BF2S Forums Stay classy, Colorado

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I did some more reading and apparently he never mentioned the 'attempted to run him over' thing in the police report.

I agree that shooting a thief might be extreme, but that would be very easily avoided if people just wouldn't do shit like stealing.

Or, you know, if people wouldn't do stuff like shooting thieves. Blaming a poor voluntary response to a situation on the situation itself just doesn't make sense. Like people said, it's about taking responsibility.

Last edited by mikkel (2010-07-10 12:46:53)

that's not quite how justice works, sorry. justice seeks to right the wrongs and restore equality and peace... not to lash out with some revanchist 'fuck you!' to the criminal.

In the UK you can shoot a person attempting a crime on your property if you deem that your life is in peril. That means for instance say a burglar came at you with a knife screaming I'm gonna kill you then you may defend yourself with appropriate force BUT if the burglar is running away then you MAY NOT attack that person, it then becomes assault/murder.

The only reason I know this is because I had to do a 2 day course on active & passive restraints run by the Police & they went through all the scenarios where force may be used against an assailant & when to high tail it & call the Police. They were very specific about about returning force & if your life is in peril you may use possibly fatal means to defend yourself.

@Monkey Spanker: I daresay the laws are similar if not there same here in Aus.

Uzique wrote:

i think that's to do with the casual acceptance of gun-culture in every day american life.

a piece of legislature or a case-precedent like that would be overturned in a second by the judiciary here in england.

there is an added aspect of risk and 'reasonability' in america where the expectation for a person to be armed-and-dangerous is perfectly accepted and within 'reason'. here in england the chances of somebody burglarizing your property with a gun or lethal weapon are slim-to-none: and accordingly the punishments for 'aggravated' property-offences (i.e. robbing, burglarizing, mugging with a weapon and personal threat involved) are significantly more severe as a deterrent.

Same here in Australia.
People who own guns here go to shooting ranges or are farmers.
The likelihood of having your home invaded or being mugged on the street by someone with a gun are extremely low. When it does happen it makes national news because it is so rare.

Uzique wrote:

that's not quite how justice works, sorry. justice seeks to right the wrongs and restore equality and peace... not to lash out with some revanchist 'fuck you!' to the criminal.

True, but a lot of people think the justice system is there to seek vengeance.

11 Bravo wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Same here in Australia.
People who own guns here go to shooting ranges or are farmers.
The likelihood of having your home invaded or being mugged on the street by someone with a gun are extremely low. When it does happen it makes national news because it is so rare.

well when your entire countries population is the size of one of our cities...........meh

21 million people?

Other countries with populations around 100 million don't have 1/50th of the US' gun problems.

11 Bravo wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

well when your entire countries population is the size of one of our cities...........meh

21 million people?

yes.

No. Not by half.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un … population

11 Bravo wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

yes.

No. Not by half.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un … population

well whatever.......add 3 cities up then.

The 6 biggest cities, but I agree it is beside the point.

11 Bravo wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

yes.

No. Not by half.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un … population

well whatever.......add 3 cities up then.

i heard NY once..guess they meant the state.

Metro New York has about 19 million people. Meaning the city and the area around it that it has considerable influence as well as commuters into it from has a population of 19 million.

So yeah anyway.

Isn't first degree murder premeditated or with malicious intent or something? Total bullshit but whatever.

so if someone tries to run over a cop, the cop can shoot them as the vehicle is a weapon


if someone tries to run over a civilian, the civilian is expected to get run over and wait patiently for the police to show up... so they can fill out a report

Macbeth wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

No. Not by half.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un … population

well whatever.......add 3 cities up then.

i heard NY once..guess they meant the state.

Metro New York has about 19 million people. Meaning the city and the area around it that it has considerable influence as well as commuters into it from has a population of 19 million.

So yeah anyway.

Isn't first degree murder premeditated or with malicious intent or something? Total bullshit but whatever.

Regardless of whether you think he was right to shoot the dude, this. How can that be considered first degree murder?

I love the American constitution and the second amendment its fucking great, never let you're government take it away from you lads...

LostFate wrote:

I love the American constitution and the second amendment its fucking great, never let you're government take it away from you lads...

They almost did in the last decision by the Supreme Court...it was 5/4.  And when Obama gets a couple of more of his liberial leaning justices (i.e. Kagan), it could definitively swing the court the other way.

Elections matter...and boy have we been reminded of that most recently.