SUPERB LABOUR HUMILIATION
The Rifleman
undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a humiliation
befallen a abour MP.
It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour of knee
jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP feeling
distinctly uncomfortable.
Stephen Pound MP had linkled up with radio 4 for a poll top find out which
single change in K law people would most like to see on the statute book.
Mr Pound LABOUR MP, PROMISED to adopt whichever proposal the public voted
for and to pilot it through parliament in the form of a private members
bill.
The vote as it happened voted overwhelmingly for.........A law allowing home
owners to protect themselves and their homes by any means, IE a strident
defence of the Tony Martin fiasco the farmer who was charged with murder
after killing a burglar on his remote farm after being told by the cops they
could not and would not protect him from a series of burglaries affecting
his property.
Naturally bering a LABOUR MP with the typical morals of a LABOURITE , MR
Pound LABOUR MP was forced into a humiliating retreat, turning his back on
the 25,000 voters and his promise to adopt their vote as a private members
bill was quoted as saying " MY enthiusiasm for democracy is now slightly
tempered, I must admit this is quite a difficult result".
The " Martin" law vote won over 37 % of the vote which if one remembers is
a higher percentage of the amount of people who voted LABOUR into office. So
now you have it folks you kknow exactly that labourites and the MPs do not
keep the promises they make, nor do they respect the will of the public. Of
course the rest of the LABOUR establishment immeadiately said such a bill
would never have been allowed anyway, if that was the case what was the
point of the whole exercise, and even more slimily the lying cheating
typical labourite MP has now said even though they dont recognise the wishes
of the public in the vote they will put forward the second place winner in
the poll which was something about organ doners.
Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids with
Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the labour party.
The Rifleman
"The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt3kv0$v63$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
> undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a humiliation
> It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour of knee
> jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP feeling
> distinctly uncomfortable.
>
> single change in law people would most like to see on the statute book.
Andrew McGee
"The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt3kv0$v63$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Well, I'm no fan of Labour, old or new, but it was a very silly idea to
promise to put forward whatever half-baked idea came out of a self-selecting
poll of this kind.
I am very glad that it has no chance of becoming law.
And it does nothing to dent my regard for democracy, which was very low in
the first place!
Elephar
> Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
> undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a
> humiliation befallen a abour MP.
> It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour of
> knee jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP
> feeling distinctly uncomfortable.
>
I just love his quoted remark in the Mail...
"The people have spoken........the BASTARDS!"
ROTFL
Col
"The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt3kv0$v63$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a humiliation
> befallen a abour MP.
> It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour of knee
> jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP feeling
> distinctly uncomfortable.
>
> Stephen Pound MP had linkled up with radio 4 for a poll top find out which
> single change in K law people would most like to see on the statute book.
>
> Mr Pound LABOUR MP, PROMISED to adopt whichever proposal the public voted
> for and to pilot it through parliament in the form of a private members
> bill.
>
> The vote as it happened voted overwhelmingly for.........A law allowing home
> owners to protect themselves and their homes by any means, IE a strident
> defence of the Tony Martin fiasco the farmer who was charged with murder
> after killing a burglar on his remote farm after being told by the cops they
> could not and would not protect him from a series of burglaries affecting
> his property.
>
Rumour has it that this poll was hijacked at the last minute by supporters
of Tony Martin.
Still, it was rather brave (or rather stupid!) for an MP to promise to pursue
a bill though parliament when they didn't even know that they were going
to agree with it.
As I read this morning in my newspaper, 'Hoisted by his own petard!'
Quite.
Col
--
So where are they, Mr Blair?
The Rifleman
the UK, but the problem is the sheeple still believe the garbage spewed out
by the police and politicians.and when you have so many willing socialist
parasites who will do anything the politicians tell them so long as they get
their dole and benefits nothing will improve.
The Rifleman
"Elephar" <ele...@pipex.com> wrote in message
news:bt3m63$2udv5$1...@ID-46833.news.uni-berlin.de...
Naturally being a labourite he is going to look at the will of the people
and ignore it.
>
>
The Rifleman
> Rumour has it that this poll was hijacked at the last minute by supporters
> of Tony Martin.
> Still, it was rather brave (or rather stupid!) for an MP to promise to
pursue
> a bill though parliament when they didn't even know that they were going
> to agree with it.
>
> As I read this morning in my newspaper, 'Hoisted by his own petard!'
>
> Quite.
>
> Col
lobby, or the pro euro lobby and I am DAMN 1000% certain he would have
adopted it their and then cos the people have spoken ???
Wotan
"The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt3kv0$v63$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a
humiliation
> It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour
of knee
> jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP
feeling
> distinctly uncomfortable.
>
> Stephen Pound MP had linked up with radio 4 for a poll top find out
which
> single change in the law people would most like to see on the
statute book.
>
> Mr Pound LABOUR MP, PROMISED to adopt whichever proposal the public
voted
> for and to pilot it through parliament in the form of a private
members
> bill.
>
> The vote as it happened voted overwhelmingly for.........A law
allowing home
> owners to protect themselves and their homes by any means, IE a
strident
> defence of the Tony Martin fiasco the farmer who was charged with
murder
> after killing a burglar on his remote farm after being told by the
cops they
> could not and would not protect him from a series of burglaries
affecting
> his property.
Yes, it does show the reptiles up in their true light.
They hope to be able to manipulate the public to fit in with
their own treacherous schemes - and when the public does not
- they are all condemned as "fascists" and "Nazis".
The problem Blair's subversive International Marxist scum have
is that the electorate are going to rip them to pieces.
Because Blair's maggot filth are not even nearly as clever as
they like to think they are - and the British people are a damn
sight more shrewd than they would like to believe !
Their days are numbered and the clock is ticking down to
the day of their doom and just desserts.
Wotan
"Andrew McGee" <amh...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bt3l97$p9d$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
allowing
> home
> > owners to protect themselves and their homes by any means, >
> I am very glad that it has no chance of becoming law.
Why ? Are you in favour of the yob culture and allowing thugs
to murder people in their own homes ?
> And it does nothing to dent my regard for democracy, which
> was very low in the first place!
"EU" quislings have NO regard for democracy.
Wotan
"Lawrence Glickman" <lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ukmavvscirtjmfetg...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:33:34 -0000, "The Rifleman"
> <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> snips for brevity
> |Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids
with
> |Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the labour
party.
>
> Thames.
That day draws near.
The days of Blair and the criminal filth who protect him and keep
him in power are numbered - and the numnbers are low.
Wotan
The open contempt for the people by Blair and his "EU" quisling
criminal scum is notorious. And they will pay a terrible price
for it.
rickb30...@yahoo.com
If you want a class on how to toss off the Royals,
let us know. :-)
That, or call Ghandi's bunch. :-)
Col
I'm sure he would, but that's politicians for you.
I think a Tory MP in the same situation would have done much the same
thing. I can't believe that he was stupid enough to think that there wasn't
some risk attached to this venture. it is well known that open polls such
as this can be sabotaged by concerted groups of individuals.
He must have known about this and taken a calculated risk.
Unfortunately for him it blew up in his face!
Now I wonder if we really have to go through the farce of wasting parliamentary
time by introducing a bill that even the MP introducing it disagrees with?
Frank White
steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk says...
<snip>
>Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids with
>Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the labour party.
So. Can we take this to mean you're not a fan of Labour?
^_^
FW
Elephar
<Snip>
> as this can be sabotaged by concerted groups of individuals.
> He must have known about this and taken a calculated risk.
> Unfortunately for him it blew up in his face!
>
Could it not just possibly be, even remotely possibly, that no hi-jack took
place and the view expressed really was the view of the majority of the
population?
Col
Of course it could.
However there was a sudden rush of votes for this bill right at the end,
leading one to wonder.........
Jonathan Bratt
>The days of Blair and the criminal filth who protect him and keep him
>in power are numbered - and the numnbers are low.
What might that number be bobby?
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> writes
A poll on the Today programme does not represent the will of the people.
Such polls are easily open to pressure groups. It was an amusing
exercise, nothing more.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<ele...@pipex.com> writes
He was - I think - quoting an American politician from some time back.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
Hazard a guess old fruit.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<ele...@pipex.com> writes
No.
--
Jonathan Bratt
David Morton
wrote:
> He was - I think - quoting an American politician from some time back.
Dick Tuck, after losing the 1966 California State Senate race.
Elephar
Yep, but it sounded heartfelt.
Put me in mind of a certain B'Stard MP on the box.....
Elephar
Spoken like a true New Lab politician.
If your not one, you missed your vocation.
Col
"Jonathan Bratt" <jonny...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Mccw2GZ7aX9$Ew...@aol.com...
I wouldn't entirely dismiss the idea.
I'm sure a significant minority of people in this country would
vote for peadophiles to be nailed by their testicles to the nearest
lampost, if given the chance.........
The Rifleman
<rickb30...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ff57072...@news.oxy.com...
with the russian royal family.
Richard Miller
<steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
>undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a humiliation
>befallen a abour MP.
[Snip]
> Of
>course the rest of the LABOUR establishment immeadiately said such a bill
>would never have been allowed anyway, if that was the case what was the
>point of the whole exercise, and even more slimily the lying cheating
>typical labourite MP has now said even though they dont recognise the wishes
>of the public in the vote they will put forward the second place winner in
>the poll which was something about organ doners.
>
>Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids with
>Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the labour party.
>
>
Thank God for a Labour MP with more sense than the general public.
First, the proposed new law would not have actually changed the law at
all. It cannot be changed without legitimising rape, child abuse,
torture and murder. The current law provides all the permission people
need to defend themselves.
Secondly, when comparing the risk that someone would want/need to defend
themselves in a way not presently permitted by law with the risk that
they will need a transplant and find no organs available, the risk of
the latter is exponentially higher than the former, so the transplants
bill will save and improve far more lives than the bill that won the
vote.
When I heard the result of the poll, I despaired that my fellow
countrymen were so stupid. I am greatly relieved at Stephen Pound's
obviously sensible decision.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
Maybe.
Unfortunately, as threads about TM on these groups have illustrated, a
large proportion of the population fundamentally misunderstand what the
law of this country does and does not allow. Among those who have a
correct understanding, very few see any need for change.
--
Richard Miller
Graham Innocent
> of Tony Martin.
Almost certainly. However, that could be said about whichever
proposition won, and merely demonstrates the strength of support for
Tony Martin's plight.
> Still, it was rather brave (or rather stupid!) for an MP to promise to pursue
> a bill though parliament when they didn't even know that they were going
> to agree with it.
Yes. Although with a bit of luck all that arrogant bluster about not
being so keen on democracy when ordinary people disagree with him will
lose the twerp his seat.
Barry
Well if so, I can see why you would make such a remark. I live in Canada
and have access to all the US TV news stations, all of whom have
convicted Michael Jackson and actively encourage their viewers to do the
same.
By the time he comes to trial, it will not be about a guilty verdict
because this has already been decided by the American public. It will be
about the jail sentence he gets.
Although the British justice system is far from perfect the case would
now be sub-judice which could never happen in the US, otherwise half
your TV and Radio stations would close down for lack of subjects.
Example - the Peterson case - oh! definately guilty heh! Has to be,
right! No other suspects and after all he did chop up his wife and rip
the out the 8 month old baby from her belly. Was that before or after
she was dumped in the water?
I have no love for some of the British justice system but that of the
USA is worse than that practiced in third world countries. It's more
about re-electing the officials who enact and dispense justice than
about the crime, where the accused is guilty before being proved
innocent.
Perhaps it's also the reason for the many fictional TV programmes that
are aired in the US. After all, that's the only way to see an accused
person be judged innocent. Could be why they are so popular.
Barry
"Lawrence Glickman" <lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ukmavvscirtjmfetg...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:33:34 -0000, "The Rifleman"
> <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> snips for brevity
> |Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids
with
> |Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the labour
party.
>
> I think it is time for the UK to have a London Tea Party on the
> Thames. Not drinking the tea, TOSSING IT OVERBOARD.
>
>
> Lg
Solon
enlightened the denizens of uk.politics.misc by writing:
>>> I just love his quoted remark in the Mail...
>>> "The people have spoken........the BASTARDS!"
>>> ROTFL
>>Naturally being a labourite he is going to look at the will of the people
>A poll on the Today programme does not represent the will of the people.
>Such polls are easily open to pressure groups. It was an amusing
>exercise, nothing more.
But it was a bit more than that, wasn't it? For whatever reason,
Stephen Pound said that he would use his "slot" to promote a Bill
chosen by the Today programme's listeners. No doubt he held himself
out as being very democratic and broad-minded about it, put on a
"brave" face on the possibility that "the people" might chose a Bill
with which he disagreed, and mouthed platitudes about being a "servant
of the people" etc etc.
Of course, it now turns out that the choice he was offering was an
"any colour you like so long as its black" type choice: and that he
has no intention of being bound by a choice with which he disagrees.
It certainly isn't the first time that a politician - even one as
amusing as Stephen Pound - has gone back on a promise but I do not
think that such an event can be dismissed as "an amusing exercise". At
best, this exercise speaks volumes about Mr Pound's judgment - at
worst, his honesty - and the frivolity with which he appears to view
his legislative authority.
--
Solon
Elephar
Ah, Richard, I see.
If I agree with you with regard to this subject then I am a sensible member
of the public.
If I disagree, it's just because I don't comprehend the facts.
Could it be that we might actually understand those facts but feel that
things are fundamentally cock-eyed?
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
> undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a humiliation
> befallen a abour MP.
> jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP feeling
> distinctly uncomfortable.
>
> single change in K law people would most like to see on the statute book.
>
> Mr Pound LABOUR MP, PROMISED to adopt whichever proposal the public voted
> for and to pilot it through parliament in the form of a private members
> bill.
>
home
> defence of the Tony Martin fiasco the farmer who was charged with murder
> after killing a burglar on his remote farm after being told by the cops
they
> could not and would not protect him from a series of burglaries affecting
> his property.
>
> Pound LABOUR MP was forced into a humiliating retreat, turning his back on
> the 25,000 voters and his promise to adopt their vote as a private members
> bill was quoted as saying " MY enthiusiasm for democracy is now slightly
> tempered, I must admit this is quite a difficult result".
> The " Martin" law vote won over 37 % of the vote which if one remembers
is
> a higher percentage of the amount of people who voted LABOUR into office.
So
> now you have it folks you kknow exactly that labourites and the MPs do not
> keep the promises they make, nor do they respect the will of the public.
Of
> course the rest of the LABOUR establishment immeadiately said such a bill
> would never have been allowed anyway, if that was the case what was the
> point of the whole exercise, and even more slimily the lying cheating
> typical labourite MP has now said even though they dont recognise the
wishes
> of the public in the vote they will put forward the second place winner in
> the poll which was something about organ doners.
People get what they deserve.
Labour (and Con and Liberal) are effectively the same party with minor
arguments over how the small change is to be spent.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Anthony Edwards
> A poll on the Today programme does not represent the will of the people.
> Such polls are easily open to pressure groups. It was an amusing
> exercise, nothing more.
Something I found ironic is that, according to reports that I have
read, the proposed new legislation voted for by those taking part
in the poll would only give home owners the right to use unlimited
(including lethal) force against intruders in their homes, and council
(and other) tenants would be given no such benefit, with existing
law remaining the status quo in such situations.
Why home owners feel that they should be entitled to more legal
protection than other householders in their attempts to repel burglars
is beyond me. Actually, what is needed is a drastic shake-up
in policing methods, with police actually attempting to apprehend
burglars and bring them to justice, as opposed to the extremely low
detection and conviction rates that exist at present.
--
Anthony Edwards
ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk
half_pint
"The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt3kv0$v63$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
home
> owners to protect themselves and their homes by any means, IE a strident
> defence of the Tony Martin fiasco the farmer who was charged with murder
Wrong no vote allowing homeowners to shoot children in the back without
warning (or even with warning) was taken.
So sorry to dampen your squib.
Murder is still illegal in the UK despite the the efforts to legalise it as
a sport
to replace fox hunting for the landowbing classes.
> after killing a burglar on his remote farm after being told by the cops
they
> could not and would not protect him from a series of burglaries affecting
> his property.
>
And if police had indeed been there and acted as child murderer murderer
Martin had they would be behind bars too.
> Naturally bering a LABOUR MP with the typical morals of a LABOURITE , MR
> Pound LABOUR MP was forced into a humiliating retreat, turning his back on
> the 25,000 voters and his promise to adopt their vote as a private members
> bill was quoted as saying " MY enthiusiasm for democracy is now slightly
> tempered, I must admit this is quite a difficult result".
Of course there is nothing democratic about a poll of radio 4 listeners,
you might as well poll tory party head office.
>
> The " Martin" law vote won over 37 % of the vote which if one remembers
is
> a higher percentage of the amount of people who voted LABOUR into office.
And of course as I understand it the vote was rigged anyway which is typical
of the right wing child killing gun lobby.
Typical of the right wing who will cheat and murder to gain power.
>So
> now you have it folks you kknow exactly that labourites and the MPs do not
> keep the promises they make, nor do they respect the will of the public.
Of
> course the rest of the LABOUR establishment immeadiately said such a bill
> would never have been allowed anyway, if that was the case what was the
> point of the whole exercise, and even more slimily the lying cheating
> typical labourite MP has now said even though they dont recognise the
wishes
> of the public in the vote they will put forward the second place winner in
> the poll which was something about organ doners.
>
> Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids with
> Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the labour party.
Or trust them to Martin so he could shoot them in the back, like the
coward he is.
>
>
--
---------------
regards half_pint
The Rifleman
> protection than other householders in their attempts to repel burglars
> is beyond me.
They should not, all people in their homes bought or rented should have
equal protection under the law.
Actually, what is needed is a drastic shake-up
> in policing methods, with police actually attempting to apprehend
> burglars and bring them to justice, as opposed to the extremely low
> detection and conviction rates that exist at present.
Rubbish the last thing we need is anything else being done to the police,
even if we doubled their numbers nothing would improve in any worthwhile
manner, what people want is to be able tpo prevent themselves from becoming
victims in the first places, not to see how swift the criminals are caught
and released, the public wants to be in a position where they are not
becoming statistics for politicians and policemen to bandy about.
>.uk
The Rifleman
> Ah, Richard, I see.
> If I agree with you with regard to this subject then I am a sensible
member
> of the public.
> If I disagree, it's just because I don't comprehend the facts.
> Could it be that we might actually understand those facts but feel that
> things are fundamentally cock-eyed?
>
The Rifleman
> When I heard the result of the poll, I despaired that my fellow
> countrymen were so stupid. I am greatly relieved at Stephen Pound's
> obviously sensible decision.
> --
> Richard Miller
And of course you wont have considered thats its everyone else who dispairs
at people like you, so smug and aloof at ones moral superiority over your
fellow countrymen, I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself if you
believe that you a minority are correct and the vast majority of people who
disagree with you are stupid.
The Rifleman
<user...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ne6bvv8ku6hdoipb8...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:11:50 +0000, Richard Miller
> <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
> >>undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a
humiliation
> >>befallen a abour MP.
>
> .... oh really hold the front page!
>
> Also defending your home by *shooting someone* is not an option for
> most people....if it were we would have a murder rate like that in the
> states.
>
> By shooting someone of course I mean shooting someone in the back who
> was headed away from the house.....or perhaps just anyone who takes
> your fancy.....
You are not really up to this adult debate are you, the vast majority of
people want the right to protect their homes and themselves from the
criminals, no one has mentioned shooting anyone, and I am certain that many
people would like the right to choose to be able to own a gun and have that
decision , instead of simply being the targets of criminal scum.
Robert Sturgeon
<jonny...@aol.com> wrote:
All majority political parties claim to represent the will
of the people. They confuse their claims of representation
with actual representation. When the actual will of the
people clashes with their own political agendas, they choose
their own agendas over the will of the people. Eventually
they lose their status as the majority party in elections
(or a civil war) and have to go back to listening to the
people instead of their own doctrinaires. The U.S.
Democratic Party finds itself in that transition right now.
Not being British, nor caring anything about that society of
(apparent) sheep, I don't know if the Labour Party is about
to undergo that humiliating process or not. I wouldn't be
surprised if it is.
Bill Clinton, despite of his moral failings, at least
understood the nature of democratic politics. He angered
the other politicians and the Deep Thinkers by consulting
the polls before making political decisions. He won a LOT
of elections that way. That Labour MP might consider paying
some attention to those uncouth responders. There just
might be a bit of a clue as to how a substantial portion of
his voters think about the question of self-defense. I take
it he belongs to the "Big Brother knows best" theory of
government, and so he won't bother listening to those
anti-social complainers.
--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.
The Rifleman
> Or trust them to Martin so he could shoot them in the back, like the
> coward he is.
> ---------------
> regards half_pint
>
> Dont worry even public opinion is against you, perhaps changing your name
to half wit would be more apt?
First Maje
<rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
>Not being British, nor caring anything about that society of
>(apparent) sheep, I don't know if the Labour Party is about
>to undergo that humiliating process or not. I wouldn't be
>surprised if it is.
The problem in Britain is that all the major political parties are the
same. It was the Tories who introduced gun confiscation to Britain -
Thatcher with Hungerford and Major with Dunblane.
That's why I call Britian a Totalitarian Dictatorship. It is
structurally no different than Communist China where there is a single
ruling class. In fact Britain doesn't even have a Right side to its
political spectrum - everyone is a Leftist of one stripe or the other.
--
"A ruler who violates natural law is illegitimate. He has no right to
be obeyed, his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act
lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals, and should be
dealt with in accordance with natural law, as applied in a state of
nature, in other words they and their servants should be killed as the
opportunity presents, like the dangerous animals that they are, the
common enemies of all mankind."
--John Locke
The Rifleman
> same. It was the Tories who introduced gun confiscation to Britain -
> Thatcher with Hungerford and Major with Dunblane.
>
> That's why I call Britian a Totalitarian Dictatorship. It is
> structurally no different than Communist China where there is a single
> ruling class. In fact Britain doesn't even have a Right side to its
> political spectrum - everyone is a Leftist of one stripe or the other.
>
just after crombo he wanted to know if I would be likely to vote tory again
after I had fired off so many anti labour posts to the papers and to the
WWW, I told him I would not vote tory until the unjust, immoral and
unneccessary anti gun laws introduced since 1968 were repealed.. I know it
will be a cold day in hell before that happens , but I just wanted the local
tories who know me and my family why they are not getting back into power on
my back.
JNugent
> > "The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > snips for brevity
> > Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids
> > with Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the
> > labour party.
> Is your remark intended to convey that Michael Jackson is a criminal?
> Well if so, I can see why you would make such a remark. I live in Canada
> and have access to all the US TV news stations, all of whom have
> convicted Michael Jackson and actively encourage their viewers to do the
> same.
> By the time he comes to trial, it will not be about a guilty verdict
> because this has already been decided by the American public. It will be
> about the jail sentence he gets.
It is often so with high-profile criminal cases and particularly so with
high-profile defendants.
Should that automatically lead to acquittal?
> Although the British justice system is far from perfect the case would
> now be sub-judice which could never happen in the US, otherwise half
> your TV and Radio stations would close down for lack of subjects.
> Example - the Peterson case - oh! definately guilty heh! Has to be,
> right! No other suspects and after all he did chop up his wife and rip
> the out the 8 month old baby from her belly. Was that before or after
> she was dumped in the water?
You must be talking about a North American case, whilst under the impression
that this (ukpm or apb) is a North American NG.
JNugent
> The Rifleman <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
> >"Elephar" <ele...@pipex.com> wrote:
> >> The Rifleman wrote:
> >> > Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
> >> > undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a
> >> > humiliation befallen a abour MP.
> >> > It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour of
> >> > knee jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP
> >> > feeling distinctly uncomfortable.
> >> I just love his quoted remark in the Mail...
> >> "The people have spoken........the BASTARDS!"
> >> ROTFL
> >Naturally being a labourite he is going to look at the will of the people
> A poll on the Today programme does not represent the will of the people.
But he *said* he *would* take up the most popular proposal and try to push
it through as a PMB, and if he had an ounce of honour or scruple, he would
now do what he promised.
That he will not do what he promised proves (as if proof were needed) that
he is untrustworthy.
> Such polls are easily open to pressure groups. It was an amusing
> exercise, nothing more.
That isn't what he said before the poll was taken, is it? And anyway, the
newsworthiness of this is not "Labour MPs think burglars more deserving than
homeowners" (we knew that already, and it is a "dog bites man" story).
The story is "Labour MP breaks a public promise".
Clearly, the wrong pressure group (if there was one) prevailed.
I wonder which one Pound had primed?
JNugent
> Something I found ironic is that, according to reports that I have
> read, the proposed new legislation voted for by those taking part
> in the poll would only give home owners the right to use unlimited
> (including lethal) force against intruders in their homes, and council
> (and other) tenants would be given no such benefit, with existing
> law remaining the status quo in such situations.
> Why home owners feel that they should be entitled to more legal
> protection than other householders in their attempts to repel burglars
> is beyond me. Actually, what is needed is a drastic shake-up
> in policing methods, with police actually attempting to apprehend
> burglars and bring them to justice, as opposed to the extremely low
> detection and conviction rates that exist at present.
Of course, it is VERY unlikely that the voters specified the proposed law in
those terms.
You have simply retailed the summarised wording chosen by the BBC, perhaps
in the hope that someone like you would stand up on his hind legs and start
bleating about it, giving this Pound character the sort of "out" he needs.
There would, of course, be nothing to stop Pound using the word
"householder" in the Private Member's Bill he promised to introduce,
whatever the wording of the BBC's scriptwriter.
JNugent
> Elephar <ele...@pipex.com> writes:
> >Col wrote:
> >> as this can be sabotaged by concerted groups of individuals.
> >> He must have known about this and taken a calculated risk.
> >> Unfortunately for him it blew up in his face!
> >Could it not just possibly be, even remotely possibly, that no hi-jack
took
> >place and the view expressed really was the view of the majority of the
> >population?
> No.
I have never thought of you as stupid, or as dishonest.
But you must either be stupid or dishonest if you answer "no" to that.
Which is it?
Gunner
<amh...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>Well, I'm no fan of Labour, old or new, but it was a very silly idea to
>promise to put forward whatever half-baked idea came out of a self-selecting
>poll of this kind.
>
>I am very glad that it has no chance of becoming law.
>
>And it does nothing to dent my regard for democracy, which was very low in
>the first place!
You find a law, that allows home owners the right to protect their
home by any means necessary to be silly?
Gods blood, I hope you are not typical of the UK.
Gunner
"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"
Gunner
Why would you feel that Council (and others) dwellers should have less
rights to protect their domiciles?
Interesting.
Gunner
wrote:
>In message <bt3sba$2v867$1...@ID-46833.news.uni-berlin.de>, Elephar
><ele...@pipex.com> writes
>>Col wrote:
>><Snip>
>>> as this can be sabotaged by concerted groups of individuals.
>>> He must have known about this and taken a calculated risk.
>>> Unfortunately for him it blew up in his face!
>>>
>>
>>Could it not just possibly be, even remotely possibly, that no hi-jack took
>>place and the view expressed really was the view of the majority of the
>>population?
>
>No.
Given the skyrocketing crime rate in the UK, Id be surprised if it was
"no"
Alan G
<JNu...@AC30.freeofspamserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Jonathan Bratt <jonny...@aol.com> wrote...
>
>> The Rifleman <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>> >"Elephar" <ele...@pipex.com> wrote:
>
>> >> The Rifleman wrote:
>
>> >> > Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
>
>But he *said* he *would* take up the most popular proposal and try to push
>it through as a PMB, and if he had an ounce of honour or scruple, he would
>now do what he promised.
>
>That he will not do what he promised proves (as if proof were needed) that
>he is untrustworthy.
>
He *is* a politician. Would any of them act any differently?
JNugent
> <JNu...@AC30.freeofspamserve.co.uk> wrote:
[in response to someone who had said that "A poll on the Today programme
does not represent the will of the people":]
>> But he *said* he *would* take up the most popular proposal and try
>> to push it through as a PMB, and if he had an ounce of honour or
>> scruple, he would now do what he promised.
>> That he will not do what he promised proves (as if proof were
>> needed) that he is untrustworthy.
> He *is* a politician. Would any of them act any differently?
We will probably never know, as Pound is the first (and, I'll bet, the last)
pol stupid enough to have made such a pledge (he *must* have had another
idea in mind, but failed to get his mob to vote for it in sufficient
numbers).
Nevertheless, he will now go down in history as "Welcher" Pound.
bluey
Interesting, I want that but then I lock my doors and windows, make sure
that I don't leave things like car keys where they can be stolen and take
some simple precautions when I go away. The result is that I have not be
burgled. Why do I need to be able to kill or injure someone as a means of
protection?
The majority of theft from housing and other property is done by
opportunists who take advantage of the laziness of others when it comes to
protecting their goods and chattels. Very little theft is carried out by
professionals with skeleton keys etc. and those people prefer empty houses.
Blue.
The Rifleman
> You find a law, that allows home owners the right to protect their
> home by any means necessary to be silly?
>
> Gods blood, I hope you are not typical of the UK.
>
> Gunner
Now you see what I have been trying to warn you about, there are plenty of
sheeple in the UK who think a man who shoots a youth who is part of a three
part robbery team , who have repeatedly targeted this farmer in his remote
farmhouse until the farmer finally loses the plot and shoots the scumbag in
the back as he drives them yet again from his property, and do remember
gunner that the police had told this farmer after he had already been
burgled at least three times prior that they could not and would not be able
to respond to his 999 calls to the police.
Honestly Gunner there are people in the UK who believe that a citizen should
never be allowed to shoot an intruder no matter how often they have been
targetted and after being told by the cop that they are on their own, They
come up with all sorts of stupid answers like catch them and hold thenm till
the police does come ( 1 old man V 3 young men ) or spend his remaining
money on alarm and security system that no one can see or hear because the
farm is so remote, to let them take what they want nothing is worth taking
their life for ( as you watch your lifes work be stolen piecemeal by the
local scum)
The Rifleman
> We will probably never know, as Pound is the first (and, I'll bet, the
last)
> pol stupid enough to have made such a pledge (he *must* have had another
> idea in mind, but failed to get his mob to vote for it in sufficient
> numbers).
>
> Nevertheless, he will now go down in history as "Welcher" Pound.
>
> He is a perfect example of the true worth of any labourite, remember the
MPs are the pinnacle of that particular social group (
labourite=socialist=communist=parasite) Mr Pound is the best of the
labourites, after him and blair the quality of labour party members goes
down.
Bob G
wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:39:19 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew McGee"
><amh...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Well, I'm no fan of Labour, old or new, but it was a very silly idea to
>>promise to put forward whatever half-baked idea came out of a self-selecting
>>poll of this kind.
>>
>>I am very glad that it has no chance of becoming law.
>>
>>And it does nothing to dent my regard for democracy, which was very low in
>>the first place!
>
>You find a law, that allows home owners the right to protect their
>home by any means necessary to be silly?
>
>Gods blood, I hope you are not typical of the UK.
>
>Gunner
>
Chuckle, easy Gunner.
How DARE a mere commoner like yourself speak up and voice an opinion
which has not first been approved of by your betters.
Did you first ask permission of Lord McGee to speak out?
Geez, what is this nonsense? Do you think this is some sort of
Democracy or other nonsensical form of organization where anyone need
listen to the opinion of a mere commoner?
If you knew your place properly, instead of trying to voice your
misbegotten and undoubtedly worthless opinions, you'd be asking Lord
McGee what they should be.
:-)
Bob
The Rifleman
> Interesting, I want that but then I lock my doors and windows, make sure
> that I don't leave things like car keys where they can be stolen and take
> some simple precautions when I go away. The result is that I have not be
> burgled. Why do I need to be able to kill or injure someone as a means of
> protection?
>
> The majority of theft from housing and other property is done by
> opportunists who take advantage of the laziness of others when it comes to
> protecting their goods and chattels. Very little theft is carried out by
> professionals with skeleton keys etc. and those people prefer empty
houses.
>
> Blue.
>
through shop fronts, they all go about with the ubiquitous pocket pry bar,
most get arrest for going equipped to commit an offence usually prybars,
screwdrivers, bolt cutters , hammers etc, one of the top insurance claims in
the UK is for replacement patio doors and windows that have been ripped out
by burglars. But why should a home powner have to spend a fortune of their
own money turning the family home into a fortress living in fear of becoming
a victime, they should be encouraged to lock doors and windows, I agree with
that but after that if the intruder forces their way in , as happened with
Tony Martin 3 times, the home owner should be allowed to use the cheapest
and most effective way of stopping the criminal in the first, and stopping
him from coming back again. and the way to achive that is with weaponnry
both lethal and non lethal from shotguns, to pistols, to CS gas sprays to
chemical mace to a rottweiler. but the important thing is that they must be
allowed tochoose how they protect themselves, and criminals must loose wehat
protection under the law they have as soon as they break in.
>
Gunner
<b...@spam.xxx.notputtingthison.com> wrote:
>
>Interesting, I want that but then I lock my doors and windows, make sure
>that I don't leave things like car keys where they can be stolen and take
>some simple precautions when I go away. The result is that I have not be
>burgled. Why do I need to be able to kill or injure someone as a means of
>protection?
>
>The majority of theft from housing and other property is done by
>opportunists who take advantage of the laziness of others when it comes to
>protecting their goods and chattels. Very little theft is carried out by
>professionals with skeleton keys etc. and those people prefer empty houses.
>
>Blue.
>
>
I seldom lock my doors, even if leaving for a day or more. Why should
I live with a fortress mentality because others have no fear of taking
my goods?
Why do I need to be able to kill or maim a criminal when protecting
myself or my chattels? To give the bad guy pause, and to make him
reconsider a life of crime, that may involve harming me or mine, or
the little old lady next door.
You really have NO sense of community responsibility, do you? Sad.
MTV generation run amok. Sigh
Gunner
While shooting the lad in the back, is illegal in Most of the US, a
good case could be made that if he had shot them in the front on their
earlier visits, the problem would have ended much much sooner.
A much better case could be made, that if the men (and the punk was
not a child) were afraid for their lives in the first place, they
never would have burgled the place to begin with.
I pity you and your countrymen. It appears castration is a very
widespread operation at birth, or at least in your middle schools.
First Maje
wrote:
>While shooting the lad in the back, is illegal in Most of the US
Please cite the law that states that.
[deafening silence to follow]
Bob G
<bernard.verona@(Unwanted)cgocable.ca> wrote:
>Is your remark intended to convey that Michael Jackson is a criminal?
>
>Well if so, I can see why you would make such a remark. I live in Canada
>and have access to all the US TV news stations, all of whom have
>convicted Michael Jackson and actively encourage their viewers to do the
>same.
snipped the rest of the rant and toal BS.....
Chuckle, it's okay if you hate the US, Barry. Everyone, at least here
in the US, is allowed to have any opinion he or she desires. And may
even voice them, with very few restraints.
Gee, isn't freedom nice?
And you have my sincere assurances, we have no particular desire to
invade Canada and make it the 51st state and force you to live as we
do.
In fact, if watching our TV programs distresses you so much ... might
I suggest you change the channel? You can, you know. I promise, I
won't do anything to try to stop you.
As regards those TV shows. I'll take your word for what they're
saying as I watch precious little TV. And when I do, I'm afraid I
have much better uses for my time and attention than to pay attention
to what some ignorant reporter, US or Canadian, is saying about
Michael Jackson.
In my world, Michael Jackson is a non-entity, a non-factor, ....
utterly irrelevant. A man, like any other man. Puts on his pants one
leg at a time, and his make-up one dab at a time.
I have heard he's been charged, and that he's been arrested and
released to await trial. That's as much as I've bothered to pay
attention to. What else the "Talking Heads" say on TV I ignore.
<Shrug> Why bother to pay attention? They're wrong more often than
they're right.
Whether it's US journalists, British, Canadian, Australian, or
whichever ... the one and only thing one can bet on reliably is that
about 90% of everything they say is pure BS. And if they can't
discover enough BS to repeat, why ... no problem, they've shown
repeatedly a perfect willingness to make up some BS to repeat.
I don't include the French press or journalists in the above list on
purpose as anyone of any common sense understands they're
fundamentally incapable of telling the truth to any slightest degree.
And would not recognize it in any event. The French journalists are
easy to understand. If 100 of the world's foremost, recognized
scientists said that the sun rose in the east. But none of them was a
Frenchman. And a French garbage collector instead claimed the sun
rose in the west. Then OF COURSE the sun rises in the west, and
everyone else is wrong.
In any event, I watch the news for one thing. The news. Simple as
that. What, of importance or interest, has happened today?
I don't bother to pay any attention to the opinions, speculations, or
the analyzing of events done by journalists. A total waste of time.
IMHO.
Do yourself a favor, realize that you can do just about as well at
predicting how things are gonna work out in the end in some event or
incident by flipping a coin, as all the journalist do with all their
debate, rhetoric, speculations, and trotting out of their pick of
"experts". Actually, flipping a coin you'd probably arrive at the
correct answer more times than the journalists do.
Do yourself an even bigger favor, stop taking anything journalists say
so serious, better yet ... get a real life of your own and stop
watching so much TV.
As concerns the utter BS content of your post, you're practicing quite
selective memory. Either that or you're suffering from ADHD or some
learning or comprehension disorder.
You seem to forget the case of OJ Simpson. Same sort of speculation.
The VAST majority of the press figured he didn't have a chance in
court. If you haven't heard, Simpson walked.
Such has happened a great many times, and will happen a great many
more times, most likely.
IMHO, the average American past the age of 25 is not nearly so
gullible as to believe more than half what the press says. If that
much.
But, hell, I don't know about Canadians. Only know 5 or 6 personally.
I suppose it is possible you're proof that most Canadians are more
gullible than I would have thought based on the few I personally know.
Bob
Richard Miller
<ele...@pipex.com> writes
>Richard Miller wrote:
>> In message <bt3sba$2v867$1...@ID-46833.news.uni-berlin.de>, Elephar
>> <ele...@pipex.com> writes
>>> Col wrote:
>>> <Snip>
>>>> as this can be sabotaged by concerted groups of individuals.
>>>> He must have known about this and taken a calculated risk.
>>>> Unfortunately for him it blew up in his face!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could it not just possibly be, even remotely possibly, that no
>>> hi-jack took place and the view expressed really was the view of the
>>> majority of the population?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, as threads about TM on these groups have illustrated, a
>> large proportion of the population fundamentally misunderstand what
>> the
>> law of this country does and does not allow. Among those who have a
>> correct understanding, very few see any need for change.
No, it couldn't.
This is nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with the fact
that the law allows the use of reasonable force, up to and including
lethal force, and the sorts of scenarios most people describe when
explaining what they think they should be entitled to do, they already
are entitled to do. They do nothing but display their ignorance by
yelling for the law to be changed to what it actually already is.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>
>
If people have a different *opinion* from me, then fine.
If they say they want a change in the law to something the law already
allows, they are ill informed, and I don't see what is so objectionable
about me, a lawyer, pointing this out.
If people continue to insist after this has been explained to them that
they want a change in the law to what the law already allows, then they
are indeed stupid. Or perhaps malicious propagandists.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<gun...@lightspeed.net> writes
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:39:19 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew McGee"
><amh...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Well, I'm no fan of Labour, old or new, but it was a very silly idea to
>>promise to put forward whatever half-baked idea came out of a self-selecting
>>poll of this kind.
>>
>>I am very glad that it has no chance of becoming law.
>>
>>And it does nothing to dent my regard for democracy, which was very low in
>>the first place!
>
>You find a law, that allows home owners the right to protect their
>home by any means necessary to be silly?
>
When we have an existing law that allows home owners and occupiers of
rented property (excluded from the proposed new law) to protect their
home by any reasonable means, yes, the proposed new law is extremely
silly.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<JNu...@AC30.freeofspamserve.co.uk> writes
>Anthony Edwards <use...@catfish.nildram.co.uk> wrote...
>
>
>Of course, it is VERY unlikely that the voters specified the proposed law in
>those terms.
>
>You have simply retailed the summarised wording chosen by the BBC, perhaps
>in the hope that someone like you would stand up on his hind legs and start
>bleating about it, giving this Pound character the sort of "out" he needs.
>
>There would, of course, be nothing to stop Pound using the word
>"householder" in the Private Member's Bill he promised to introduce,
>whatever the wording of the BBC's scriptwriter.
>
>
matter that home renters would be excluded under the terms proposed by
those putting forward this proposal for the vote.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<gun...@lightspeed.net> writes
>While shooting the lad in the back, is illegal in Most of the US, a
>good case could be made that if he had shot them in the front on their
>earlier visits, the problem would have ended much much sooner.
Gunner, here you have identified one of the many problems with Rifleman.
No one has ever suggested that these particular burglars had ever
visited TM before.
Unfortunately he has never been one to let the facts get in the way of
his pro-killing stance.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<gun...@lightspeed.net> writes
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:48:43 +0000, Jonathan Bratt <jonny...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <bt3sba$2v867$1...@ID-46833.news.uni-berlin.de>, Elephar
>><ele...@pipex.com> writes
>>>Col wrote:
>>><Snip>
>>>> as this can be sabotaged by concerted groups of individuals.
>>>> He must have known about this and taken a calculated risk.
>>>> Unfortunately for him it blew up in his face!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Could it not just possibly be, even remotely possibly, that no hi-jack took
>>>place and the view expressed really was the view of the majority of the
>>>population?
>>
>>No.
>
>Given the skyrocketing crime rate in the UK, Id be surprised if it was
>"no"
>
Given that the "skyrocketing crime rate" is a figment of the imagination
of pro-gun lobbyists and Tories, you shouldn't be.
--
Richard Miller
Bob G
>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:56:40 GMT, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net>
>wrote:
>
>>While shooting the lad in the back, is illegal in Most of the US
>
>Please cite the law that states that.
>
I suppose you might be technically correct that it's not illegal to
shoot someone in the back.
After all, if a person was threatening you with severe bodily harm and
you truly believed the threat ... i.e. fellow just hauled out a knife
and either slashed yah, or just missed slashing you and is making a
come back to do it proper. And you hauled out your weapon and fired,
and the guy spun around ... but you're in full fright at the moment
and you're continuing to unlimber on him because he's still mobile and
you haven't any idea what he's gonna do next. And aren't waiting to
find out because all you want right them is to see his falling body
which would tell you that your shots are being effective and the
threat might be ending. And so you continue to shoot, back, front,
whichever, you don't care because you just want the SOB to GO DOWN
because you're scared outtta your wits.
Likewise, yah come home, find guy in house, guy says you're to
cooperate or he's gonna hurt your wife, who is on the other side of
the room. And he starts towards her knife in hand, presenting his
back to you. So, in fear for her, you unlimber into his back.
Or yah come home, find guy has just raped your wife, you see her, you
see him, she's hurt and beat up and crying, he runs. You cut lose on
him. Blowing chunk out of his spine ... several times.
<Shrug> I'd guess that few juries in the US would toss your butt in
jail. Barring other factors that might cause em to believe you had
some fault and wrong doing in all this.
Of course, use of deadly force laws in the US vary a pretty fair
amount from state to state. But I'd still bet that in one of the
above scenarios it'd still be tough for a prosecutor to get MOST
juries, in most states, to toss your ass in jail.
However, regardless of the state or state law, I don't think I'd want
to take my chances in front of a jury in a case where, for instance:
Guy waved knife and demanded money. You wave S&W and say "Hell no,
Sucker, I'm giving you to the count of 10, yah better start running."
Guy does, you count to 10, by fives, and you shoot him in the back.
AND there are witnesses.
Guy is breaking into your house. Ditto the above situation, he finds
yah waving firearm as soon as he's inside, you yell at him to freeze
and surrender, instead he makes like a rabbit. You chase him half way
down block then shoot him in the back. AND ... there are witnesses.
Etc.
Like I say, laws vary a lot. But I for one wouldn't like my chances
in front of any jury in a case where there was evidence, such as eye
witnesses, that I'd shot a man in the back when there had not really
been a pressing need to shoot him at all.
The only exception might be some states where the law and prevailing
majority opinion is that a homeowner need not retreat from the use of
deadly force in his or her own home.
Even then, I'm thinking I'd not want to push the matter.
Besides, I for one would kill a man in a heartbeat if I think he needs
it. But the fact is, I don't want to kill anybody I don't have to.
Even if he's an asshole, even if he's scum, etc. Maybe it's just me,
but unless he's doing something that makes me think I gotta stop him
NOW before he hurts somebody ... I'm just not real anxious to blast
him.
<Shrug>
I think most folks know what Gunner meant to say.
Bob
Barry
Very illuminating.
Barry
"Bob G" <Osi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0eobvvole950ndc6n...@4ax.com...
Gunner
>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:56:40 GMT, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net>
>wrote:
>
>>While shooting the lad in the back, is illegal in Most of the US
>
>Please cite the law that states that.
>
>[deafening silence to follow]
Nearly all case law follows this:
One must have reasonable cause to believe that ones life or the life
of another is in immediate danger before deadly force may be used.
Several states such as Texas, Delaware etc have laws allowing one to
employ deadly force to protect property, Texas (after dark) Delaware
has their Make My Day Laws, as do several others.
Which state would you like me to cite the actual statute?
California, is PC 187
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=1023996111+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.
198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.
198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.
199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.
A cite I found interesting
http://www.trosch.org/tro/mpr-7g30.htm
http://www.thebestdefense.com/Crimes/violent_self_defense.html?clgid=dc0ce78e85497f45
Self-Defense
n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the
family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the
defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger.
Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault,
battery, or homicide. The force used in self-defense may be sufficient
for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or
to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to continue
the attack or use excessive force.
Example: An unarmed man punches Allen Alibi, who hits the attacker
with a baseball bat. That is legitimate self-defense, but Alibi cannot
chase after the attacker and shoot him or beat him senseless. If the
attacker has a gun or a butcher knife and is verbally threatening,
Alibi is probably warranted in shooting him.
Basically, appropriate self-defense is judged on all the
circumstances. Reasonable force can also be used to protect property
from theft or destruction. Self-defense cannot include killing or
great bodily harm to defend property, unless personal danger is also
involved, as is the case in most burglaries, muggings or vandalism.
If you need some case law, Ill be happy to dig some up to demonstrate
the point.
Gunner
I dont think rifleman has a pro-killing stance. I do believe he has an
anti-criminal stance, one I share deeply. I am well armed, carry a
firearm upon my person everyday, have several arms to hand when at
home. I dread having to shoot another human being. Been there, done
that many times both in the military and as a law enforcement
officer.. Didnt much care for it then, even less now..
However..the fear most would be burglars and other criminals in my
particular area (and most of the United States) is that a home owner
will blow him out of his loafers if caught in mid deed, is quite
justified. Hence we have a very low burglarly, rape, assault etc rate
in my particular area (and most other areas where self defense is
considered a Right).
Given the proper circumstances, I will shoot a criminal with no
hesitation. If he dies, so be it, it was upon his head, and I will
regret having to have been put in that situation. But he still will be
shot, stabbed, clubbed with a sashweight, or anything at hand suitable
for dishing out the required force needed to stop him. And as I
said..if he dies..so be it.
I rather think Rifleman (who is a good lad btw) is a bit frustrated
with the sheep like mentality exhibited by a goodly percentage of the
population of the UK. And those laws and social mores that encourage
such sheep like behavior. Laws and mores that punish the sheep for
kicking at the wolf as it attacks.
I personally am quite disgusted with my English Cousins for allowing
such to happen, and quite frankly..and have lost much of my respect
for the Stalwart Englishman.
The Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the laws and codes that
your ancestors fought and died for..the first shining light of
enlightenment exhibited by the English, far ahead of most other
nations..tossed into the rubbish heap, the brave Englishman, colonizer
of much of the known world, turned into sheep, lamely baaa'ing at the
wolves.
Makes my stomach turn.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:24:00 +0000, Richard Miller
><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately he has never been one to let the facts get in the way of
>>his pro-killing stance.
>
>I dont think rifleman has a pro-killing stance. I do believe he has an
>anti-criminal stance, one I share deeply. I am well armed, carry a
>firearm upon my person everyday, have several arms to hand when at
>home. I dread having to shoot another human being. Been there, done
>that many times both in the military and as a law enforcement
>officer.. Didnt much care for it then, even less now..
But...
--
One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my earnest
endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure - and
in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his fellow
citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
- Jeff Cooper
Gunner
My brave English, Irish and Welsh ancestors tossed off the Yoke of
their "betters" and traveled to a brave new world, where no one was
their better, leaving the craven, the arrogant and the foul at home in
their castles or cowering at their hearths.
They struck OFF the collar labeled Subject at the landing shore, and
hence forth properly called themselves Citizen, with all the pride
and glory, and honor it entails.
The roots of the current sad state of the British..is a result of the
fears of the gentry that the common man would rise up like the
Bolsheviks and cast the Upper Class down into the street. The gun
control laws started in 1920 for the most part, and for this reason.
Sad fact, but demonstratively true. And to this day..the common man is
still subject to the whims and fears of the "gentry'.
Rampant socialism used as a tool by the lofty, to keep the common
man...common.
Terrible fate those left behind suffered..sad..so sad....
Im sure Mr. Churchill is spinning in his grave, the poor old brilliant
sot.
Gunner
Gunner
Ah..,now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Reasonable Means.
Please give us all your definition of Protecting their home by
reasonable means.
I await your response.
Gunner
So Metro and the Home Office are lying?
Flying Rat
> I personally am quite disgusted with my English Cousins for allowing
> such to happen, and quite frankly..and have lost much of my respect
> for the Stalwart Englishman.
>
The British people, through opinion polls and election results, have
said that they do NOT want a society where guns are freely available or
widely held.
It's what we want. Instruments of death are not part of our collective
psyche, so either get over it or agree to disagree. There will still be
those who hold them for criminal reasons, but we do NOT want to be a
society which is armed to the teeth on the everyday basis of being a
householder.
People differ. Accept it.
FR
--
Are we havin' fun yet?
Jeffrey C. Dege
"Reasonable" means "unlikely to cause harm to innocent bystanders."
What happens to the thug is of minor concern.
--
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Gunner said this...
>> I personally am quite disgusted with my English Cousins for allowing
>> such to happen, and quite frankly..and have lost much of my respect
>> for the Stalwart Englishman.
>>
>Personally, I don't care.
>
>The British people, through opinion polls and election results, have
>said that they do NOT want a society where guns are freely available or
>widely held.
The rights of the individual are not subject to majority vote.
Jonathan Bratt
<spamb...@nowt.com> writes
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:47:13 +0000, Jonathan Bratt <jonny...@aol.com>
>enlightened the denizens of uk.politics.misc by writing:
>
>>>> I just love his quoted remark in the Mail...
>>>> "The people have spoken........the BASTARDS!"
>
>>>> ROTFL
>
>>>Naturally being a labourite he is going to look at the will of the people
>
>>A poll on the Today programme does not represent the will of the people.
>>Such polls are easily open to pressure groups. It was an amusing
>>exercise, nothing more.
>
>But it was a bit more than that, wasn't it? For whatever reason,
>Stephen Pound said that he would use his "slot" to promote a Bill
>chosen by the Today programme's listeners. No doubt he held himself
>out as being very democratic and broad-minded about it, put on a
>"brave" face on the possibility that "the people" might chose a Bill
>with which he disagreed, and mouthed platitudes about being a "servant
>of the people" etc etc.
>
>Of course, it now turns out that the choice he was offering was an
>"any colour you like so long as its black" type choice: and that he
>has no intention of being bound by a choice with which he disagrees.
>
>It certainly isn't the first time that a politician - even one as
>amusing as Stephen Pound - has gone back on a promise but I do not
>think that such an event can be dismissed as "an amusing exercise". At
>best, this exercise speaks volumes about Mr Pound's judgment - at
>worst, his honesty - and the frivolity with which he appears to view
>his legislative authority.
If the poll had produced a result calling for the re-introduction of the
death penalty I would not have expected him to push it with all his
might. From what I can gather the 'organ donor bill' was well in the
lead until the very end when there was a surge of support for the
winner. This certainly indicates to me that pressure groups may well
have been at work.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Gunner
The British People are prime examples of Orwells fears, media and
poltician driven. Love is hate, war is peace. Your masters have done
well in indoctrinating the sheep. Gobels would have been proud.....
Do you have a clue about the history of firearms and other deadly
devices in the hands of the British people?
Firearms Act, 1920
The Firearms Act, 1920 marks a watershed in firearms legislation in
this country, it established the system of controls that exist to this
day. At the time it was introduced firearms crime was at all time low
and remained rare in this country until the crime wave of the 1960s.
As a result it has been assumed that the low level of firearms crime
in the UK are the result of its restrictive firearms laws. The
response to escalating firearms crime has been to introduce ever more
restrictive legislation. What little academic study has been done in
this area would indicate that the law achieves little, that is not to
say that controls are without purpose or effect. However, the law as
it stands is a mass of bureaucracy, the way it is implemented is often
confrontational and at times it penalises law abiding citizens who
seek to comply with the law. What is needed is a calm and unemotional
evaluation of the firearms laws. We should examine what the law sets
out to achieve, evaluate what is in fact achieved and abandon those
controls which achieve nothing. I will state here and now that I do
not think this will happen. Too many politicians have invested their
political credibility in the efficacy of firearms controls, they will
never admit to the failings of the current law.
Bearing that in mind it is instructive to consider the 1920 act in a
modern context. In particular, consider the justification given for
its introduction and the political undercurrents which were the hidden
motivation behind it.
The 1920 Firearms Act resulted from the recommendations of the secret
Blackwell Committee report, it was a comprehensive piece of
legislation and established a system of controls that remains one of
the strictest in the Western world. It is all the more remarkable
because it represents a complete and utter reversal in the way in
which the state considered the private ownership of firearms. In 1900,
the Prime Minister stated that he would "laud the day when there was a
rifle in every cottage in England." That year the Lord Mayor of London
hosted a meeting at Mansion house that was attended by the great and
the good, including such figures as the Archbishop of York and the
Duke of Westminster. The stated aim of the meeting was that of
founding a Society of Working Men's Rifle Clubs for facilitating rifle
shooting.
The aim of the government was to establish Rifle Clubs which could
teach working men basic marksmanship skills and how to handle a rifle.
This would create a pool of trained marksmen who could then be quickly
absorbed into a conscript army. The skills that were taught in those
clubs served this country well in the Great War. In 1914 Sergeant
Snaxall of the Small Arms School fired 38 shots in one minute from a
Short Magazine Lee Enfield Rifle, at a range of 300 yards every shot
was within the inner ring of the target. During the Battle of Mons the
rifle fire from the British Infantry was so rapid and so accurate that
the advancing German army was convinced it was under machine gun fire.
Yet, twenty years later the government sought to introduce legislation
with the express purpose of removing those rifles from the hands of
working men. The question is why did the government change its policy
so radically?
The act was introduced into Parliament as an anti-crime measure, the
then Home Secretary Edward Short assured the House that the purpose of
the Bill was:
"... designed to maintain greater control so that, as far as possible,
criminals or weak minded persons and those who should not have
firearms may be prevented from having these dangerous and lethal
firearms. As far as possible, we have provided that legitimate sport
should not be in any way hampered, and so that any person who has good
reason for possessing firearms, or to whom there is no objection, may
be entitled to have them; but we hope, by means of this bill, to
prevent criminals and persons of that description from being able to
have revolvers and to use them."
The act was presented as an anti-crime measure, which would not impact
upon the legitimate ownership of firearms. Yet the act imposed
stringent controls that stopped little short of outright prohibition.
The attitude of the government earlier in the century, the reasons
given for the act and the reassurances that legitimate owners had
nothing to fear are in stark contrast to the sweeping powers that the
act conferred upon the state. This stark contrast has baffled those
who have sought to study this subject. One of the first people to
undertake research in this area was Police Superintendent Colin
Greenwood, during 1970-71 he was a Cropwood Fellow of the Institute of
Criminology at Cambridge University. In a speech at Rhodes House,
Oxford in June 1983 he recalled:
"The question troubled me for some time because I was naive enough to
accept the assurances of Ministers of the day that their legislation
was aimed at the armed criminal ... During the period 1911 to 1913,
firearms were involved in an average of 45 crimes of all types per
year. During the period 1915 to 1917, the average had fallen to 15
cases per year. Would to God that we could have such figures today.
Why then was the legislation introduced?"
Why indeed was the legislation introduced, as I mentioned earlier the
legislation resulted from the recommendations of the Blackwell
Committee. The Committee met in secret and their report was never
published or acknowledged, today we only know of its existence because
it was declassified under a 50 year rule.
The chairman of the committee, Sir Ernest Blackwell, was a senior Home
Office official who had also been involved in the abortive 1911
Pistols Bill. The secretary of the committee, Mr F.J.Dryhurst, had
recently been Commissioner of the Prison Service. Other members of the
committee represented the Metropolitan Police, the county and borough
police forces, the Board of Customs, the Board of Trade, the War
Office and the Irish Office. The committee was thus composed
exclusively of career civil servants and members of the police force,
it met in secret and it did not consider the possibility that any
outside agency had anything worthwhile to contribute.
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police reported that during the
period 1911-13 there had been 123 incidents in which a firearm had
been used in the commission of a crime, or a criminal had been in
possession of a firearm when apprehended. During the corresponding
period of 1915-17 the number of incidents had dropped to a mere 47.
Blackwell attributed this to the effects of the Defence of the Realm
Regulations, a wartime restriction which required a license for the
retail purchase of rifles, pistols or ammunition. Blackwell contended
that:
"...the control of firearms should be made far stringent than now is a
proposition that hardly anyone could be found to question"
His remarks should be considered in the context that when he submitted
his report he wrote in the covering letter "It will be better not to
publish it ... and as regards our report, any prolonged discussion
with the 'trade' is to be avoided." It would appear naive in the
extreme, that in a time of such upheaval a modest reduction in crime
should be attributed to a single measure. During the period 1915-17
large numbers of young men were conscripted into the armed forces.
Crime and armed crime in particular, usually involves young men and so
in this period it could be expected that crime would be reduced. On
the other hand as the result of the war firearms and ammunition were,
despite the restrictions, more easily available and so if it were the
availability of guns that contributed to armed crime it would
reasonable to have expected armed crime to have risen. It is plain
that the committee proceeded on the assumption that controls were
necessary and would be effective.
And so to consider the political climate into which the report by the
Blackwell Committee had been delivered. It seems strange today
(especially in an era which has seen the fall of the Berlin Wall, the
re-unification of Germany, the disintegration of the Eastern Bloc
alliance and the collapse of the Soviet Union) that one of the most
pressing issues of the day was the fear of a Bolshevik uprising. Yet
as recently released cabinet papers make clear this issue was of grave
concern to the Government. It was considered that the police could not
cope with the anticipated troubles and the Army would be insufficient
as its strength had been depleted by demobilisation.
"On the assumption that an adequate police force is in existence, it
is considered essential to maintain the infantry garrisons in Great
Britain at not less than 40,000 men in order to give a minimum
strength of 30,000 effective bayonets for employment in an emergency."
The Chief of the Imperial General Staff went on to state that he could
not guarantee sufficient men would be available beyond March 1920 and
went on to state " ..an adequate police force does not apparently
exist." Sir Eric Geddes, Minister of Transport expressed the fear
that:
"It is not inconceivable that a dramatic and successful coup d'etat in
some large centre of population might win the support of the
unthinking mass of labour..."
The Bolshevik revolution in Russia and the attempted Bolshevik
revolution in Winnipeg, Canada weighed heavily on the minds of the
cabinet. Those fears were focused by the formation of the "Third
International" with the aim of exporting insurrection. The Blackwell
Committee had identified two main sources of post-war danger to the
empire. The:
"savage or semi-civilised tribesmen in outlying parts of the British
Empire"
and
"the anarchist or 'intellectual' malcontent of the great cities whose
weapon os the bomb and the automatic pistol. There is some force in
the view that the latter will in future prove the more dangerous of
the two."
Whilst the pre-war anarchists had not been regarded as a real threat
to the government, it is clear that the cabinet thought that Communism
may have wider support among the lower classes, the unthinking mass of
labour. The cabinet was told:
"A bill is needed to license persons to bear arms. This has been
useful in Ireland because the Authorities knew whom was possessed of
arms."
The 1920 act was the result. Whilst the Home Secretary Edward Short
reassured the House the Bill was necessary to to safeguard the public
from crime, the cabinet discussed strafing the working class from the
air. Twenty years earlier the government had put its faith and its
trust in the decency and patriotism of the working class, exemplified
by the founding of the Society of Working Men's Rifle Clubs. In the
paranoia of the times, the government felt it could no longer trust
the working class and sought to deny the working man access to
firearms. At the same time it sought to ensure that:
"weapons ought to be available for distribution to friends of the
Government."
The 1920 Firearms Act made possession of certain firearms illegal
without a Firearms Certificate (FAC) issued by the Chief Constable. An
applicant for a FAC had to satisfy the Chief Constable that he was a
suitable person to be entrusted with firearms and that he had a good
reason for possession of a firearm. What is not generally realised is
the sweeping powers that the act conferred on the Chief Constable. In
assessing the suitability of an applicant the Chief Constable may seek
any relevant information he desires, he may take hearsay, gossip and
rumour into account and pursue any enquires he deems necessary. The
burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that he is a person
suitable to be entrusted with firearms. Applicants who were refused a
FAC could appeal to the Petty Sessions against the decision. The act
excluded shotguns, air weapons and antiques and there were exclusions
for various professional categories. Dealers were also subject to
registration.
The act was repealed in 1937, except for ss 16 and 19(1), and
incorporated into the 1937 Firearms Act.
************************
I Strongly urge you to read the following links as well, to see just
how well your Gobelesq propaganda programming has worked
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm
You poor bastards.
Jonathan Bratt
<rst...@inreach.com> writes
>There just might be a bit of a clue as to how a substantial portion of
>his voters think about the question of self-defense.
Voters can make these views know by contacting their MP directly or by
seeing him/her in person at their surgeries. If a substantial portion of
voters feel this way MPs will soon know about it.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<JNu...@AC30.freeofspamserve.co.uk> writes
>That he will not do what he promised proves (as if proof were needed)
>that he is untrustworthy.
A little foolish I grant you - it was a silly stunt IMO. But very much a
7 day wonder - if that.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<ele...@pipex.com> writes
>Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>> In message <bt3sba$2v867$1...@ID-46833.news.uni-berlin.de>, Elephar
>> <ele...@pipex.com> writes
>>> Col wrote:
>>> <Snip>
>>>> as this can be sabotaged by concerted groups of individuals.
>>>> He must have known about this and taken a calculated risk.
>>>> Unfortunately for him it blew up in his face!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could it not just possibly be, even remotely possibly, that no
>>> hi-jack took place and the view expressed really was the view of the
>>> majority of the population?
>>
>> No.
>
>If your not one, you missed your vocation.
>
>
The proper way for the electorate to make their views know is directly
to their MP - there are many ways that they can do this. A Radio poll is
not the proper way IMO. And no, I am not a labour - or any other -
politician.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<Reddw...@btinternet.com> writes
>
>"Jonathan Bratt" <jonny...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:Mccw2GZ7aX9$Ew...@aol.com...
>> In message <bt3sba$2v867$1...@ID-46833.news.uni-berlin.de>, Elephar
>> <ele...@pipex.com> writes
>> >Col wrote:
> > >
>> >Could it not just possibly be, even remotely possibly, that no hi-jack took
>> >place and the view expressed really was the view of the majority of the
>> >population?
>>
>> No.
>
>I'm sure a significant minority of people in this country would
>vote for peadophiles to be nailed by their testicles to the nearest
>lampost, if given the chance.........
Which is why I am glad we have a representative democracy.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<JNu...@AC30.freeofspamserve.co.uk> writes
>Jonathan Bratt <jonny...@aol.com> wrote...
>> >> He must have known about this and taken a calculated risk.
>> >> Unfortunately for him it blew up in his face!
>
>took
>> >place and the view expressed really was the view of the majority of the
>> >population?
>
>> No.
>
>
>But you must either be stupid or dishonest if you answer "no" to that.
>
>Which is it?
>
>
Neither.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> You are not really up to this adult debate are you, the vast majority
>of people want the right to protect their homes and themselves from the
>criminals,
They already have this right.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Richard Miller
<gun...@lightspeed.net> writes
>My brave English, Irish and Welsh ancestors tossed off the Yoke of
>their "betters" and traveled to a brave new world, where no one was
>their better, leaving the craven, the arrogant and the foul at home in
>their castles or cowering at their hearths. They struck OFF the collar
>labeled Subject at the landing shore, and hence forth properly called
>themselves Citizen, with all the pride and glory, and honor it entails.
And then you allowed your Government to pass the USA Patriot Act.
Your brave ancestors must be spinning in their graves so fast they could
meet all your power needs that the oil in Iraq is intended to meet.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<gun...@lightspeed.net> writes
>Ah..,now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Reasonable Means.
>Please give us all your definition of Protecting their home by
>reasonable means.
>
>I await your response.
There is no definition in law.
It means whatever a jury of ordinary men and women considers to have
been reasonable in the circumstances.
And juries, being made up of people like you and me, give people a lot
of leeway when they are defending their homes and families.
--
Richard Miller
First Maje
>>>While shooting the lad in the back, is illegal in Most of the US
>>Please cite the law that states that.
>I suppose you might be technically correct that it's not illegal to
>shoot someone in the back.
Here is a synopsis of the law in Texas. Please indicate where it says
how I mayor may not shoot someone.
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another when and
to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately
necessary to protect himself from serious harm."
Nowhere does it say anything about the position or location of the
actor relative to the criminal.
Here another:
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to
pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery,
or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he
reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other
means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or
recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk
of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period
30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
Nowhere does it say anything about the position or location of the
actor relative to the criminal. Notice that it is very likely that an
actor would have to shoot a feeing criminal in the back in order to
stop the criminal from escaping with the actor's property.
The level of ignorance about something as important as self protection
is appalling. Why it is not a required subject in the schools is
beyond me. I guess the state doesn't give a crap whether people become
unecessary victims of violent crime.
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
"A ruler who violates natural law is illegitimate. He has no right to
be obeyed, his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act
lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals, and should be
dealt with in accordance with natural law, as applied in a state of
nature, in other words they and their servants should be killed as the
opportunity presents, like the dangerous animals that they are, the
common enemies of all mankind."
--John Locke
Richard Miller
<gun...@lightspeed.net> writes
If they are claiming that crime is skyrocketing, yes they are.
Who or what is Metro, anyway? Are you talking about the daily fascist
rag put out by the owners of the Daily Mail?
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<gun...@lightspeed.net> writes
>On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 04:44:00 -0000, Flying Rat <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>People differ. Accept it.
>>
>>FR
>
>The British People are prime examples of Orwells fears, media and
>poltician driven. Love is hate, war is peace. Your masters have done
>well in indoctrinating the sheep. Gobels would have been proud.....
>
When you have secured the repeal of the USA Patriot Act, *then* you can
start criticising us.
The people and even the politicians in the UK have stood up to this
indoctrination far better than anyone in the US. Hell, only ONE of your
politicians had the guts to speak out in support of the liberties you
claim to value when they were being ripped out of the heart of your
country.
--
Richard Miller
First Maje
wrote:
>>>While shooting the lad in the back, is illegal in Most of the US
>>Please cite the law that states that.
>>[deafening silence to follow]
>Nearly all case law follows this:
>One must have reasonable cause to believe that ones life or the life
>of another is in immediate danger before deadly force may be used.
OK, I'll tentatively go along with that for the sake of discussion.
Please indicate where it specifies the relative position and location
of the actor and the criminal. It doesn't. Therefore it is not illegal
to shoot a criminal in the back according to your own interpretation
of the law.
>Several states such as Texas, Delaware etc have laws allowing one to
>employ deadly force to protect property, Texas (after dark) Delaware
>has their Make My Day Laws, as do several others.
I would not characterize the Texas after dark law as a "make my day"
law. It only extends the justification to criminal mischief and theft.
>Which state would you like me to cite the actual statute?
One which explicitly states that shooting someone in the back will
result in loss of justification for deadly force in self protection.
>California, is PC 187
>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=1023996111+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
[snip]
No mention of shooting a criminal in the back in all that California
law - unless of course I overlooked something.
>A cite I found interesting
>http://www.trosch.org/tro/mpr-7g30.htm
>http://www.thebestdefense.com/Crimes/violent_self_defense.html?clgid=dc0ce78e85497f45
No explicit mention of shooting a criminal in the back being illegal.
>If you need some case law, Ill be happy to dig some up to demonstrate
>the point.
I am sure there is ample case law where shooting someone in the back
was deemed an unreasonable application of deadly force, but that does
not mean that shooting someone in the back is illegal in general.
First Maje
>It's a cascading catastrophe that a significant part of the UK
>male population was killed in WWI and WWII. The gene pool
>was severely weakened.
Don't overlook the infamous brain drain, which Shane can describe from
personal experience.
I am of the opinion, based on admittedly weak anecdotal evidence, that
the reason Britain is so fucked up is that leftist queers (males who
are or were homosexual) have infiltrated all the major institutions
in Britain and they are the ones who are perverting everything.
I go so far as to estimate their numbers as high as 50%, with roughly
10% currently practicing and 40% having practiced homosexuality in the
past. Portillo comes to mind when I profile the latter individual.
If you do not allow your brainwashing to overwhelm your ability to
think critically, you might be able to see that despite my rather
categorical presentation, that there is the distinct possibility that
there is an important element of the truth contained in my claims.
For example, so much that we criticize about Britain, in particular
the justice system, is literally perverted in the strictest sense of
that term - it is as cuckoo clockwork orange. In adherence to Occam's
Razor we must consider the very real possibility that the reason for
such perversion is that it is caused by literal perverts.
For example, how does one explain the fact (cf. The Telegraph) that
50% of the clergy of the C of E supports the gay agenda whereas in the
US it is only 10% of the Protestant clergy. That kind of gross
discrepency speaks volumes in support of my claims.
What is the truth? Are my claims the truth? Unlikely, because as I
said, my claims are far too categorical to be taken as literal truth.
But are the counter arguments true? I think not.
To claim that Britain is not under the considerable influence of
leftist queer perverts is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
FWIW.
First Maje
wrote:
>"Reasonable" means "unlikely to cause harm to innocent bystanders."
Reasonable as defined by the law means what a "reasonable person"
would do in the same circumstances.
IOW, it is a matter for the jury to decide since the assumption is
that the jury is composed of reasonable people.
Actually it is assumed that the jury has at least one reasonable
person and if that person does not believe the defendant is guilty
beyond all reasonable doubt, that person can hang the jury. Or at
least it was that way in Britain until leftist queers perverted the
justice system with so-called "majority verdicts".
Two reasonable people on the Tony Martin jury did not believe he was
guilty as charged. But their votes were ignored. So much for justice
in Britain.
Studies have shown that 80% of the jury makes up its mind about the
verdict right after opening arguments. That means the rest of the
trial is ignored by them. If the persecution can brainwash the jury in
opening arguments to such an extent that the defense does not have the
opportunity to overcome the brainwashing in its opening statements,
then 80% of the jury will vote to convict.
How convenient that so-called "majority verdicts" can be rendered with
approx. 80% of the jury. The system is so perverted it reeks.
First Maje
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The Times today also confirmed in its fairly detailed report on the
>matter that home renters would be excluded under the terms proposed by
>those putting forward this proposal for the vote.
Yet another reason why Britain is do fucked up.
I wonder what perverted reasoning was behind this insanity.
First Maje
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>You find a law, that allows home owners the right to protect their
>>home by any means necessary to be silly?
>When we have an existing law that allows home owners and occupiers of
>rented property (excluded from the proposed new law) to protect their
>home by any reasonable means, yes, the proposed new law is extremely
>silly.
Unless of course this law you talk about is so perverted that it no
longer works.
uk resistance movement
> "Andrew McGee" <amh...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bt3l97$p9d$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
>>"The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>>The vote as it happened voted overwhelmingly for.........A law
>
> allowing
>
>>home
>>
>>>owners to protect themselves and their homes by any means, >
>
>
>
>>I am very glad that it has no chance of becoming law.
>
>
> to murder people in their own homes ?
>
>
Nobody would be, which is exactly why this idea from the right wing has no
chance of becoming law.
All the right ever do is make people afraid and paranoid. The way the Daily
Mail reported that Tony Martin incident you would never believe they were
running away when he murdered that boy by shooting him in the back.
First Maje
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>If they say they want a change in the law to something the law already
>allows, they are ill informed, and I don't see what is so objectionable
>about me, a lawyer, pointing this out.
>If people continue to insist after this has been explained to them that
>they want a change in the law to what the law already allows, then they
>are indeed stupid. Or perhaps malicious propagandists.
The current law does not work. That's why there is a cry for one to
replace it.
The law is being applied in a perverted way, which means that it has
been itself perverted. That's how case law works.
It is time to throw that perverted law and all the perverted case law
that supports it out and write a new law that is not perverted.
You want an example of how the current law is perverted? OK, try this.
The current law states that the actor must behave in a "reasonable"
manner. The current definition of "reasonable" has been perverted to
include such insanities as "proportionate" force. There never was any
intent of requiring the actor to behave in a manner that exhibits
"proportionate" application of force. The law used to state that the
actor could use any amount of force that he "honestly believed" was
immediately necessary to prevent serious harm.
There are many other examples of how the original law has become so
perverted that it is no longer acceptable to reasonable people. It
might be something you like because it increases your conviction rate
which in turn helps pay for a lavish lifestyle at the expense of
innocent civilians being railroaded by kangaroo courts.
The old law was at one time adequte but it has been perverted by a
corrupt justice system to the extent that it no longer means the same
thing as it once did. A new statement of the law is needed.
Welsh Witch
> Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
> undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a humiliation
> befallen a abour MP.
> It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour of knee
> jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP feeling
> distinctly uncomfortable.
>
> Stephen Pound MP had linkled up with radio 4 for a poll top find out which
> single change in K law people would most like to see on the statute book.
>
> Mr Pound LABOUR MP, PROMISED to adopt whichever proposal the public voted
> for and to pilot it through parliament in the form of a private members
> bill.
>
> The vote as it happened voted overwhelmingly for.........A law allowing
home
> defence of the Tony Martin fiasco the farmer who was charged with murder
> after killing a burglar on his remote farm after being told by the cops
they
> could not and would not protect him from a series of burglaries affecting
> his property.
>
> Naturally bering a LABOUR MP with the typical morals of a LABOURITE , MR
> Pound LABOUR MP was forced into a humiliating retreat, turning his back on
> the 25,000 voters and his promise to adopt their vote as a private members
> bill was quoted as saying " MY enthiusiasm for democracy is now slightly
> tempered, I must admit this is quite a difficult result".
>
> The " Martin" law vote won over 37 % of the vote which if one remembers
is
> a higher percentage of the amount of people who voted LABOUR into office.
So
> now you have it folks you kknow exactly that labourites and the MPs do not
> keep the promises they make, nor do they respect the will of the public.
Of
> course the rest of the LABOUR establishment immeadiately said such a bill
> would never have been allowed anyway, if that was the case what was the
> point of the whole exercise, and even more slimily the lying cheating
> typical labourite MP has now said even though they dont recognise the
wishes
> of the public in the vote they will put forward the second place winner in
> the poll which was something about organ doners.
>
> Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids with
> Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the labour party.
******************************************************************
I picked this up yesterday from the Telegraph and the extra bit from
Melissa
I am sure it is very importand to see just what Labour Mps think of the
electorate so I've stuck it in the cuttings. These articles published one
week have generally disappeared from view the following week most newspapers
don't seem to have a good archive dept.
So we're all bastards.... that should please all the mothers !!:-)
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/poll.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/aftenposten.hm