolm.
This did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years, she says. Those include the strictest gun laws of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. The impacts have been stark:
One is six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City.
More than half of English burglaries occur when someone is at home, while the frequency of such “hot burglaries” is only 13 percent in America.
Since handguns were banned in 1998, handgun crime has more than doubled.
Offenders under the age of 21 are almost never sent to prison; criminals that end up in prison are routinely released after serving half the sentence. .
Overall, with the exception of murder, violent crime in England and Wales is far higher than in the United States. The British police are now, for the first time in their history, routinely armed, and have even sought the advice of American policemen to deal with gun crime
Victims of crime risk imprisonment for defending oneself. Fending off robbers in one’s home with toy pistols will get one charged by the police; killing an assailant results in a life sentence, while if one manages to knock an attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault, says Malcolm.
Source: Joyce Lee Malcolm, “Self-Defense: An Endangered Right,” Cato Institute, Policy Report No. 2, March 2004.
For text http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Joe
-
critter
- Part Timer
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:14 pm
- Location: Second star on the right and straight on till morning
Jus' the facts
RE FACT #1: Reference the 9/11 Commission Report (the parts that aren't held back by the administration)
RE FACT #2: So how many Iraqi's were involved in 9/11? Here's a hint: We're still waiting for those WMD's too!
RE FACT #3: Reference the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and 1977 especially articles dealing with treatment of prisoners, Attacks on population centers, foreign occupation by an invading force, criminal homicide, and the list just goes on and on and on and...
RE FACT #4: See RE FACT #2 articles pertaining to resistance to violations of international law
RE FACT #5: www.dictionary.com is the first one I looked into. I think it's definition #3
RE FACT #6: The attitude, it really stinks, and anyone who would defend themselves with mongering of war, hatred, or fear, is the definition of trash in my dictionary.
I'll see you at the polls.
RE FACT #2: So how many Iraqi's were involved in 9/11? Here's a hint: We're still waiting for those WMD's too!
RE FACT #3: Reference the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and 1977 especially articles dealing with treatment of prisoners, Attacks on population centers, foreign occupation by an invading force, criminal homicide, and the list just goes on and on and on and...
RE FACT #4: See RE FACT #2 articles pertaining to resistance to violations of international law
RE FACT #5: www.dictionary.com is the first one I looked into. I think it's definition #3
RE FACT #6: The attitude, it really stinks, and anyone who would defend themselves with mongering of war, hatred, or fear, is the definition of trash in my dictionary.
I'll see you at the polls.
joe,
well ,in a nutshell.....false. there has NOT ,or ever been a withdrawal of an englishmans right to self defense.where these idiots get this from is anyones guess. british law gives the citizen the right to self defense obviously, what it does not give him is the right to chop up, dismember, or decapitate someone who strays ,intentionally or unintentionally on to his property. the key word shere are JUSTIFIABLE AND REASONABLE force.i.e you cant knock an assailant down then proceed to stamp on his head until its a heap of mush,or smash his skull to smithereens with a opick axe handle long after he or she has ceased to be a threat....however if an assailant attacked you with a samurai sword, for example you would be entitled to kill him if you had the wherewithal to do so, because it would plainly be a justifiable response.again the so called "victims" imprisonedare the ones who reacted in an UNJUSTIFIABLE manner . i.e overkill
while handgun crime may have doubled(thio i cant accept or refute this ,i dont know) one must realise that the "doubling" issue isnt as dramatic as it sounds, cos there would be a low rate to begin with......i.e 1 doubled =2
see what i mean?
the police by the way are NOT "routinely armed" the only police that are armed are special units ,not the ordinary "bobby". you say the british police have even sought the advice of american police....of course they have, nothing new in that....international police forces regularly discuss a range of criminal agendas.
"the strictest gun laws in any democracy"? i hope so but cant confirm it..."legislation making it illegal for individuals to carry article for protection"? correct...if you carry a broadsword or cavalry lance round with you its known as "going equipped" but remember of course a weapon carried for defense can also be carried for offense cant it? so the law really is aimed at the would be assailant and not soley at the "victim"
again the statement "offenders under 21 are rarely sent to prison" is nonsense......are u suggesting if you are under 21 you can kill ,rob with impunity? its utter rubbish.......custodial sentences are or arenot imposed depending on the manner of the crime. early release? its nothing new, one third remission for good conduct ,it always has been except fer certain categories......so violent crime huh? EXCEPT FOR MURDER well methinks you cant get much more violent than murder,well at least it seems you agree murder is more prevalent there than here....and how many murders are committed by guns? how many innocent bystanders mown down in a hail of bullets from a doped up nuts ak47 on any sat night in downtown wherever?...........
however ,yes there is a growing problem here ill admit, there is 1 category of people who SEEM above the law ....and they are the snotty ,scum bag kids under 16, while their crimes might be deemed petty i.e rowdyism, valndalism, etc....you cant touch them! if a 12 year old decides he wants to put a hole in your car windscreen ,and you catch him doing it and if you justifiably in my view put the toe of your boot up his arse, or even swear at him, then beware you will almost certainly find yourself in court, even if you had film evidence of him in the act. in fact just grabbing hold of his arm to hold him until you phone the police is assault on minor(plus if the kid then said you groped him, boy u really in trouble then) the "toy gun " incident you mention ,i presume was regarding the female school teacher who got i think a month in prison for firing an air pistol above the heads of a gang of 10-12 year olds who had been pulling up the flowers and grass in her garden (repeatedly)yes it was silly, and in those cases even i would prob advocate gun ownership here and make it legal to blow these verminous kids brains out! im serious on that actually.the world wouldnt miss them...the world would be better place for it...and if the parents protested then shoot them too...its from the parents that the kids tadopt their present day attitude in my opinion.
now as far as crime situation goes , neither america or britain has anything to be proud about.....to talk about increases/decreases is in some ways irrelevant........decrease crime in both countries by 50 per cent and it would still be appalling state of affairs...a sorry testament to mankind.
but at the end of the day, take 1 individual of any nationality,colour or creed , put him in downtown america, or put him in equivalent area in britain.....in which country would he stand more chance of being shot?
in short that article was full of half truths, bias, but most of all b.s.was the author by any chance employed as a gun sales rep?
yours affectionately
janice
well ,in a nutshell.....false. there has NOT ,or ever been a withdrawal of an englishmans right to self defense.where these idiots get this from is anyones guess. british law gives the citizen the right to self defense obviously, what it does not give him is the right to chop up, dismember, or decapitate someone who strays ,intentionally or unintentionally on to his property. the key word shere are JUSTIFIABLE AND REASONABLE force.i.e you cant knock an assailant down then proceed to stamp on his head until its a heap of mush,or smash his skull to smithereens with a opick axe handle long after he or she has ceased to be a threat....however if an assailant attacked you with a samurai sword, for example you would be entitled to kill him if you had the wherewithal to do so, because it would plainly be a justifiable response.again the so called "victims" imprisonedare the ones who reacted in an UNJUSTIFIABLE manner . i.e overkill
while handgun crime may have doubled(thio i cant accept or refute this ,i dont know) one must realise that the "doubling" issue isnt as dramatic as it sounds, cos there would be a low rate to begin with......i.e 1 doubled =2
see what i mean?
the police by the way are NOT "routinely armed" the only police that are armed are special units ,not the ordinary "bobby". you say the british police have even sought the advice of american police....of course they have, nothing new in that....international police forces regularly discuss a range of criminal agendas.
"the strictest gun laws in any democracy"? i hope so but cant confirm it..."legislation making it illegal for individuals to carry article for protection"? correct...if you carry a broadsword or cavalry lance round with you its known as "going equipped"
but remember of course a weapon carried for defense can also be carried for offense cant it? so the law really is aimed at the would be assailant and not soley at the "victim"again the statement "offenders under 21 are rarely sent to prison" is nonsense......are u suggesting if you are under 21 you can kill ,rob with impunity? its utter rubbish.......custodial sentences are or arenot imposed depending on the manner of the crime. early release? its nothing new, one third remission for good conduct ,it always has been except fer certain categories......so violent crime huh? EXCEPT FOR MURDER
well methinks you cant get much more violent than murder,well at least it seems you agree murder is more prevalent there than here....and how many murders are committed by guns? how many innocent bystanders mown down in a hail of bullets from a doped up nuts ak47 on any sat night in downtown wherever?...........however ,yes there is a growing problem here ill admit, there is 1 category of people who SEEM above the law ....and they are the snotty ,scum bag kids under 16, while their crimes might be deemed petty i.e rowdyism, valndalism, etc....you cant touch them! if a 12 year old decides he wants to put a hole in your car windscreen ,and you catch him doing it and if you justifiably in my view put the toe of your boot up his arse, or even swear at him, then beware you will almost certainly find yourself in court, even if you had film evidence of him in the act. in fact just grabbing hold of his arm to hold him until you phone the police is assault on minor(plus if the kid then said you groped him, boy u really in trouble then) the "toy gun " incident you mention ,i presume was regarding the female school teacher who got i think a month in prison for firing an air pistol above the heads of a gang of 10-12 year olds who had been pulling up the flowers and grass in her garden (repeatedly)yes it was silly, and in those cases even i would prob advocate gun ownership here and make it legal to blow these verminous kids brains out!
im serious on that actually.the world wouldnt miss them...the world would be better place for it...and if the parents protested then shoot them too...its from the parents that the kids tadopt their present day attitude in my opinion.now as far as crime situation goes , neither america or britain has anything to be proud about.....to talk about increases/decreases is in some ways irrelevant........decrease crime in both countries by 50 per cent and it would still be appalling state of affairs...a sorry testament to mankind.
but at the end of the day, take 1 individual of any nationality,colour or creed , put him in downtown america, or put him in equivalent area in britain.....in which country would he stand more chance of being shot?
in short that article was full of half truths, bias, but most of all b.s.was the author by any chance employed as a gun sales rep?
yours affectionately
janice
Don update your email address
(Archbold 19-41);
"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."
The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v. R and other authorities, is also relevant to the application of Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 (Archbold 19-39):
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:
self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.
In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:
was the use of force justified in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? and
was the force used excessive in the circumstances?
The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr. App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367) and (Archbold 19-49).
To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.
It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R ,1971 A.C. 814);
" If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken...".
The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable. (R v Clegg 1995 1 A.C. 482 HL) and (Archbold 19-41).
However, where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.
those that fall to be considered in every case. However, in some cases, there will be public interest factors which arise only in cases involving self-defence or the prevention of crime. These may include:
The degree of excessive force. If the degree of force used is not very far beyond the threshold of what is reasonable, a prosecution may not be needed in the public interest.
The final consequences of the action taken. Where the degree of force used in self-defence or in the prevention of crime is assessed as being excessive, and results in death or serious injury, it will be only in very rare circumstances indeed that a prosecution will not be needed in the public interest. Minor or superficial injuries may be a factor weighing against prosecution.
The way in which the force was applied. This may be an important public interest factor, as well as being relevant to the reasonableness of the force used. If a dangerous weapon, such as firearm, was used by the accused this may tip the balance in favour of prosecution.
Premeditated violence. The extent to which the accused found himself unexpectedly confronted by a violent situation, as opposed to having planned and armed himself in the expectation of a violent situation.
Top of page
Use of Force Against Those Committing Crime
The public interest factors set out immediately above will be especially relevant where, as a matter of undisputed fact, the victim was, at the material time, involved in the commission of a separate offence. Common examples are burglary or theft from motor vehicles. In such cases, prosecutors should ensure that all the surrounding circumstances are taken into consideration in determining whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
Prosecutors should have particular regard to:
the nature of the offence being committed by the victim;
the degree of excessiveness of the force used by the accused;
the extent of the injuries, and the loss or damage, sustained by either or both parties to the incident;
whether the accused was making an honest albeit over zealous attempt to uphold the law rather than taking the law into his own hands for the purposes of revenge or retribution.
Top of page
Apprehension of Offenders
sorry i couldnt be more helpful joe, but if you can find anything there that says an englishman cant defend himselff in law ,no doubt youll let me know
"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."
The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v. R and other authorities, is also relevant to the application of Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 (Archbold 19-39):
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:
self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.
In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:
was the use of force justified in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? and
was the force used excessive in the circumstances?
The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr. App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367) and (Archbold 19-49).
To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.
It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R ,1971 A.C. 814);
" If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken...".
The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable. (R v Clegg 1995 1 A.C. 482 HL) and (Archbold 19-41).
However, where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.
those that fall to be considered in every case. However, in some cases, there will be public interest factors which arise only in cases involving self-defence or the prevention of crime. These may include:
The degree of excessive force. If the degree of force used is not very far beyond the threshold of what is reasonable, a prosecution may not be needed in the public interest.
The final consequences of the action taken. Where the degree of force used in self-defence or in the prevention of crime is assessed as being excessive, and results in death or serious injury, it will be only in very rare circumstances indeed that a prosecution will not be needed in the public interest. Minor or superficial injuries may be a factor weighing against prosecution.
The way in which the force was applied. This may be an important public interest factor, as well as being relevant to the reasonableness of the force used. If a dangerous weapon, such as firearm, was used by the accused this may tip the balance in favour of prosecution.
Premeditated violence. The extent to which the accused found himself unexpectedly confronted by a violent situation, as opposed to having planned and armed himself in the expectation of a violent situation.
Top of page
Use of Force Against Those Committing Crime
The public interest factors set out immediately above will be especially relevant where, as a matter of undisputed fact, the victim was, at the material time, involved in the commission of a separate offence. Common examples are burglary or theft from motor vehicles. In such cases, prosecutors should ensure that all the surrounding circumstances are taken into consideration in determining whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
Prosecutors should have particular regard to:
the nature of the offence being committed by the victim;
the degree of excessiveness of the force used by the accused;
the extent of the injuries, and the loss or damage, sustained by either or both parties to the incident;
whether the accused was making an honest albeit over zealous attempt to uphold the law rather than taking the law into his own hands for the purposes of revenge or retribution.
Top of page
Apprehension of Offenders
sorry i couldnt be more helpful joe, but if you can find anything there that says an englishman cant defend himselff in law ,no doubt youll let me know
Don update your email address
Judgment Day
Today is the day.
There will be no winners, and no losers, as this is not a sporting event. There will however be some important changes, and obviously not a minute too soon!
This is not about us against them. Sadly, it is about us against us.
The invasion of Iraq was a clear violation of US law. It was in violation of UN law. It was in violation of international law, and it was in violation of the Geneva Accord. It has has been a running disaster for all parties involved.
Do you really believe the citizens of Iraq are pleased that their city is in ruin? Only a coward would support the conduct of the present administration. It has done considerable harm to the fabric of this formerly great nation of ours. We can keep hiding behind lies and platitudes, or we can except our mistakes like men, and begin making the necessary corrections.
Call it what you want, it is what it is.
Here's that link again, in case you missed it.
http://nationalnewswire.blogspot.com/20 ... t-two.html
Brad
There will be no winners, and no losers, as this is not a sporting event. There will however be some important changes, and obviously not a minute too soon!
This is not about us against them. Sadly, it is about us against us.
The invasion of Iraq was a clear violation of US law. It was in violation of UN law. It was in violation of international law, and it was in violation of the Geneva Accord. It has has been a running disaster for all parties involved.
Do you really believe the citizens of Iraq are pleased that their city is in ruin? Only a coward would support the conduct of the present administration. It has done considerable harm to the fabric of this formerly great nation of ours. We can keep hiding behind lies and platitudes, or we can except our mistakes like men, and begin making the necessary corrections.
Call it what you want, it is what it is.
Here's that link again, in case you missed it.
http://nationalnewswire.blogspot.com/20 ... t-two.html
Brad
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Good Job!
critter,
Are you sure your not Brad?
I would say your source and you are wrong.
Is that criticism or vitriol?
"Throw out the trash". Is that vitriol or criticism? If I say "I hate you, and everyone like you", is that vitriol or criticism? If I grade your term paper with a red pen, is that criticism or vitriol. Are all of my examples both?
In this day and age it is common to blur the meanings of words. That is how pepole like you find ways to insult people like President Bush. Is that comment criticism or vitriol?
Despite you and your sources spin on words, there is a difference. While criticism can contain vitriol, it is not a requirement. I can see where you might think that, because every idea that is opposite of what you think is your definition of "vitriol".
On the other hand, you could be right.
Joe Ribaudo
Are you sure your not Brad?
I would say your source and you are wrong.
Is that criticism or vitriol?"Throw out the trash". Is that vitriol or criticism? If I say "I hate you, and everyone like you", is that vitriol or criticism? If I grade your term paper with a red pen, is that criticism or vitriol. Are all of my examples both?
In this day and age it is common to blur the meanings of words. That is how pepole like you find ways to insult people like President Bush. Is that comment criticism or vitriol?
Despite you and your sources spin on words, there is a difference. While criticism can contain vitriol, it is not a requirement. I can see where you might think that, because every idea that is opposite of what you think is your definition of "vitriol".
On the other hand, you could be right.
Joe Ribaudo
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Correction
critter,
"Are you sure your not Brad?"
If you were to point out a correction here, would that be criticism or vitriol?
Joe Ribaudo
"Are you sure your not Brad?"
If you were to point out a correction here, would that be criticism or vitriol?
Joe Ribaudo
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Fine Line
Don,
If you hear breaking glass downstairs in the middle of the night, go down and find two burglars entering your daughters bedroom.....at what point to you feel enough in danger to shoot them? Do you say, let me put on a spot of tea, we'll sit down and talk about this?
Right or wrong, if you feel like you or your family's lives are in danger, and kill them, will you be prosecuted? If you kill only one, and the survivor says they did not threaten you, will the authorities and courts take his word against yours?
Will they then give him the funds to sue you, as he is broke? (failed burglary) Will the sentence you receive for killing his accomplice be life in prison?
As I don't live over there, I am not an authority.
Take care,
Joe
If you hear breaking glass downstairs in the middle of the night, go down and find two burglars entering your daughters bedroom.....at what point to you feel enough in danger to shoot them? Do you say, let me put on a spot of tea, we'll sit down and talk about this?
Right or wrong, if you feel like you or your family's lives are in danger, and kill them, will you be prosecuted? If you kill only one, and the survivor says they did not threaten you, will the authorities and courts take his word against yours?
Will they then give him the funds to sue you, as he is broke? (failed burglary) Will the sentence you receive for killing his accomplice be life in prison?
As I don't live over there, I am not an authority.
Take care,
Joe
-
JIM HAMRICK
- Part Timer
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 11:46 am
- Location: phoenix
- Contact:
throw out the trash
I would start my comments with the statement that President Bush is not my favorite president and I did not vote for him. I will however defend him. This war was the result of many U.N. resolutions that Sadam chose to ignore and had the approval of the the U.S. congress so it is in no way an illegal war. Remember two of the people that "lied" to the public saying that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction were Senator Clinton and Senator Kerry. In fact weapons capable of killing thousands were found, i.e., posion gas. This was largely ignored by the news media saying that they were old and might not work.
If my memory dosen't fail me I remember as a young child seeing ads requesting that the Amercian people donate weapons to be sent to Britton for the defense of their homeland during W.W. two. It looks as though the Britt's are doomed to repeat history.
The matter of reasonable force is in my view is that anyone that is a threat to myself or my family reasonable force is whatever I can do to stop the threat.
My thoughts may not reflect yours but the beauty of living in the U.S.A. is the fact that we have the opportunity to express our opinion and voting. Please take advantage of this opportunity/duty and vote today.
Jim Hamrick
If my memory dosen't fail me I remember as a young child seeing ads requesting that the Amercian people donate weapons to be sent to Britton for the defense of their homeland during W.W. two. It looks as though the Britt's are doomed to repeat history.
The matter of reasonable force is in my view is that anyone that is a threat to myself or my family reasonable force is whatever I can do to stop the threat.
My thoughts may not reflect yours but the beauty of living in the U.S.A. is the fact that we have the opportunity to express our opinion and voting. Please take advantage of this opportunity/duty and vote today.
Jim Hamrick