New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

This REALLY Happened !!!

Arkady

President
You are making special exception. You are saying a juvenile engaging in the adult act of home invasion should't face the same risks as an adult doing the same thing. I am saying that the home owner has the right to shoot a person who has invaded their home, even if upon confrontation they person flees - regardless of the age of the suspect, because I think home invasion is that heinous of an act. You keep introducing this red hearing of child murders as if the person islooking to murder children. When infact the person is interested in protecting his property - violently if necessary - regardless of the age of the intruder.
First home invasion isn't a particularly adult activity. Second, even if you can make a case for trying a kid as an adult for this crime, that's a different issue than whether trespassing in a home should effectively be a capital crime for kids or adults and, if so, whether a home owner should be empowered to act unilaterally as judge, jury, and executioner. Even if a home owner chose to murder a fleeing adult trespasser, I'd want that crime punished.
 

Arkady

President
I don't need a method for checking it -- it's enough for me that a 16-year-old can be charged as an adult for a felony.
Yet the vast majority of the time they aren't. And if the kid had made it out the window and later was arrested for breaking and entering, he'd almost certainly have been tried as a child.

My assertion about firearms in the UK is demonstrably true.
Incorrect.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Yet the vast majority of the time they aren't. And if the kid had made it out the window and later was arrested for breaking and entering, he'd almost certainly have been tried as a child.
He's not a child.

Incorrect.
UK gun laws:
In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall".[14] Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitation guns, which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences (see under "Firearms crime" below).

Fully automatic (submachine-guns, etc.) are "prohibited weapons"[15] and require explicit permission from central government to permit ownership. Generally, such permits are not available to private citizens. Semi-automatic rifles over .22 in (5.6 mm) and pistols are similarly "prohibited", although there are exceptions for short barrelled breech-loading semi-automatic and revolver pistols for use for the humane dispatch of animals (classed under section 5). There are also very limited exceptions for pistols both to preserve firearms of historic or technical interest (classed as section 7 firearms)[16] and to enable use by elite sports teams. Semi-automatic shotguns are restricted to a magazine capacity of no more than two shots, although a 'multi-shot' shotgun can be owned under section 5 (restricted firearms and ammunition) of the Firearms Act. Where the term 'multi-shot' is used, this refers to either a Semi-automatic or pump action shotgun with no restriction on magazine capacity. [17] All other rifles and their ammunition are permitted with no limits as to magazine size, to include: target shooting, hunting, and historic and muzzle-loading weapons, as well as long barrelled breachloading pistols with a specific overall length, but not for self-defence; however if a home-owner is threatened they may be used in self-defence, so long as the force is reasonable.[18] Shotgun possession and use is controlled, and even low-power air rifles and pistols, while permitted, are controlled to some extent. A Firearm Certificate issued by the police is required for all weapons and ammunition except air weapons of modest power (of muzzle energy not over 12 ft·lbf (16 J) for rifles, and 6 ft·lbf (8.1 J) for pistols). Shotguns with a capacity of three rounds or less (up to guns with a magazine holding no more than two rounds, in addition to one in the chamber) are subject to less stringent licensing requirements than other firearms and require a shotgun certificate; shotguns with higher capacity require a Firearm Certificate.

Possession of a live firearms round can lead to severe penalties. Live firearms ammunition, other than most shotgun ammunition, may only be purchased and possessed with the authority of a Firearm Certificate. Shotgun cartridges can be possessed by anybody over the age of 15 but no licence is required to hold such ammunition so long as the cartridges contain 5 or more shots.[19] However, a licence covering possession of a firearm capable of firing shotgun ammunition is required for purchase."

As you can see, even possession of ammo is so rigorously controlled that is is an effective ban. Most Britains have no access to firearms, period.
 

connieb

Senator
First home invasion isn't a particularly adult activity. Second, even if you can make a case for trying a kid as an adult for this crime, that's a different issue than whether trespassing in a home should effectively be a capital crime for kids or adults and, if so, whether a home owner should be empowered to act unilaterally as judge, jury, and executioner. Even if a home owner chose to murder a fleeing adult trespasser, I'd want that crime punished.
Kids are often charged as adult with felony home invasion particularly when they invade an occupied property as a breaking and entering situation. I am surprised you don't know this counselor.

Since there isn't much debate about whether or not a person who entered a home through a window at the dead of night, has illegally entered a home, not really sure what is up for the judget and jury to decide. Which is why a person who catches another in the act of breaking and entering - should be empowered to act with deadly force. Not only would that spare the costs of a trial - it would also spare the investigation costs if athe person gets away. Since they are so rarely prosecuted, this also means it could take another potential criminal off the street. A person who encounters another in a felony should have the right to use deadly force to stop that felony, and they should be able to use deadly force to stop the suspect from fleeing the scene of the crime.

It does not seem unreasonable at all to me that home invasion is a capital crime. Infact, I think we need more capital crimes. My opposition to the death penalty is that rarely is a perosn on trial actually caught in the act. It is often some hapless sucker who is the low hanging fruit the cop can pin it on. But, I would support the death penalty in every felony act where a person was actually caught in the act of the felony. Home invasion, murder, forcible rape - should all carry death penalties assuming the person committing them is actually caught doing so.
 

Arkady

President
He's not a child.
He is under the law, and according to the ordinary usage of the terms by the majority of people in our society. I'm betting you'd also consider him a child in other contexts, such as if he demanded a right to vote, or to buy alcohol, or the right to have sex with a much older person, or to join the military. But, for purposes of gun conversations, you tend to redefine terms to whatever you feel is convenient for whatever argument you think supports your extremist position. I'm not that way. I like to take consistent, principled positions.

As you can see, even possession of ammo is so rigorously controlled that is is an effective ban. Most Britains have no access to firearms, period.
Incorrect. The information you just posted contradicted that point quite clearly. Read it again. Again, as I said, you're welcome to complain that Brits can't have the same kinds of weapons and ammunition you'd like to be available, but that's not the same as pretending Brits don't have access to firearms. A Brit who wants a shotgun can get one. A shotgun is a firearm.
 

Arkady

President
Kids are often charged as adult with felony home invasion particularly when they invade an occupied property as a breaking and entering situation. I am surprised you don't know this counselor.
Do you have a specific example of a 16-year-old child breaking into a home, unarmed, and being tried as an adult? I'm no expert on UK law, but here in Massachusetts, 16-year-olds get tried as kids other than in very serious cases like murder.

Since there isn't much debate about whether or not a person who entered a home through a window at the dead of night, has illegally entered a home, not really sure what is up for the judget and jury to decide.
Well, I'll give you the perspective of someone who has a respect for our Constitution and for the age-old concept of due process and a jury of one's peers. There are all sorts of defenses someone accused of entering a home through a window at the dead of night could raise to either avoid conviction of any crime, or at least to get a lesser sentence. For example, maybe he thought he had permission to enter the home. Maybe he thought it was his friend's house, and his friend had asked him to go to his house and fetch something, and had told him he leaves the back window unlocked. Unfortunately, wrong house, wrong window. Or maybe he was in a car accident and needed to call for an ambulance, pounded on the door with no answer (its elderly resident having his hearing aid out to sleep), and so spotting the open window he crawled through to use the phone to call 911. Or maybe he was suffering a schizophrenic episode and had no idea what he was doing. Or maybe he was fleeing an assault, so the open window, and thought jumping through was his only chance to get away. Or maybe there was a legitimate dispute about whose house it really was -- like he rented a room and was locked out by the owner over a disputed payment. Or maybe he was tricked into entering -- maybe the guy he was with said it was his house, and he'd locked himself out, and the kid believed him, and crawled through the window thinking he was being helpful. The idea behind a trial is to allow all those defenses to be raised. But when a homeowner deliberately murders the kid before he can testify, none of that testimony will be possible. And that's why it's such a bad idea for a homeowner to appoint himself judge, jury, and executioner of anyone who happens to enter his home that way. And it's why when a homeowner does so, we need to punish him harshly, if he can't establish that it was self-defense, so that others who have no value for human life but maybe value their own freedom will think twice before using something like that as an excuse to kill someone.

Infact, I think we need more capital crimes.
We once did. For example, in Biblical times, adultery was a capital crime. So was a kid showing disrespect to his parents. We've becoming much more civilized since then, though.... well, at least some of us have. These days, the most advanced countries don't execute criminals, and even the somewhat less advanced ones reserve death as a sentence only for the most heinous of crimes.
 

freyasman

Senator
Do you think that shooting someone who is running away from you is a case of self defense?
"2) Reaction Time- It takes time for the brain to process information and make a decision. The more complex the situation, the longer it takes to make the decision. Here are some statistics:



– On average it takes .25 seconds to react to a threat cue and begin to act.

– If that reaction to a threat cue involves a decision (i.e. “Is the thing in his hand a gun or a cell phone?”) the reaction time time is increased to an average of .56 seconds.

– The average officer takes .35 seconds to process the fact that a threat no longer exists and to stop shooting.

– The average officer fires one bullet every .25 seconds after he begins to fire





Do you see the problem? Let’s say the bad guy is facing the officer and begins shooting. The officer starts shooting back and hits the bad guy. Bad guy drops the gun and spins away as the bullets hit him. It takes the officer .35 seconds to recognize that the bad guy is no longer a threat. He is firing a bullet every .25 seconds. That means the officer will generally fire one to two rounds AFTER making the decision to stop shooting! It’s very easy for those bullets to end up in the criminal’s back."

- See more at: http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/shot-in-the-back-how-does-it-happen#sthash.2Bcxa8XB.dpuf


Not saying this is what happened in this case, but it does happen quite a bit.
 

freyasman

Senator
I remember when that yahoo Finicum got shot in the back,,,Gun Nut types said it was murder.....I guess if you are white and wear a cowboy hat you get a pass on your bad behavior
You really don't like us white folks very much, do you? :cool:
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
"2) Reaction Time- It takes time for the brain to process information and make a decision. The more complex the situation, the longer it takes to make the decision. Here are some statistics:



– On average it takes .25 seconds to react to a threat cue and begin to act.

– If that reaction to a threat cue involves a decision (i.e. “Is the thing in his hand a gun or a cell phone?”) the reaction time time is increased to an average of .56 seconds.

– The average officer takes .35 seconds to process the fact that a threat no longer exists and to stop shooting.

– The average officer fires one bullet every .25 seconds after he begins to fire





Do you see the problem? Let’s say the bad guy is facing the officer and begins shooting. The officer starts shooting back and hits the bad guy. Bad guy drops the gun and spins away as the bullets hit him. It takes the officer .35 seconds to recognize that the bad guy is no longer a threat. He is firing a bullet every .25 seconds. That means the officer will generally fire one to two rounds AFTER making the decision to stop shooting! It’s very easy for those bullets to end up in the criminal’s back."

- See more at: http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/shot-in-the-back-how-does-it-happen#sthash.2Bcxa8XB.dpuf


Not saying this is what happened in this case, but it does happen quite a bit.
If an officer has been shot it changes the story completely.
 

freyasman

Senator
It's a shame that he did so very little time, after a jury of his peers found him guilty of murder. Hopefully he doesn't kill another child now that he's back on the streets.
Yeah, I know why the idea of people getting their asses shot off for violating someone else's private property would bother you. :cool:
 

freyasman

Senator
I get it, you're being evasive.



I get it, an aggressive criminal is a "fleeing child."



Tragically no, but I read about it while I was in the Army, so it predates the Internet.


Are they? The UK Olympic pistol team must travel to France to practice because its weapons are not allowed. Shotguns are still allowed, primarily because the very rich who use them on driven game hunts which are still considered legitimate there have no problem with the expense involved. Most other guns are no longer allowed.
Governments don't fear subjects with shotguns much; too short range, no real threat to LEOs in body armor.
 

freyasman

Senator
Really? You invite people in to do those things?



Not in a nation where moral people make the laws. Fortunately, we remain one of those-- or at least a place where immorality hasn't yet sunk to your depths.
Since you don't seem to mind strange folks entering your place and using your stuff at their whim, I think next time I'm up around your way, I'll go ahead and fvck your wife (with her enthusiastic consent of course ;)) on your dining room table. If you get home before we're done, don't interrupt, okay? :cool:
 

freyasman

Senator
If an officer has been shot it changes the story completely.
Point is, people get shot in the back quite a bit, under completely justifiable circumstances. But there are always going to be clueless folks (or just folks with an agenda) who will scream accusingly "He shot him in the back!!!!!", regardless of the context.
 

Arkady

President
Yeah, I know why the idea of people getting their asses shot off for violating someone else's private property would bother you. :cool:
Yes. It's not hard to understand. As a moral person, the idea of a kid being murdered for a petty crime is upsetting to me.
 

Arkady

President
Since you don't seem to mind strange folks entering your place and using your stuff at their whim
What would make you think that, specifically? I've repeatedly said criminals should be punished commensurate with their crimes.

As for your fantasies of having sex with my wife, dream on. She'd find you utterly repellent.
 

freyasman

Senator
Yes. It's not hard to understand. As a moral person, the idea of a kid being murdered for a petty crime is upsetting to me.
Especially since you feel any crime not committed against you is petty; how dare those commoners feel entitled to protect what is theirs? (sarcasm)
You just don't have any respect for other people's property, values, rights, dignity, or lives, and that character flaw is why you hold the positions that you do. IMO, that makes you pretty despicable and fairly worthless as a person.
 

freyasman

Senator
What would make you think that, specifically? I've repeatedly said criminals should be punished commensurate with their crimes.

As for your fantasies of having sex with my wife, dream on. She'd find you utterly repellent.
Sure, guy; whatever you say. :D

(Relax..... I'm not going all the way to Massachusetts for a piece of ass. Your illusion of adequacy as a man is safe. ;))
 
Got this from a friend.........

Subj: It's ONLY a Shotgun

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear,you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them.

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and
That you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

TheFirearms Act of 1920expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except
Shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.

Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few side arms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.

Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.

The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.


"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."--Samuel Adams

Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done. Hillary has stated she would take away our 2nd Amendment rights.
And there are people in Congress that will go right along with them
Full of mistakes
 
A man with a history of criminal conduct involving firearms, which had resulted in his gun license being revoked, deliberately shot and killed a fleeing child. He then lied to police and said it was self defense. He got his chance to argue his case before a jury of his peers. They decided he was guilty of murder. I wasn't in the court room, so I'm reluctant to substitute my uninformed opinion for an opinion they formed after hearing all the evidence. Also, note, although the jurors thought him guilty of murder, a court later downgraded his offense to manslaughter and just five years of prison, with possibility of release after serving just 2/3 of that. Does that sound right to you for someone who deliberately killed a fleeing child with his illegal firearm?
The child was reported as crying out for his mother at the time the shooter killed him .
The sentence was in fact overturned and downgraded to manslaughter. Yes , the farmer did serve a reduced term .
The uncle who was , and probably is, a career criminal , took his relative , a child , out to burgle was the person most at fault here.
I am not sure what his punishment was , but , at the time, I recall feeling that he was to blame for the death of his nephew and should have received a far heavier sentence proportionate to the farmer . The farmer , in a recent interview revealed that he still keeps illegal weapons in his home .
 
Top