Guest blueangel Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 The law is frigging stupid thou aint it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Self defence is a very grey area. I got a £150 prosecution charge and had to go to anger management for hitting a kid with a cricket stump who was trying to break into my car. I was coming back from the pub so they said because i was drunk it had impared my judgement. I was told i got off lightly too. what a joke! That would p!ss me off no end! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share Posted January 11, 2010 Scrots is the word of the week imo Self defence is a very grey area. I got a £150 prosecution charge and had to go to anger management for hitting a kid with a cricket stump who was trying to break into my car. I was coming back from the pub so they said because i was drunk it had impared my judgement. I was told i got off lightly too. what a joke! Where they actually trying to break into your car? or did you think they were because you were pissed? Attacking kids with a cricket stump is never going to end well is it? Hopefully you weren't planning on driving after a skin full? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Attacking kids with a cricket stump is never going to end well is it? Hows that? Would he get bail? I can go on all night you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronttuk Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Then you can expect a long jail sentence! i will protect my family and whats mine with a vengance no fears no worrys dont care what the law says ill die trying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share Posted January 11, 2010 i will protect my family and whats mine with a vengance no fears no worrys dont care what the law says ill die trying You sound a bit scary now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 they fled with hand betweens their heads! Yeah!....................what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 or the sound was so awful they fled with hand betweens their heads! But that would only protect one ear, uness they were also sharing a gigantic pair of headphones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 But that would only protect one ear, uness they were also sharing a gigantic pair of headphones. Conjoined twins, maybe? Then would one be as bad as the other, or would they both be tarred with the same brush, so to speak? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Yeah!....................what? How dare you comment on this first! A pox on you, sir, and if you ever invade my garden, why, you'll get worse than a knife! You'll get a stream of gibberish! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Conjoined twins, maybe? Then would one be as bad as the other, or would they both be tarred with the same brush, so to speak? I'm not seeing it. If they had a hand between their heads, they can't be joined at the ear, unless the join still left some space to slip a hand in. But then, why would they be running with a hand between their ears, as it wouldn't shield them at all? Unless one of the hands had been caught there, and each twin had a hand left over to shield the other ear: Myleene Klass imprisoned for stabbing three armed Siamese twins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 And now over to London for an update from the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8451877.stm Looks like she's innocent until killing someone. Who'd have known it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Myleene Klass imprisoned for stabbing three armed Siamese twins Hang on. Three Siamese twins? This explanation is going to get messier......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 How dare you comment on this first! A pox on you, sir, and if you ever invade my garden, why, you'll get worse than a knife! You'll get a stream of gibberish! I'd be so shocked I'd run off with my noses between my arse. I know that's neither sensible or funny, it's been a long day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Hang on. Three Siamese twins? This explanation is going to get messier......... So there were six of them in total! Those conjoined twins are a a cowardly lot. No wonder she stabbed herself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 i will protect my family and whats mine with a vengance no fears no worrys dont care what the law says ill die trying Yes, yes very impressive. We're all impressed. I'd probably defend myself and those close to me "with a vengeance" but I doubt I'd enter into a fight to the death if someone tried to steal my DVD player. I also probably wouldn't pull a knife on some kids playing in my garden unless they were directly threatening me in a similar fashion. Maybe even that would imply some degree of pre-meditation on my behalf. I'm sure you'll argue that you don't get any time to decide what the best level of response is, so you should automatically go with the biggest, baddest retaliation you can lay your hands on, so presumably if someone comes onto your property and you feel threatened by them you'll instantly batter them to death because you don't care about the consequences? Don't get me wrong. I think the law truly sucks on this subject. However, I'm absolutely not willing to get myself locked up for making a disproportionate response. The law is a total minefield when it comes to establishing what such a response might be, so on one hand I'd probably end up in clink if I over-responded. On the other hand I'd just as likely wind up dead or injured if I under-responded. However I don't think that gives me the right to wade in with all guns blazing in case I get it wrong, just because I personally believe it to be correct. FWIW I think the law, whatever its faults, is designed to prevent an escalation in violence. You seem to be advocating the opposite. If it suddenly became legal (or perhaps even still illegal, but generally accepted as the norm) to defend your home with any and all means available to you, I'm sure most people would follow suit and get tooled up instantly. When I was a lad even my mum (who makes Ghandi look violent) used to keep a baseball bat under her bed when dad was working nights. This just means that the burglars and rapists will just get more tooled up, and so on, ad infinitum. I doubt socienty would get safer as a result. Anyway, these guys were looking in Myleene's garden shed? Why the hell not her washing line? That's where all the nickable stuff is. Apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konrad Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 @Digsy I think that when US state Alabama (or similiar) did put the law, which allowed you to use any force you feel necessary when met by intruder in your own property, burglaries dropped down by 80%in few months. I think it had something to do with few burglars being dropped dead when trying to get in - others wasn't fancy meeting owner of the house hiding in dark corner with shotgun in his hands. @Edit It was actually Colorado law called Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home. Funny thing is that this doctrine came to US from English Common Law and what we have here today lol... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Well, I did a very quick Google on that piece of legislation and did find a Wiki page that describes it, but (although I admittedly didn't read it all) I couldn't see any reference to it reducing burglaries by "80% in a few months". What I did find was this rather shonky page which is actually a link from the official Colorado crime reports website. This does seem to show a gradual decline in burglaries since 1986 (interestingly the figures for 1986 were higher than 1985 - the year when the "Make My Day Law" was introduced). It would be interesting to see these against a trend for a state which doesn't have a comparible law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JS2004 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Has it been proven the criminals get more tooled up in response to a law allowing the victims to defend themselves though? Its already weighted in the favor of criminals anyways, we can defend with physical force so they go one step further but if we "could" respond with deadly force then i dont know how they go a step further than that? (though I imagine domestic violence would get a bit uglier). It would get to the stage (possibly) where criminals and victims are both on level-pegging as both would probably have some form of hand gun or automatic weapon - unless of course one of them tries to nick a car using a rocket launcher In this country, with its current laws I would imagine prevention of becoming said victim works better than defense - but again theres only so much you can do to your house / property in the name of making it secure.. if they want to be in, theyre gonna get in.. the only deterrant at the moment is a prison sentence and the police have a hard enough time as it is getting sentences passed on criminals, but then once in the prison system its a downwards spiral as not much is done to help rehabilitate them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozz Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I still would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpslaughter1982 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I don't really understand what the fuss us about - she didn't get prosecuted in anyway because she did not commit any offence. you cannot have a "weapon of offence" in your own home. That only relates to public places. The official police line was that not even a warning was given . I'm sure she just wants her face in the papers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I still would. Have a go at miscreants, or make the two-backed beast with Klass? Good post by Digsy, and interesting info about the "Make My Day Law" (I'd never heard of it until now) which I will aim to digest later. The news article raises some good topics for debate (not least the legal rights of posses of Siamese twins to bear arms against singing M&S models), but in case anyone is still taking this particular case too seriously, I'm sure the article was written primarily to elicit a gasp and a feeling of outrage from whoever reads it, rather than to inform the reader. I imagine the truth is far more mundane than the article would have us believe. I reckon the police merely warned her (in an unofficial, word-of-advice way) that she could be charged if she launched an unprovoked attack against the lurkers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Class One Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I'm just disappointed that no one posted a picture of Myleene in her undies or suchlike. As for "self defence", it's how you write it up that counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I'm just disappointed that no one posted a picture of Myleene in her undies or suchlike. As for "self defence", it's how you write it up that counts. If anyone does, then it's instantly an NWS feature and disappears into the void. A bit like the Megan Fox thread the other day. Maybe the void's where these type of threads belong, anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 If anything Ms. Klass should be charged with possesing an offensive face. I'm not a fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.