Anarchists - Environmentalists - "Anti-Capitalists" Parliament Square
Michael Henson
Square today, where ordinary citizens are denied the enjoyment of a
pleasant part of London in the face of the fountainhead of democracy,
which only is deemed worthy of executive protection. The Police are
quite right, that in their capacity of enforcers of ordinary law, these
protestors must be dealt with after the event. That, however, is not the
capacity in which anybody should take an interest in these events. Those
who behave this way, whatever name they do it in, unless that name is
Democracy itself, are an insult to something greater than every man,
woman and child in this country. That is, they commit more than a public
wrong. Their behaviour, peaceful and insidious in form, is treachery
itself. If Parliament does not take direct action to preserve its
dignity in the face of these people, and possibly also the Police, who
are complicit in their histrionics, as it seems to me we are in a failed
democracy, with a failed Parliament. Riot is not the appropriate
approach, where people are in open repudiation of something that only
blood can buy. Ex post facto assessment in the courts is precisely what
these people want, despite the Police complacency that they will be held
open to contempt and ridicule. The battle is lost, unless these people
face pains the more definite and instant, so that democracy rules in the
United Kingdom, and not an uneasy limbo of governmentlessness, simply on
account of the chaotic interaction of vagabonds, Police and media.
The champion of Democracy never loses. We may need one soon if our
Parliament and executive organs behave in a way which does not recognise
Democracy's worth.
MRH
PJS
Michael Henson <mike....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:390D7AC6...@virgin.net...
> How absurd for the situation to have arisen as it has in Parliament
> Square today, where ordinary citizens are denied the enjoyment of a
> pleasant part of London in the face of the fountainhead of democracy,
> which only is deemed worthy of executive protection. The Police are
> quite right, that in their capacity of enforcers of ordinary law, these
> protestors must be dealt with after the event. That, however, is not the
> capacity in which anybody should take an interest in these events. Those
> who behave this way, whatever name they do it in, unless that name is
> Democracy itself, are an insult to something greater than every man,
> woman and child in this country. That is, they commit more than a public
> wrong. Their behaviour, peaceful and insidious in form, is treachery
> itself. If Parliament does not take direct action to preserve its
> dignity in the face of these people, and possibly also the Police, who
> are complicit in their histrionics, as it seems to me we are in a failed
> democracy, with a failed Parliament. Riot is not the appropriate
> approach, where people are in open repudiation of something that only
> blood can buy.
WITCHES! BURRRN THEM!
You wouldn't know what democracy was if it gave you a haircut.
--
Will the last person to be eaten
by the Fnord please turn the light out?
Cliff Morrison
<mike....@virgin.net> wrote:
> If Parliament does not take direct action to preserve its dignity
ritual self-disembowellment by the front benches?
Marcia
Michael Henson wrote in message <390D7AC6...@virgin.net>...
>How absurd for the situation to have arisen as it has in Parliament
>Square today, where ordinary citizens are denied the enjoyment of a
>pleasant part of London in the face of the fountainhead of democracy,
>which only is deemed worthy of executive protection. The Police are
>quite right, that in their capacity of enforcers of ordinary law, these
>protestors must be dealt with after the event. That, however, is not the
>capacity in which anybody should take an interest in these events. Those
>who behave this way, whatever name they do it in, unless that name is
>Democracy itself, are an insult to something greater than every man,
>woman and child in this country. That is, they commit more than a public
>wrong. Their behaviour, peaceful and insidious in form, is treachery
>itself. If Parliament does not take direct action to preserve its
>dignity in the face of these people, and possibly also the Police, who
>are complicit in their histrionics, as it seems to me we are in a failed
>democracy, with a failed Parliament. Riot is not the appropriate
>approach, where people are in open repudiation of something that only
>these people want, despite the Police complacency that they will be held
>open to contempt and ridicule. The battle is lost, unless these people
>face pains the more definite and instant, so that democracy rules in the
>United Kingdom, and not an uneasy limbo of governmentlessness, simply on
>account of the chaotic interaction of vagabonds, Police and media.
>
>The champion of Democracy never loses. We may need one soon if our
>Parliament and executive organs behave in a way which does not recognise
>Democracy's worth.
>
>MRH
Talking about democracy and freedom of speech, did anyone see the news
reports, hilarious, they didn't even mention what happened in Kennington,
which was outrageous
Peter Harrison
people desecrating the Cenotaph (commemorating REAL antifascists) &
Churchill statue. As for opposing capitalism how would they survive without
the giros, music, drugs - all products thereof. I'm a socialist but these
people are just enjoying themselves - fine but don't pretend it's for the
pensioners as one interviewee on the news said.
PS Free Tony Martin
Michael Henson wrote in message <390D7AC6...@virgin.net>...
>How absurd for the situation to have .....
Richard Bristow
>So which Magistrate read the Riot Act, which turned this violent protest
>about the unacceptable face of capitalism into a "Riot"?
IIRC the last time that a magistrate read the Riot Act was in Liverpool in the
19th Century. The mob then went round to his house and burned it down.
MrNatural
"Peter Harrison" <laba...@freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>I couldn't agree more - rarely I agree with Blair but it is amazing to see
>people desecrating the Cenotaph (commemorating REAL antifascists) &
>Churchill statue. As for opposing capitalism how would they survive without
>the giros, music, drugs - all products thereof. I'm a socialist but these
>people are just enjoying themselves - fine but don't pretend it's for the
>pensioners as one interviewee on the news said.
Blair is a fine one to talk about "Their actions have got nothing to do
with convictions or beliefs and everything to do with mindless thuggery."
What a hypocrite!
Who was it gave a glowing endorsment of Nato's killing of 500 innocent
civilians in Kosovo/Yuoglavia on supposedly humanitarian grounds? Blair and
his equally warmongering sidekick, Ranting Robertson no less.
Compared with the mindless thuggery of governments and global capitalism,
so-called 'Mayday mayhem' is vanishingly insignificant.
--
MrNatural puts together:
Smiley's UK Radical Campaign Jump Page
with over 160 intriguing entries at
www.zing.cwc.net
Lord Limbic
down Clapham Common South side during the day....
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
M Holmes
: Talking about democracy and freedom of speech, did anyone see the news
: reports, hilarious, they didn't even mention what happened in Kennington,
: which was outrageous
What happened in Kennington that was outrageous?
FoFP
--
With the Dunblane gun ban and the verdict opposing self-defence against
home invaders, we at last have a country where thieves, robbers, rapists
and other criminals can go about their business in peace.
Phil Bradshaw
where.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
>In article <8el57q$oft$1...@gxsn.com>,
>"Peter Harrison" <laba...@freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I couldn't agree more - rarely I agree with Blair but it is amazing to see
>>people desecrating the Cenotaph (commemorating REAL antifascists) &
>>Churchill statue. As for opposing capitalism how would they survive without
>>the giros, music, drugs - all products thereof. I'm a socialist but these
>>people are just enjoying themselves - fine but don't pretend it's for the
>>pensioners as one interviewee on the news said.
>
>Blair is a fine one to talk about "Their actions have got nothing to do
>with convictions or beliefs and everything to do with mindless thuggery."
>What a hypocrite!
>
>Who was it gave a glowing endorsment of Nato's killing of 500 innocent
>civilians in Kosovo/Yuoglavia on supposedly humanitarian grounds? Blair and
>his equally warmongering sidekick, Ranting Robertson no less.
>
>Compared with the mindless thuggery of governments and global capitalism,
>so-called 'Mayday mayhem' is vanishingly insignificant.
>
>
--
Phil Bradshaw
mma...@my-deja.com
Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Still unjustifiable.
You're forgetting: Doug's mental development stopped when he was hit by
that car as a kid, so he's still living at the playground level where if
you do something bad it's OK provided you can claim that your accuser
has done something worse...
Mark
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Henson
1998 regarding these protests. If any of you are writing to me - it is
not getting through. The law of France is illuminating with regard to
expressions, for in that law a case of 11 June 1981 (Cass. Crim.) "It is
only in the domain of political polemic bearing on opinions and doctrine
related to the role and functioning of the State's basic institutions
that the good faith exception, particular to defamation, is not
necessarily subordinated to prudence in the expression of thought." In
the law of France, there is a presumption of bad faith in defamation,
and good faith must be shown as a defence. It is clear from this case
that in the instance of any specific expression of thought, prudence is
enough for there to be automatic good faith, unless there is a general
malice, which is fatal to prudence. So given that these considerations
will now presumably come to affect our press and the rights of
individuals to make themselves heard on political issues, especially
where their condition is one of sufficient abasement and grievance that
malice would be necessary for them not to act in good faith, who
possesses the principal interest in making it appear that these people
are all malicious in general with regard to their expressions. It is
certainly not they themselves.
It is therefore important in the interests of democracy that these
subversive and treacherous acts involving damage to property, injury to
persons, and the disruption of the fabric of the area marking our
democracy, is not considered expressive in any sense, for it is only
while doing these acts, as it seems to me, that a malice can be imputed,
and then, not as regards expressions in general, which do not accompany
them specifically at the time. We must not silence them, despite the
specific subversion they have shown. The more those who threaten
democracy will express their opinion, the more likely it is that action
will be taken by those defending democracy without the use of law which
is inadequate and indeed soiled dirty by even the punishment of these
seditioners.
If they wish to rejoin our nation, they must pay the penalty, and it is
now our fault for having tolerated them as they did their acts, but I
for one feel no measure of responsibility for what was done by them, and
indeed, had I been sitting in Jack Straw's position, I would have had no
qualms about incapacitating them as they acted. Emigration is not the
only form of leaving a State which is recognised by law, and these
people were not a genuine threat to Statehood, but where a person does
violence to the very concept of our Government, he is seditious, and if
caught in process may be taken as dead except as regard his fellows. The
application of law to a man seditious is a disgrace unless he is mad in
which case it is a charity; but if it is done, I will not myself secede
merely on its account. Repetition by these people (or if any are
repeaters however) would be subversion of law and liberty as well as
Government, and death the appropriate consequence.
MRH
Michael Henson wrote:
>
> How absurd for the situation to have arisen as it has in Parliament
> Square today, where ordinary citizens are denied the enjoyment of a
> pleasant part of London in the face of the fountainhead of democracy,
> which only is deemed worthy of executive protection. The Police are
> quite right, that in their capacity of enforcers of ordinary law, these
> protestors must be dealt with after the event. That, however, is not the
> capacity in which anybody should take an interest in these events. Those
> who behave this way, whatever name they do it in, unless that name is
> Democracy itself, are an insult to something greater than every man,
> woman and child in this country. That is, they commit more than a public
> wrong. Their behaviour, peaceful and insidious in form, is treachery
> itself. If Parliament does not take direct action to preserve its
> dignity in the face of these people, and possibly also the Police, who
> are complicit in their histrionics, as it seems to me we are in a failed
> democracy, with a failed Parliament. Riot is not the appropriate
> approach, where people are in open repudiation of something that only
> blood can buy. Ex post facto assessment in the courts is precisely what
> these people want, despite the Police complacency that they will be held
> open to contempt and ridicule. The battle is lost, unless these people
> face pains the more definite and instant, so that democracy rules in the
> United Kingdom, and not an uneasy limbo of governmentlessness, simply on
> account of the chaotic interaction of vagabonds, Police and media.
>
> The champion of Democracy never loses. We may need one soon if our
Marc Living
>In uk.politics.misc Marcia <mlab...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>: Talking about democracy and freedom of speech, did anyone see the news
>: reports, hilarious, they didn't even mention what happened in Kennington,
>: which was outrageous
>What happened in Kennington that was outrageous?
A cricket match broke out?
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
***********************************************
Nor shall we proceed against a freeman, nor
condemn him but by lawful judgment of his peers
or by the law of the land.
************************************************
Phil Bradshaw
>In article <KgmBwFAz...@brads-old.demon.co.uk>,
> Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Still unjustifiable.
>
>You're forgetting: Doug's mental development stopped when he was hit by
>that car as a kid, so he's still living at the playground level where if
>you do something bad it's OK provided you can claim that your accuser
>has done something worse...
>
> Mark
Indeed.
--
Phil Bradshaw
PJS
M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8emj53$b5$2...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> With the Dunblane gun ban and the verdict opposing self-defence against
> home invaders, we at last have a country where thieves, robbers, rapists
> and other criminals can go about their business in peace.
-----------
Oh yes, let's have more guns and the right to shoot those frightful little
oiks. It is f***ing well NOT self defence when you shoot someone in the back
after they've already turned to run away!
PJS
MrNatural <nos...@nowhere.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
news:B5346FDF...@asn16-79.mcmail.com...
> In article <8el57q$oft$1...@gxsn.com>,
> "Peter Harrison" <laba...@freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I couldn't agree more - rarely I agree with Blair but it is amazing to
see
> >people desecrating the Cenotaph (commemorating REAL antifascists) &
> >Churchill statue. As for opposing capitalism how would they survive
without
> >the giros, music, drugs - all products thereof. I'm a socialist but these
> >people are just enjoying themselves - fine but don't pretend it's for the
> >pensioners as one interviewee on the news said.
>
> Blair is a fine one to talk about "Their actions have got nothing to do
> with convictions or beliefs and everything to do with mindless thuggery."
> What a hypocrite!
>
> Who was it gave a glowing endorsment of Nato's killing of 500 innocent
> civilians in Kosovo/Yuoglavia on supposedly humanitarian grounds? Blair
and
> his equally warmongering sidekick, Ranting Robertson no less.
>
> Compared with the mindless thuggery of governments and global capitalism,
> so-called 'Mayday mayhem' is vanishingly insignificant.
It looks as if the last Chetnik still hasn't realised the war is over and
that the Panslav Imperium lost.
PJS
Larry@home <la...@fsn.com> wrote in message
news:390e...@news.server.worldonline.co.uk...
> >Square today
>
>
> about the unacceptable face of capitalism into a "Riot"?
Debacle'
> which is ongoing in Serbia.
> Murdering babies and TV presenters with the inappropriate usage of emotive
> words, does not,I submit, make a good prime minister.
-------
The stewards' enquiry result:
Civilisation 1 Chetniks 0
PJS
> If they wish to rejoin our nation, they must pay the penalty, and it is
> now our fault for having tolerated them as they did their acts, but I
> for one feel no measure of responsibility for what was done by them, and
> indeed, had I been sitting in Jack Straw's position, I would have had no
> qualms about incapacitating them as they acted. Emigration is not the
> only form of leaving a State which is recognised by law, and these
> people were not a genuine threat to Statehood, but where a person does
> violence to the very concept of our Government, he is seditious, and if
> caught in process may be taken as dead except as regard his fellows. The
> application of law to a man seditious is a disgrace unless he is mad in
> which case it is a charity; but if it is done, I will not myself secede
> merely on its account. Repetition by these people (or if any are
> repeaters however) would be subversion of law and liberty as well as
> Government, and death the appropriate consequence.
Have you been translated from the German?
Cliff Morrison
<P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The stewards' enquiry result:
> Civilisation 1 Chetniks 0
The stewards of course being GA racist Mafia cronys.
Marc Living
wrote:
>It is f***ing well NOT self defence when you shoot someone in the back
>after they've already turned to run away!
Whoever said it was?
At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape of
a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
have been so many).
'Droid
>
> On Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:02 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >It is f***ing well NOT self defence when you shoot someone in the back
> >after they've already turned to run away!
>
> Whoever said it was?
>
> At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape of
> a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
> have been so many).
Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
'Droid
Paul Burridge
opined thusly:
>Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
Depends which jurisdiciton you're talking about. Seen what goes on in
China?
--
Noverint universi per presentes et futuri...
abelard
>In article <KgmBwFAz...@brads-old.demon.co.uk>,
> Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Still unjustifiable.
>
>You're forgetting: Doug's mental development stopped when he was hit by
>that car as a kid, so he's still living at the playground level where if
>you do something bad it's OK provided you can claim that your accuser
>has done something worse...
i blame it in christianism....
Matthew: chapter 7, verse 3
regards.
web site at www.abelard.org - new, story doc. on logic of ethics.
..also education, logic and more....over 300 doc. requests daily
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Living
>Marc Living wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:02 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >It is f***ing well NOT self defence when you shoot someone in the back
>> >after they've already turned to run away!
>> Whoever said it was?
>> At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape of
>> a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
>> have been so many).
>Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
I should be interested in some authority for that novel proposition of
law.
I doubt you'll find any though. The law on preventing escapes is
exactly the same as for self-defence - namely that reasonable force
may be used. The term reasonable force has never excluded lethal
force.
What is reasonable force, in any particular circumstances, depends
solely on the jury.
tiny
news:390F547B...@netcomuk.co.uk...
> Marc Living wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:02 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > >It is f***ing well NOT self defence when you shoot someone in the back
> > >after they've already turned to run away!
> >
> > Whoever said it was?
> >
> > At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape of
> > a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
> > have been so many).
>
> Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
That really is a silly statement.
Force resulting in death may make it harder to establish the force was
reasonable. It does not automatically preclude the use of such force.
Marcia
MrNatural wrote in message ...
>In article <8el57q$oft$1...@gxsn.com>,
>"Peter Harrison" <laba...@freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I couldn't agree more - rarely I agree with Blair but it is amazing to see
>>people desecrating the Cenotaph (commemorating REAL antifascists) &
>>Churchill statue. As for opposing capitalism how would they survive
without
>>the giros, music, drugs - all products thereof. I'm a socialist but these
>>people are just enjoying themselves - fine but don't pretend it's for the
>>pensioners as one interviewee on the news said.
>
>Blair is a fine one to talk about "Their actions have got nothing to do
>with convictions or beliefs and everything to do with mindless thuggery."
>What a hypocrite!
>
>Who was it gave a glowing endorsment of Nato's killing of 500 innocent
>civilians in Kosovo/Yuoglavia on supposedly humanitarian grounds? Blair and
>his equally warmongering sidekick, Ranting Robertson no less.
>
>Compared with the mindless thuggery of governments and global capitalism,
>so-called 'Mayday mayhem' is vanishingly insignificant.
>
Marcia
Lord Limbic wrote in message
<054589ad...@usw-ex0105-037.remarq.com>...
street got blocked in by the heavy brigade on both ends, horses, full riot
gear etc, they wouldn't let anyone at all leave, until I told them I was
pregnant, they took about 5 minutes to decide to let me out, never been more
scared in my life- god knows what happened after I got out, I dread to
think, as there were no cameras about!
Marcia
Marc Living wrote in message <2wQPOYZW0M15bO...@4ax.com>...
>On 2 May 2000 12:53:55 GMT, M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>In uk.politics.misc Marcia <mlab...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>: Talking about democracy and freedom of speech, did anyone see the news
>>: reports, hilarious, they didn't even mention what happened in
Kennington,
>>: which was outrageous
>
>>What happened in Kennington that was outrageous?
>
>A cricket match broke out?
>
>
MrNatural
>In article <B5346FDF...@asn16-79.mcmail.com>, MrNatural <nospam@no
>where.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
>>In article <8el57q$oft$1...@gxsn.com>,
>>"Peter Harrison" <laba...@freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I couldn't agree more - rarely I agree with Blair but it is amazing to see
>>>people desecrating the Cenotaph (commemorating REAL antifascists) &
>>>Churchill statue. As for opposing capitalism how would they survive without
>>>the giros, music, drugs - all products thereof. I'm a socialist but these
>>>people are just enjoying themselves - fine but don't pretend it's for the
>>>pensioners as one interviewee on the news said.
>>
>>Blair is a fine one to talk about "Their actions have got nothing to do
>>with convictions or beliefs and everything to do with mindless thuggery."
>>What a hypocrite!
>>
>>Who was it gave a glowing endorsment of Nato's killing of 500 innocent
>>civilians in Kosovo/Yuoglavia on supposedly humanitarian grounds? Blair and
>>his equally warmongering sidekick, Ranting Robertson no less.
>>
>>Compared with the mindless thuggery of governments and global capitalism,
>>so-called 'Mayday mayhem' is vanishingly insignificant.
>>
>>
>Still unjustifiable.
Justify. What about 'reasonable force'?
Stephen Cooper
My understanding has always being, that in the case of self defense,
the use of probably lethal force. is only regarded as reasonable. if
your own life was in danger, or could be genuinely thought to be so.
I cannot see how the same argument can be seriously used, to prevent
someone's escape, the very act negates both these possibilities.
I agree that the presence of a dead burglar is not proof that a house
occupier used unreasonable force. But using of a shot-gun to fire at
an escaping burglar can only be seen as using unreasonable force. The
use of a shot-gun, even takes away from any claim to have been aiming
to maim, a defence an expert marksman using a pistol, would be unable
to make readily given the dark conditions. Firing a shot-gun round at
a fleeing burgler has a reasonable potential to be lethal, given that
there was no way his life could be reasonably thought to be in danger
the use is unreasonable
-- Steve Cooper
Phil Bradshaw
<nos...@nowhere.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
>In article <KgmBwFAz...@brads-old.demon.co.uk>,
>Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Compared with the mindless thuggery of governments and global capitalism,
>>>so-called 'Mayday mayhem' is vanishingly insignificant.
>>>
>>>
>>Still unjustifiable.
>
>Justify.
For you to do.
> What about 'reasonable force'?
What about it?
Where is the set of circumstances in the Parliament Square mess in which
this was lawful?
--
Phil Bradshaw
Phil Bradshaw
<abe...@abelard.org> writes
>> Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>You're forgetting: Doug's mental development stopped when he was hit by
>>that car as a kid, so he's still living at the playground level where if
>>you do something bad it's OK provided you can claim that your accuser
>>has done something worse...
>
>i blame it in christianism....
>Matthew: chapter 7, verse 3
>
--
Phil Bradshaw
mma...@my-deja.com
Stephen Cooper <s...@jet.uk> wrote:
> I cannot see how the same argument can be seriously used, to prevent
> someone's escape, the very act negates both these possibilities.
Ok, you're walking down the street with your kids in a pushchair. Some
thug runs up, grabs the pushchair and rushes off with your kids. Luckily
you're carrying your Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle slung over one
shoulder, so you can safely shoot the thug in the back and kill him with
one shot. You wouldn't consider killing the thug a reasonable action,
rather than let them escape with your kids and do whatever they're going
to do to them?
Now I realise that this is a rather extreme example, but it certainly
seems to me that there are plenty of real-life situations where shooting
someone dead as they tried to flee could be justified because of the
threat they still pose to others, even if they no longer pose such a
threat to you.
Mike Warren
Marc Living wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:02 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >It is f***ing well NOT self defence when you shoot someone in the back
> >after they've already turned to run away!
>
> Whoever said it was?
>
> At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape of
> a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
> have been so many).
>
> --
what shooting someone in the back is 'reasonable force'?.
bollocks.
Mike Warren.
abelard
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> typed:
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 23:19:39 +0100, 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Marc Living wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:02 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> >It is f***ing well NOT self defence when you shoot someone in the back
>>> >after they've already turned to run away!
they are unlikely to come back....
>>> Whoever said it was?
>
>>> At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape of
>>> a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
>>> have been so many).
>
>>Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
>
>I should be interested in some authority for that novel proposition of
>law.
>
>I doubt you'll find any though. The law on preventing escapes is
>exactly the same as for self-defence - namely that reasonable force
>may be used. The term reasonable force has never excluded lethal
>force.
>
>What is reasonable force, in any particular circumstances, depends
>solely on the jury.
so far...
abelard
<ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> typed:
shurely 12....:-)
yes, more extremely poor psychologic....
if you happen to prefer orangeade....
my ethics document might interest you....
http://www.abelard.org/ethics.htm
where both are quoted...
Widely known as the Golden Rule, it this appears in Matthew (7:12)
This rule of conduct is regarded as a summary of the Christian's duty
to his neighbour and states a fundamental ethical principle. In its
negative form, Do not do to others what you would not like done to
yourselves, it occurs in the 2nd-century documents Didache and the
Apology of Aristides and may well have formed part of an early
catechism. It is not peculiar to Christianity. Its negative form is to
be found in Tobias. 4:15, in the writings of the two great Jewish
scholars Hillel (1st century BC) and Philo of Alexandria (1st
centuries BC and AD), and in the Analects of Confucius (6th and 5th
centuries BC). It also appears in one form or another in the writings
of Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, and Seneca.
tiny
news:390FDC82...@jet.uk...
> tiny wrote:
> > "'Droid" <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:390F547B...@netcomuk.co.uk...
> > > > On Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:02 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > >It is f***ing well NOT self defence when you shoot someone in the
back
> > > > >after they've already turned to run away!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape
of
> > > > a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ...
there
> > > > have been so many).
> > >
> > > Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
> >
> > Force resulting in death may make it harder to establish the force was
> > reasonable. It does not automatically preclude the use of such force.
>
> My understanding has always being, that in the case of self defense,
> the use of probably lethal force. is only regarded as reasonable. if
> your own life was in danger, or could be genuinely thought to be so.
> someone's escape, the very act negates both these possibilities.
>
> occupier used unreasonable force. But using of a shot-gun to fire at
> an escaping burglar can only be seen as using unreasonable force. The
> use of a shot-gun, even takes away from any claim to have been aiming
> to maim, a defence an expert marksman using a pistol, would be unable
> to make readily given the dark conditions. Firing a shot-gun round at
> a fleeing burgler has a reasonable potential to be lethal, given that
> there was no way his life could be reasonably thought to be in danger
> the use is unreasonable
If you ignore the specific case, the general statement I made stands for
the generality. Accidental death from the execution of reasonable force,
is not illegal.
Obviously, you can use lethal force in self-defence, but even then,
intentionally seeking death, I believe, precludes whatever level of
force being used, from being legally termed reasonable.
tiny
news:8ep36t$md3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I cannot see how the same argument can be seriously used, to prevent
> > someone's escape, the very act negates both these possibilities.
>
> Ok, you're walking down the street with your kids in a pushchair. Some
> thug runs up, grabs the pushchair and rushes off with your kids. Luckily
> you're carrying your Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle slung over one
> shoulder, so you can safely shoot the thug in the back and kill him with
> one shot. You wouldn't consider killing the thug a reasonable action,
> rather than let them escape with your kids and do whatever they're going
> to do to them?
>
> Now I realise that this is a rather extreme example, but it certainly
> seems to me that there are plenty of real-life situations where shooting
> someone dead as they tried to flee could be justified because of the
> threat they still pose to others, even if they no longer pose such a
> threat to you.
Spurious example, you are the defence of another,
it is not as if it were your handbag was being snatched.
Marc Living
>> At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape of
>> a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
>> have been so many).
>what shooting someone in the back is 'reasonable force'?.
Reasonable force is what a jury says it is.
--
Marc Living
>> > Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
>> That really is a silly statement.
>> Force resulting in death may make it harder to establish the force was
>> reasonable. It does not automatically preclude the use of such force.
>My understanding has always being, that in the case of self defense,
>the use of probably lethal force. is only regarded as reasonable. if
>your own life was in danger, or could be genuinely thought to be so.
>I cannot see how the same argument can be seriously used, to prevent
>someone's escape, the very act negates both these possibilities.
Your understanding is incorrect. In circumstances where reasonable
force is allowed there are no limits (in law) to what is capable of
constituting reasonable force: it is solely a matter for the jury to
decide whether the force used in a particular case was reasonable in
the circumstances of that case.
Whilst a jury is likely to consider killing a fleeing shoplifter to be
unreasonable, it may well take a different view about shooting at, and
killing, a group of terrorists who are trying to escape with some
weapons grade plutonium.
It all depends on the circumstances.
Lord Limbic
According to the new Human Rights Act (1998), it may:
ARTICLE 2
RIGHT TO LIFE
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No
one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the
execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a
crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted
in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of
force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the
escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a
riot or insurrection.
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm#sch1ptI
Regards
Lord Limbic
pencil
you said : I told them I was
pregnant, they took about 5 minutes to decide to let me out
I ask : no internal involved I hope!
tiny
wrote in message news:39172708...@news.cwcom.net...
> On Wed, 03 May 2000 12:45:15 +0100, Mike Warren <m...@here.com> wrote:
> >> At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape of
> >> a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
> >> have been so many).
>
> >what shooting someone in the back is 'reasonable force'?.
>
> Reasonable force is what a jury says it is.
Which is true for all major decisions of guilt or innocence,
so the comment is irrelevant. (I know I ignore Magistrates.)
Marc Living
wrote:
>>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>It was really scary, we were walking to Kennington Park, and down a side
>street got blocked in by the heavy brigade on both ends, horses, full riot
>gear etc, they wouldn't let anyone at all leave, until I told them I was
>pregnant, they took about 5 minutes to decide to let me out, never been more
>scared in my life- god knows what happened after I got out, I dread to
>think, as there were no cameras about!
You mean that they were involved in riot control and you asked them
politely if you could leave and they said "yes". Whereupon you left
and your imagination came up with all sorts of scary scenarios about
what a lucky "escape" you had?
Marc Living
<limbic11...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Dear Droid,
>According to the new Human Rights Act (1998), it may:
>ARTICLE 2
>RIGHT TO LIFE
> 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No
>one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the
>execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a
>crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
> 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted
>in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of
>force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
> (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
> (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the
> escape of a person lawfully detained;
> (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a
> riot or insurrection.
>http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm#sch1ptI
So far as I'm aware, this Article has only ever been applied as
against States - rather than as between private individuals. However,
once the Act comes into force, the Courts, being "public institutions"
will be required to act in a way "compatible with" the Convention.
It is unclear therefore whether this will apply to the current
"private defences" at common law and/or the "arrest" provisions of the
CJA.
If it does, then the test "absolutely necessary" certainly appears to
be more stringent than the current "reasonable force in the
circumstances". OTOH if it only applies to the use of force by the
State, then it would mean that private citizens would have a wider
right to use force than would the police force.
(Then, of course, would come the question of whether a restriction of
the right to defend your property would fall foul of Article 1
Protocol 1 - which entitles people to the peaceful enjoyment of their
possessions.)
'Droid
>
> >> On Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:02 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >It is f***ing well NOT self defence when you shoot someone in the back
> >> >after they've already turned to run away!
>
> >> Whoever said it was?
>
> >> a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
> >> have been so many).
>
>
> law.
>
> I doubt you'll find any though. The law on preventing escapes is
> exactly the same as for self-defence - namely that reasonable force
> may be used. The term reasonable force has never excluded lethal
> force.
>
> What is reasonable force, in any particular circumstances, depends
> solely on the jury.
No legal authority, just my opinion, in the case of burglary.
'Droid
'Droid
> > > On Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:02 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >It is f***ing well NOT self defence when you shoot someone in the back
> > > >after they've already turned to run away!
> > >
> > > Whoever said it was?
> > >
> > > At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape of
> > > a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
> > > have been so many).
> >
> > Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
>
> Force resulting in death may make it harder to establish the force was
> reasonable. It does not automatically preclude the use of such force.
In my opinion it does in the case of burglary, which is the case that is being
addressed.
'Droid
'Droid
> > someone's escape, the very act negates both these possibilities.
>
> thug runs up, grabs the pushchair and rushes off with your kids. Luckily
> you're carrying your Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle slung over one
> shoulder, so you can safely shoot the thug in the back and kill him with
> one shot. You wouldn't consider killing the thug a reasonable action,
> rather than let them escape with your kids and do whatever they're going
> to do to them?
>
> Now I realise that this is a rather extreme example, but it certainly
> seems to me that there are plenty of real-life situations where shooting
> someone dead as they tried to flee could be justified because of the
> threat they still pose to others, even if they no longer pose such a
> threat to you.
It is a totally different example. Life is at risk. That is a different
situation from the case being discussed of a burglar fleeing the crime scene.
'Droid
Åndrew R
> Dear Droid,
>
> According to the new Human Rights Act (1998), it may:
>
> ARTICLE 2
> RIGHT TO LIFE
> 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No
> one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the
> execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a
> crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
>
> 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted
> in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of
> force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
>
> (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
> (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the
> escape of a person lawfully detained;
> (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a
> riot or insurrection.
>
> http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm#sch1ptI
>
> Regards
>
> Lord Limbic
If 2(b) above includes citizen's arrest, then it does not disallow the use of
deadly force to prevent a criminal you have interrupted from escaping.
Andrew
--
"Life is like a sewer. What you get out depends on what you put in." - Tom
Lehrer
http://qbandvb.cjb.net Andrew's QBASIC and Visual BASIC page.
http://qbandvb.cjb.net/ace/ ACE - The Active Clipboard Editor for Windows.
ICQ 53186881
Åndrew R
> I couldn't agree more - rarely I agree with Blair but it is amazing to see
> people desecrating the Cenotaph (commemorating REAL antifascists) &
> Churchill statue. As for opposing capitalism how would they survive without
> the giros, music, drugs - all products thereof. I'm a socialist but these
> people are just enjoying themselves - fine but don't pretend it's for the
> pensioners as one interviewee on the news said.
>
> PS Free Tony Martin
> Michael Henson wrote in message <390D7AC6...@virgin.net>...
> >How absurd for the situation to have .....
> >Parliament and executive organs behave in a way which does not recognise
> >Democracy's worth.
> >
> >MRH
I totally agree with you about what was done to the Cenotaph (sp?) as it is,
after all, a memorial to ALL those who made sacrifices during the war, many of
them working class, who those supposed "anti-capitalists" (as opposed to those
who "re-distributed the burgers" - I don't feel the least bit of sympathy for
McDonalds) claim to want to help.
On another point, if the police, in riot gear, block all the entrances to
Trafalgar Square except the one that the protesters are entering through, and
then block that one as well, what the fuck do they expect to happen?
PJS
> On Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:02 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >It is f***ing well NOT self defence when you shoot someone in the back
> >after they've already turned to run away!
>
> Whoever said it was?
Ooh, nobody. Nobody at all. Not one person has said that, ever.
--
Will the last person to be eaten
by the Fnord please turn the light out?
PJS
Paul Burridge <Pa...@spoiler.osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:390f5c81...@news.freeserve.co.uk...> opined thusly:
>
> >Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
>
> China?
---------
But, much to the annoyance of Mr Living, "Sophia" and the other
stormtroopers, we don't live in a country which is run like China.
PJS
>
> >Marc Living wrote:
>
> >> At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape of
> >> a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
> >> have been so many).
>
>
> law.
>
> I doubt you'll find any though. The law on preventing escapes is
> exactly the same as for self-defence - namely that reasonable force
> may be used. The term reasonable force has never excluded lethal
> force.
There is no such thing; s. 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967:
"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 large" [my
emphasis]
You can't really be assisting in the arrest of someone if you kill them.
------
> What is reasonable force, in any particular circumstances, depends
> solely on the jury.
Not entirely. Significant here are the cases of Palmer v R [1971] and R v
Howe (1958) The Howe case was an Australian one in which the circumstances
were very similar to our case; a poultry farmer employed a caretaker knowing
that his farm was being raided fairly frequently; when a thief came the
caretaker shot him in the leg, then when he continued running shot him three
times more, killing him. He was convicted of manslaughter, but in Palmer the
Privy Council (acting as an appelate court for Jamaica in this instance)
disapproved the decision: "...if the prosecution have shown that what was
done was not done in self-defence then that issue is eliminated from the
case" Really the ratio of this decision is rule out a manslaughter verdict
from such cases, but both it and R v McInnes [1971] lay down the principle
that if you use excessive force, the defence of either self-defence or
prevention of crime fails entirely and you're a murderer.
Quite right too.
Interesting isn't it, that in Tory eyes the vigilante killing of a petty
crook with an illegally held firearm by a Norfolk farmer is a "borderline
case" whereas the same thing done by the IRA is "sickening" and "an
atrocity" . . .?
PJS
>
> >> Force resulting in death may make it harder to establish the force was
> >> reasonable. It does not automatically preclude the use of such force.
>
> >the use of probably lethal force. is only regarded as reasonable. if
> >your own life was in danger, or could be genuinely thought to be so.
> >someone's escape, the very act negates both these possibilities.
>
> force is allowed there are no limits (in law) to what is capable of
> constituting reasonable force: it is solely a matter for the jury to
> decide whether the force used in a particular case was reasonable in
> the circumstances of that case.
In certain cases the force used may be so clearly unreasonable that a judge
may direct a jury that self-defence fails (see the cases above) which seems
to be what happened here.
--------
> Whilst a jury is likely to consider killing a fleeing shoplifter to be
> unreasonable, it may well take a different view about shooting at, and
> killing, a group of terrorists who are trying to escape with some
> weapons grade plutonium.
You can certainly shoot someone if you think they're a forward observer
setting up an attack the case is Re: the Attorney General for Northern
Ireland's Reference. But that's not really applicable here.
sophiahagia
PJS wrote:
> Paul Burridge <Pa...@spoiler.osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:390f5c81...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
> > On Tue, 02 May 2000 23:19:39 +0100, 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk>
> > opined thusly:
> >
> > >Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
> >
> > Depends which jurisdiciton you're talking about. Seen what goes on in
> > China?
> ---------
> But, much to the annoyance of Mr Living, "Sophia" and the other
> stormtroopers, we don't live in a country which is run like China.
>
> --
> Will the last person to be eaten
> by the Fnord please turn the light out?
You are so right, I support China. It has an evolving and forward looking
Government. The 'Little Red Book 1966-1976' and 'Tiananmen Square 1989' are
ancient history. Compare this to Britain's bombing of Serbia 1999. Is
killing, by dropping bombs from high, not a crime, but defending yourself
is? It is Blair who should be in prison, not Tony Martin.
Anyway it was a shot in the dark. Some Fnord had turned the light out!
Sophia
Larry@home
Mike Warren wrote in message <3910114B...@here.com>...
>
>
>Marc Living wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:02 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It is f***ing well NOT self defence when you shoot someone in the back
>> >after they've already turned to run away!
>>
>> Whoever said it was?
>>
>> a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
>> have been so many).
>>
>
>what shooting someone in the back is 'reasonable force'?.
>
>Mike Warren.wrote>bollocks.
Mike you'll have some when you're a man, come back then and I'll tell you
how to use them.
>
>
Marc Living
wrote:
>Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote in message
>news:cWEPOfMv0IUfS9Wi=DKBj2...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 02 May 2000 23:19:39 +0100, 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >Marc Living wrote:
>> >> At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape of
>> >> a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
>> >> have been so many).
>> >Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
>> I should be interested in some authority for that novel proposition of
>> law.
>> I doubt you'll find any though. The law on preventing escapes is
>> exactly the same as for self-defence - namely that reasonable force
>> may be used. The term reasonable force has never excluded lethal
>> force.
>There is no such thing
As what?
>; s. 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967:
>"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 large" [my
>emphasis]
>You can't really be assisting in the arrest of someone if you kill them.
But you can certainly be preventing a crime.
>> What is reasonable force, in any particular circumstances, depends
>> solely on the jury.
>Not entirely. Significant here are the cases of Palmer v R [1971] and R v
>Howe (1958) The Howe case was an Australian one in which the circumstances
>were very similar to our case; a poultry farmer employed a caretaker knowing
>that his farm was being raided fairly frequently; when a thief came the
>caretaker shot him in the leg, then when he continued running shot him three
>times more, killing him. He was convicted of manslaughter, but in Palmer the
>Privy Council (acting as an appelate court for Jamaica in this instance)
>disapproved the decision: "...if the prosecution have shown that what was
>done was not done in self-defence then that issue is eliminated from the
>case"
You will find that the Howe case was subsequently disapproved in
Australia also - in the case of Zecevic v DPP (Victoria) (1987) 162
CLR 645.
As for Palmer, that actually made the law *more* favourable for the
person seeking to defend himself. Prior to Palmer, a strictly
objective test was applied both as to the degree of force used and the
circumstances in which it was used.
In Palmer, it was held that the jury should consider the
reasonableness of the force used in the circumstances as_they_appeared
_to_ the_defendant - thereby changing to a subjective test for the
circumstances, whilst retaining the objective test wrt the force used.
This subjective test has been subsequently applied in Williams [1987]
3 All ER 411 and Beckworth v The Queen [1988] AC 130.
>Really the ratio of this decision is rule out a manslaughter verdict
>from such cases, but both it and R v McInnes [1971] lay down the principle
>that if you use excessive force, the defence of either self-defence or
>prevention of crime fails entirely and you're a murderer.
Indeed. But neither of those cases attempted any definition of what
constitutes "excessive force" - which remains solely a question for
the jury.
One the defence of property, the leading case is Hussey (1924) 18 Cr
App R 160, which held that:-
"In defence of a man's house, the owner or his family may kill a
trespasser who would forcibly dispossess him of it."
Whilst it is generally thought that this case would be of debatable
authority nowadays - for obvious reasons - another part of the ratio
in that case, namely ...
"... in defending his home he need not retreat ... for that would be
giving up his house to his adversary."
... remains good law: and there is now no duty to retreat in any
category of private defence: see Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816.
It remains to be seen what, if any, effect the Human Rights Act will
have on this part of the law.
>Quite right too.
>Interesting isn't it, that in Tory eyes the vigilante killing of a petty
>crook with an illegally held firearm by a Norfolk farmer is a "borderline
>case" whereas the same thing done by the IRA is "sickening" and "an
>atrocity" . . .?
If you *really* can't see the difference then you need help. Urgently.
Marc Living
wrote:
>> Your understanding is incorrect. In circumstances where reasonable
>> force is allowed there are no limits (in law) to what is capable of
>> constituting reasonable force: it is solely a matter for the jury to
>> decide whether the force used in a particular case was reasonable in
>> the circumstances of that case.
>In certain cases the force used may be so clearly unreasonable that a judge
>may direct a jury that self-defence fails (see the cases above) which seems
>to be what happened here.
It didn't happen in the cases you quoted (not even the disapproved
Howe) nor did it happen in the Martin case.
Marc Living
<t_clip...@brain.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Marc Living" <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net>
>wrote in message news:39172708...@news.cwcom.net...
>> On Wed, 03 May 2000 12:45:15 +0100, Mike Warren <m...@here.com> wrote:
>> >> At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape of
>> >> a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
>> >> have been so many).
>> >what shooting someone in the back is 'reasonable force'?.
>> Reasonable force is what a jury says it is.
>Which is true for all major decisions of guilt or innocence,
>so the comment is irrelevant. (I know I ignore Magistrates.)
There is a difference. Usually the question for a jury is
(essentially) "did the defendant do it" - it being assumed that if he
did do whatever it was, then the offence would be made out. The jury
will be told what the law is and will be solely concerned with
deciding the facts.
In this sort of case however the jury must not only decide what the
defendant did, they must then go on to decide whether, in their
opinion, what the defendant did was against the law.
IOW, this is one of the few areas where the jury effectively decides
both law and facts.
Marc Living
wrote:
>But, much to the annoyance of Mr Living, "Sophia" and the other
>stormtroopers, we don't live in a country which is run like China.
What *are* you blathering about?
Larry@home
PJS wrote in message <957383333.7164.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>Paul Burridge <Pa...@spoiler.osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:390f5c81...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
>>
>> >Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
Only a Jury can decide this in each and every circumstance, in the case of
Tony Martin, he had decided to shoot the burglar who was shining a torch
into his eyes in the legs, unfortunately for fred barras, Tony Martin
couldn't see him, he was blinded, and fred was kneeling with his back to
tony and he couldn't see tony.
Fred was not escaping from tony when he was shot.
The second burglar, leaving his friend, was running away when he was shot.
He was wounded, NOT killed, Wounded, get the real picture and not your
imagined and bigoted picture.
You are either very stupid, in that you cannot read the various newspaper
stories that have been written and comprehend from them what exactly took
place, or even worse you are a TROLL.
>>
>> Depends which jurisdiciton you're talking about. Seen what goes on in
>> China?
>---------
>But, much to the annoyance of Mr Living, "Sophia" and the other
>stormtroopers, we don't live in a country which is run like China.
We do live in a country which is run like China, the Metropolitan Police
force has admitted that the taking away of banners at the chinese premiers
visit was unlawful, they must have known what they were doing was wrong but
still they did it.
Now the war criminal Stony Glare has taken it upon himself to threaten to
ban all protests,
Very much like China I would say we even have our own Dictator.
Phil Bradshaw
<abe...@abelard.org> writes
>On Wed, 3 May 2000 09:42:55 +0100, Phil Bradshaw
><ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> typed:
>
>>In article <2pkugs0iraigmqijs...@4ax.com>, abelard
>><abe...@abelard.org> writes
>>>On Tue, 02 May 2000 14:50:23 GMT, mma...@my-deja.com typed:
>>>
>>>>In article <KgmBwFAz...@brads-old.demon.co.uk>,
>>>> Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Still unjustifiable.
>>>>
>>>>You're forgetting: Doug's mental development stopped when he was hit by
>>>>that car as a kid, so he's still living at the playground level where if
>>>>you do something bad it's OK provided you can claim that your accuser
>>>>has done something worse...
>>>
>>>i blame it in christianism....
>>>Matthew: chapter 7, verse 3
>>>
>>not forgetting being done to as you do to others.... verse 2.
>shurely 12....:-)
>
>yes, more extremely poor psychologic....
> if you happen to prefer orangeade....
>my ethics document might interest you....
>http://www.abelard.org/ethics.htm
>where both are quoted...
>
>Widely known as the Golden Rule, it this appears in Matthew (7:12)
>This rule of conduct is regarded as a summary of the Christian's duty
>to his neighbour and states a fundamental ethical principle. In its
>negative form, Do not do to others what you would not like done to
>yourselves, it occurs in the 2nd-century documents Didache and the
>Apology of Aristides and may well have formed part of an early
>catechism. It is not peculiar to Christianity. Its negative form is to
>be found in Tobias. 4:15, in the writings of the two great Jewish
>scholars Hillel (1st century BC) and Philo of Alexandria (1st
>centuries BC and AD), and in the Analects of Confucius (6th and 5th
>centuries BC). It also appears in one form or another in the writings
>of Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, and Seneca.
>
Um.
Sometimes it seems no more than Natural pissing into the wind and
getting his own back. Sometimes not; that's interesting....
--
Phil Bradshaw
Marcia
pencil wrote in message <8eplen$4h5$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Marcia
park. Apparently what happened afterwards was that they got their cameras
down there, took everyone's name and address, photographed them before they
would allow them to leave, so yes maybe I did overreact and panic, but you
had to be there to understand the fear I went through, they looked as if
they were about to charge the crowd!
Marc Living wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 3 May 2000 02:50:14 +0100, "Marcia" <mlab...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
>>It was really scary, we were walking to Kennington Park, and down a side
>>street got blocked in by the heavy brigade on both ends, horses, full riot
>>gear etc, they wouldn't let anyone at all leave, until I told them I was
>>pregnant, they took about 5 minutes to decide to let me out, never been
more
>>scared in my life- god knows what happened after I got out, I dread to
>>think, as there were no cameras about!
>
>You mean that they were involved in riot control and you asked them
>politely if you could leave and they said "yes". Whereupon you left
>and your imagination came up with all sorts of scary scenarios about
>what a lucky "escape" you had?
>
>
Marcia
cenotaph but changed their minds. It's funny how Mcd didn't close for the
day, knowing they were a target (they always are)
Åndrew R wrote in message <39107CC8...@geocities.com>...
mma...@my-deja.com
nm...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
> That is a
different
> situation from the case being discussed of a burglar fleeing the crime
scene.
Indeed, but that wasn't the issue being discussed; the issue being
discussed was whether there could be any justification for killing a
crook to prevent their escape. As for a burglar, presumably the same
would apply if, say, they'd just broken into Porton Down and stolen a
big jar of some new bio-weapon the government were testing; the
potential threat to others from such a theft would easily outweigh the
burglar's death.
Mark
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Marc Living
wrote:
>> What is reasonable force, in any particular circumstances, depends
>> solely on the jury.
>No legal authority, just my opinion, in the case of burglary.
Fair enough.
PJS
> >stormtroopers, we don't live in a country which is run like China.
>
Okay, I was hasty including you with Mrs. Chetnik and the others.
PJS
Larry@home <la...@fsn.com> wrote in message
news:3910...@news.server.worldonline.co.uk...
> We do live in a country which is run like China, the Metropolitan Police
> force has admitted that the taking away of banners at the chinese premiers
> visit was unlawful, they must have known what they were doing was wrong
but
> still they did it.
> Now the war criminal Stony Glare has taken it upon himself to threaten to
> ban all protests,
> Very much like China I would say we even have our own Dictator.
One minute, "Hurrah! Labour are going to be trounced at the next general
election!" and the next, Blair is dictator of Great Britain! Which do you
want?
PJS
>
> One the defence of property, the leading case is Hussey (1924) 18 Cr
> App R 160, which held that:-
>
> "In defence of a man's house, the owner or his family may kill a
> trespasser who would forcibly dispossess him of it."
>
> Whilst it is generally thought that this case would be of debatable
> authority nowadays - for obvious reasons - another part of the ratio
> in that case, namely ...
>
> "... in defending his home he need not retreat ... for that would be
> giving up his house to his adversary."
>
> ... remains good law: and there is now no duty to retreat in any
> category of private defence: see Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816.
>
> It remains to be seen what, if any, effect the Human Rights Act will
> have on this part of the law.
>
"who would forcibly disposess him of it" might describe a bandit hoard, but
not two teenage burglars.
I really must get back my copy of Smith & Hogan . . .
PJS
> On Wed, 3 May 2000 21:21:56 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >> Your understanding is incorrect. In circumstances where reasonable
> >> force is allowed there are no limits (in law) to what is capable of
> >> constituting reasonable force: it is solely a matter for the jury to
> >> decide whether the force used in a particular case was reasonable in
> >> the circumstances of that case.
>
> >In certain cases the force used may be so clearly unreasonable that a
judge
> >may direct a jury that self-defence fails (see the cases above) which
seems
> >to be what happened here.
>
> It didn't happen in the cases you quoted (not even the disapproved
> Howe) nor did it happen in the Martin case.
Edmund-Davies, LJ in R v McInnes. Sort of.
David Swarbrick
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote
>On Wed, 3 May 2000 02:50:14 +0100, "Marcia" <mlab...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
>>It was really scary, we were walking to Kennington Park, and down a side
>>street got blocked in by the heavy brigade on both ends, horses, full riot
>>gear etc, they wouldn't let anyone at all leave, until I told them I was
>>pregnant, they took about 5 minutes to decide to let me out, never been more
>>scared in my life- god knows what happened after I got out, I dread to
>>think, as there were no cameras about!
>
>You mean that they were involved in riot control and you asked them
>politely if you could leave and they said "yes". Whereupon you left
>and your imagination came up with all sorts of scary scenarios about
>what a lucky "escape" you had?
I sometimes think that one of the few necessary bits of law which should
be taught at school is that
'There are no bystanders at a riot'
--
David Swarbrick, Solicitor, West Yorkshire. T: 01484 722531 F: 01484 716617
http://www.swarb.co.uk - da...@swarb.freeuk.com
law-index of 10,900+ uk case summaries. IP/IT Law and Contracts.
The Law Society regulates our investment business.
Paul C
<%udQ4.9434$Px3.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Marcia wrote
>It's funny how they said they were going to board over the statues and
>cenotaph but changed their minds. It's funny how Mcd didn't close for the
>day, knowing they were a target (they always are)
If I made food as crappy as them, I would expect to be a target too.
I wonder if McD will sue me for defamation. :-)
Paul
--
email: meagai...@hotmail.com
Put out the fire to email me :-)
Paul C
'Droid
>
> PJS wrote in message <957383333.7164.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >Paul Burridge <Pa...@spoiler.osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:390f5c81...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
> >> On Tue, 02 May 2000 23:19:39 +0100, 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk>
> >> opined thusly:
> >>
> >> >Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
>
> Only a Jury can decide this in each and every circumstance, in the case of
> Tony Martin, he had decided to shoot the burglar who was shining a torch
> into his eyes in the legs, unfortunately for fred barras, Tony Martin
> couldn't see him, he was blinded, and fred was kneeling with his back to
> tony and he couldn't see tony.
> Fred was not escaping from tony when he was shot.
> The second burglar, leaving his friend, was running away when he was shot.
> He was wounded, NOT killed, Wounded, get the real picture and not your
> imagined and bigoted picture.
> You are either very stupid, in that you cannot read the various newspaper
> stories that have been written and comprehend from them what exactly took
> place, or even worse you are a TROLL.
You really need to follow the discussion more closely. My reply was in the
general case of a burglar fleeing the scene. Others seemed to think I was
talking about all cases, you seem to think I am talking about a single case. Is
the standard of comprehension really so low here?
> >> Depends which jurisdiciton you're talking about. Seen what goes on in
> >> China?
> >---------
> >But, much to the annoyance of Mr Living, "Sophia" and the other
> >stormtroopers, we don't live in a country which is run like China.
>
> We do live in a country which is run like China, the Metropolitan Police
> force has admitted that the taking away of banners at the chinese premiers
> visit was unlawful, they must have known what they were doing was wrong but
> still they did it.
Which in itself makes it unlike China where a) such action would be lawful and
b) the police would never admit to unlawful action nor would they have tolerated
the outcry against it.
> Now the war criminal Stony Glare has taken it upon himself to threaten to
> ban all protests,
> Very much like China I would say we even have our own Dictator.
Who was elected and can be removed. That is not a dictator. As for banning
protests it seems to have been a knee jerk reaction by both the Tories and
Labour.
'Droid
'Droid
But that is no longer a simple burglary. Why do keep trying to link the scenario
of a simple burglary with one where the situation is different and carries the
risk of death? They are two different scenarios and as such need to be treated
differently. You are trying to over generalise.
'Droid
George Edwards
<P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk> writes
>f***ing well NOT
God bl**s you!
On the TOGs website (www.togs.org) there is a device in the chatroom to
asterisk your naughtier vocabulary. Quite fun getting round it. Try
entering "I admire all your cunning stunts", then the un-spoonerised
version!
--
George Edwards
George Edwards
<Pa...@spoiler.osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>>Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
>
>China?
>--
There is no absolute "right" or "wrong". Its culturally set. Are
cannibals (and I think there are some still in Papua New Guinea) acting
wrongly by their own cultural values? Who are we to say?
But we wouldn't allow them to do it here...
Just as we don't allow our EU colleagues in France to feed sh!t to their
animals... (hmmmmm)
--
George Edwards
George Edwards
In article <sZQQOZjKC+Q+7f...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>On Wed, 3 May 2000 21:15:23 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote in message
>>news:cWEPOfMv0IUfS9Wi=DKBj2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 02 May 2000 23:19:39 +0100, 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> >Marc Living wrote:
>
>>> >> At that stage you are using reasonable force to prevent the escape of
>>> >> a criminal - pursuant to the Criminal Law Act (1967, I think ... there
>>> >> have been so many).
>
>>> >Death is not reasonable force to prevent an escape.
>
>>> I should be interested in some authority for that novel proposition of
>>> law.
>
>>> I doubt you'll find any though. The law on preventing escapes is
>>> exactly the same as for self-defence - namely that reasonable force
>>> may be used. The term reasonable force has never excluded lethal
>>> force.
>
>>There is no such thing
>
>As what?
>
>>; s. 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967:
>>"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 large" [my
>>emphasis]
>>You can't really be assisting in the arrest of someone if you kill them.
>
>But you can certainly be preventing a crime.
>
>>> What is reasonable force, in any particular circumstances, depends
>>> solely on the jury.
>
>One the defence of property, the leading case is Hussey (1924) 18 Cr
>App R 160, which held that:-
>
>"In defence of a man's house, the owner or his family may kill a
>trespasser who would forcibly dispossess him of it."
>
>Whilst it is generally thought that this case would be of debatable
>authority nowadays - for obvious reasons - another part of the ratio
>in that case, namely ...
>
>"... in defending his home he need not retreat ... for that would be
>giving up his house to his adversary."
>
>... remains good law: and there is now no duty to retreat in any
>category of private defence: see Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816.
>
>It remains to be seen what, if any, effect the Human Rights Act will
>have on this part of the law.
>
>>Quite right too.
>>Interesting isn't it, that in Tory eyes the vigilante killing of a petty
>>crook with an illegally held firearm by a Norfolk farmer is a "borderline
>>case" whereas the same thing done by the IRA is "sickening" and "an
>>atrocity" . . .?
>
>If you *really* can't see the difference then you need help. Urgently.
>
>
--
George Edwards
PJS
> >Interesting isn't it, that in Tory eyes the vigilante killing of a petty
> >crook with an illegally held firearm by a Norfolk farmer is a "borderline
> >case" whereas the same thing done by the IRA is "sickening" and "an
> >atrocity" . . .?
>
> If you *really* can't see the difference then you need help. Urgently.
The difference in the Tory mindset is obvious:
1. One of us (farmer) killing one of them (gypsy thief) = good
2. One of them (IRA) killing [anyone] = bad
mma...@my-deja.com
nm...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
> But that is no longer a simple burglary. Why do keep trying to link
the scenario
> of a simple burglary with one where the situation is different and
carries the
> risk of death? They are two different scenarios and as such need to be
treated
> differently. You are trying to over generalise.
No, the burglar-lovers are apparently trying to take the simple case of
a stupid kid breaking into someone's house and being chased out with no
real threat to the owner, where few people would see shooting them in
the back while they fled as reasonable, and pretend that applies to all
burglaries. It doesn't.
M Holmes
: The difference in the Tory mindset is obvious:
: 1. One of us (farmer) killing one of them (gypsy thief) = good
: 2. One of them (IRA) killing [anyone] = bad
So is it good or bad if the IRA kneecaps a burglar?
-- Confused of Edinburgh
Fergus O'Rourke
PJS
M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8euslt$lbm$2...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> In uk.politics.misc PJS <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : The difference in the Tory mindset is obvious:
>
> : 1. One of us (farmer) killing one of them (gypsy thief) = good
> : 2. One of them (IRA) killing [anyone] = bad
>
> So is it good or bad if the IRA kneecaps a burglar?
Bad, in my view, but I can see why some may hold that it's necessary under
the circumstances.
Åndrew R
> On Thu, 4 May 2000 12:52:03 +0100, in
> <%udQ4.9434$Px3.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Marcia wrote
>
> >It's funny how they said they were going to board over the statues and
> >cenotaph but changed their minds. It's funny how Mcd didn't close for the
> >day, knowing they were a target (they always are)
>
> If I made food as crappy as them, I would expect to be a target too.
> I wonder if McD will sue me for defamation. :-)
>
They've got bigger things than people criticizing the quality of their food to
worry about. such as http://www.mcspotlight.org (it's the website of the
"McLibel" trial people, with things like "Adopt-a-store" - put your name down
to leaflet outside your local McD's <g>)
Marc Living
wrote:
>Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote in message
>news:WKYQOWfb9jy3+z...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 May 2000 20:48:58 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >But, much to the annoyance of Mr Living, "Sophia" and the other
>> >stormtroopers, we don't live in a country which is run like China.
>> What *are* you blathering about?
>Okay, I was hasty including you with Mrs. Chetnik and the others.
Apology accepted.
Marc Living
wrote:
>Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote in message
>news:4J0QOdFsmmSSYF...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 May 2000 21:21:56 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >> Your understanding is incorrect. In circumstances where reasonable
>> >> force is allowed there are no limits (in law) to what is capable of
>> >> constituting reasonable force: it is solely a matter for the jury to
>> >> decide whether the force used in a particular case was reasonable in
>> >> the circumstances of that case.
>> >In certain cases the force used may be so clearly unreasonable that a
>judge
>> >may direct a jury that self-defence fails (see the cases above) which
>seems
>> >to be what happened here.
>> It didn't happen in the cases you quoted (not even the disapproved
>> Howe) nor did it happen in the Martin case.
>Edmund-Davies, LJ in R v McInnes. Sort of.
Insofar as McInnes (which relied on the disapproved Howe) is still
good law, all it held was that a failed plea of self-defence, because
of the use of excessive force, doesn't mean that the conviction should
be for manslaughter rather than murder.
Did you have a passage in mind?
Marc Living
wrote:
>> : The difference in the Tory mindset is obvious:
>> : 1. One of us (farmer) killing one of them (gypsy thief) = good
>> : 2. One of them (IRA) killing [anyone] = bad
>> So is it good or bad if the IRA kneecaps a burglar?
>Bad, in my view, but I can see why some may hold that it's necessary under
>the circumstances.
I wonder what the burglary rate is in IRA controlled areas?
PJS
> On Thu, 4 May 2000 18:41:33 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote in message
> >news:4J0QOdFsmmSSYF...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 3 May 2000 21:21:56 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Your understanding is incorrect. In circumstances where reasonable
> >> >> force is allowed there are no limits (in law) to what is capable of
> >> >> constituting reasonable force: it is solely a matter for the jury to
> >> >> decide whether the force used in a particular case was reasonable in
> >> >> the circumstances of that case.
>
> >> >In certain cases the force used may be so clearly unreasonable that a
> >judge
> >> >may direct a jury that self-defence fails (see the cases above) which
> >seems
> >> >to be what happened here.
>
> >> It didn't happen in the cases you quoted (not even the disapproved
> >> Howe) nor did it happen in the Martin case.
>
> >Edmund-Davies, LJ in R v McInnes. Sort of.
>
> Insofar as McInnes (which relied on the disapproved Howe) is still
> good law, all it held was that a failed plea of self-defence, because
> of the use of excessive force, doesn't mean that the conviction should
> be for manslaughter rather than murder.
>
> Did you have a passage in mind?
Sort of, but I suppose it's a bit obiter, really. Never mind.
'Droid
And conversely the burglar-haters, to coopt your turn of phrase, are trying to
compare the simple burglary directly with anything up to terrorism.
'Droid
Mrs.Thomson
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 May 2000 19:42:53 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>> : The difference in the Tory mindset is obvious:
>
>>> : 1. One of us (farmer) killing one of them (gypsy thief) = good
>>> : 2. One of them (IRA) killing [anyone] = bad
>
>>> So is it good or bad if the IRA kneecaps a burglar?
>
>>Bad, in my view, but I can see why some may hold that it's necessary under
>>the circumstances.
>
>I wonder what the burglary rate is in IRA controlled areas?
ISTR (though I could be wrong) that some of the
punishment beatings being meted out to young males
on some estates that caused them to flee the area
were directed at the criminal element.
MrNatural
Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <B535614F...@ad12-s16-203-9.cwci.net>, MrNatural
><nos...@nowhere.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
>>In article <KgmBwFAz...@brads-old.demon.co.uk>,
>>Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>>>
>>>>Compared with the mindless thuggery of governments and global capitalism,
>>>>so-called 'Mayday mayhem' is vanishingly insignificant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Still unjustifiable.
>>
>>Justify.
>
>For you to do.
Justify your comment, procrastinator.
>> What about 'reasonable force'?
>
>What about it?
One is allowed to use it.
>Where is the set of circumstances in the Parliament Square mess in which
>this was lawful?
Isn't it always lawful to use reasonable force to defend oneself against
harm?
--
MrNatural puts together:
Smiley's UK Radical Campaigns Jump Page
Follow DemoWatch link for MayDay pics
www.zing.cwc.net
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:nos...@nowhere.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote:
> In article <xt29vvAk...@brads-old.demon.co.uk>,
> Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <B535614F...@ad12-s16-203-9.cwci.net>, MrNatural
> ><nos...@nowhere.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
> >>In article <KgmBwFAz...@brads-old.demon.co.uk>,
> >>Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> ><snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>Compared with the mindless thuggery of governments and global capitalism,
> >>>>so-called 'Mayday mayhem' is vanishingly insignificant.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Still unjustifiable.
> >>
> >>Justify.
> >
> >For you to do.
>
> Justify your comment, procrastinator.
>
> >> What about 'reasonable force'?
> >
> >What about it?
>
> One is allowed to use it.
>
> >Where is the set of circumstances in the Parliament Square mess in which
> >this was lawful?
>
> Isn't it always lawful to use reasonable force to defend oneself against
> harm?
And your 'neighbour'.
>
--
RISC OS Foundation Member
doddsnet
PJS wrote:
> The difference in the Tory mindset is obvious:
> 1. One of us (farmer) killing one of them (gypsy thief) = good
> 2. One of them (IRA) killing [anyone] = bad
I saw something along these lines in a letters page (to the Guardian, i
think) asking if Hague and the media would have made such a fuss if the
situation was reversed, and a gypsy had shot people who were prowling
around their camp.
RTD
doddsnet
protests in London during the Seattle WTO meetings, i would imagine
there was plenty of reason to be afraid.
RTD
Marcia wrote:
>
> There was no riot going on down there, we were peacefully walking to the
> park. Apparently what happened afterwards was that they got their cameras
> down there, took everyone's name and address, photographed them before they
> would allow them to leave, so yes maybe I did overreact and panic, but you
> had to be there to understand the fear I went through, they looked as if
> they were about to charge the crowd!
>
> Marc Living wrote in message ...
> >On Wed, 3 May 2000 02:50:14 +0100, "Marcia" <mlab...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
> >
> >>It was really scary, we were walking to Kennington Park, and down a side
> >>street got blocked in by the heavy brigade on both ends, horses, full riot
> >>gear etc, they wouldn't let anyone at all leave, until I told them I was
> >>pregnant, they took about 5 minutes to decide to let me out, never been
> more
> >>scared in my life- god knows what happened after I got out, I dread to
> >>think, as there were no cameras about!
> >
> >You mean that they were involved in riot control and you asked them
> >politely if you could leave and they said "yes". Whereupon you left
> >and your imagination came up with all sorts of scary scenarios about
> >what a lucky "escape" you had?
> >
> >
Marc Living
<da...@swarb.freeuk.com> wrote:
>I sometimes think that one of the few necessary bits of law which should
>be taught at school is that
>'There are no bystanders at a riot'
Is that still the case? That was presumably said when a gathering had
to be specifically "turned" into a Riot by having the Riot Act read to
them. Thereafter, all those who didn't disperse were deemed to be
rioters and treated accordingly.
Nowadays though, a riot is something which just happens. There is no
warning given to people that they are participating in a riot, and no
warning that if they do not wish to be taken as participants, they
should disperse. Indeed - it is quite possible that people in the
"wrong" part of a large crowd won't even know that there had been any
rioting until they got home and saw it on television.
David Swarbrick
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote
>On Thu, 4 May 2000 07:27:46 +0100, David Swarbrick
><da...@swarb.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>I sometimes think that one of the few necessary bits of law which should
>>be taught at school is that
>
>>'There are no bystanders at a riot'
>
>Is that still the case? That was presumably said when a gathering had
>to be specifically "turned" into a Riot by having the Riot Act read to
>them. Thereafter, all those who didn't disperse were deemed to be
>rioters and treated accordingly.
>
>Nowadays though, a riot is something which just happens. There is no
>warning given to people that they are participating in a riot, and no
>warning that if they do not wish to be taken as participants, they
>should disperse. Indeed - it is quite possible that people in the
>"wrong" part of a large crowd won't even know that there had been any
>rioting until they got home and saw it on television.
I was not using it in the technical sense. What I said was shorthand for
pointing out that in any unruly/riotous crowd only one or two actually
are violent. Most are just watching the action. However their presence
operates to give courage to those who wish to create mayhem, and gives
them and avenue for escape.
It is dangerous to stand and watch such events, because you can be
participating by standing there. When the sole real task is to re-
establish order, your presence works to continue it.
Marcia
Marc Living wrote in message ...
><da...@swarb.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>I sometimes think that one of the few necessary bits of law which should
>>be taught at school is that
>
>>'There are no bystanders at a riot'
>
>Is that still the case? That was presumably said when a gathering had
>to be specifically "turned" into a Riot by having the Riot Act read to
>them. Thereafter, all those who didn't disperse were deemed to be
>rioters and treated accordingly.
>
>Nowadays though, a riot is something which just happens. There is no
>warning given to people that they are participating in a riot, and no
>warning that if they do not wish to be taken as participants, they
>should disperse. Indeed - it is quite possible that people in the
>"wrong" part of a large crowd won't even know that there had been any
>rioting until they got home and saw it on television.
>
>
>Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
>***********************************************
>Nor shall we proceed against a freeman, nor
>condemn him but by lawful judgment of his peers
>or by the law of the land.
>************************************************
What about the tourists in Trafalgar Square, not permitted by the police to
go through their lines, were they too participating in a riot?
Simon
"David Swarbrick" <da...@swarb.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:JEanWKAS...@swarb.freeuk.com...snip
> It is dangerous to stand and watch such events, because you can be
> participating by standing there. When the sole real task is to re-
> establish order, your presence works to continue it.
So you can be breaking the law by standing and watching something???
Simon
Marc Living
Prowling around their camp? No. Prowling around their homes?
Certainly.
The only difference is that the "liberal" establishment wouldn't then
have tried to portray the shooter as a psychopath.