Was that the excuse your great uncle used for stabbing that prostitute, before they hanged him?
I read the news today oh boy! Page 712
Quote: zooo @ March 21 2012, 9:15 PM GMTHe's still a killer. That's factual.
There's a big difference between killers and murderers. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person.
Quote: DaButt @ March 21 2012, 9:24 PM GMTRequiring evidence before convicting someone of a crime? Yeah, it works pretty well.
Unless you've got a gun and feel threatened. In that circumstance no evidence is required.
I have to say DaButt this is another area where your American values seem a little "eccentric" not wrong but just very diferent.
If in the UK you kill some one with a weapon it is considered sufficently unusual, that the police will probably arrest you. Just so that they can make you don't go anywhere whilst they check out what happened.
This taking what the fella on trust so much they didn't even arrest him.
It's a diferent aproach certainly.
Quote: Harridan @ March 21 2012, 9:26 PM GMTUnless you've got a gun and feel threatened. In that circumstance no evidence is required.
Plenty of evidence has been taken into account in this case. None of it has disproven the shooter's story, however.
But no arrest, no interview under caution.
It's kinda what would happen in the UK if you got caught scrumping apples and said you were very sorry.
Quote: sootyj @ March 21 2012, 9:29 PM GMTIf in the UK you kill some one with a weapon it is considered sufficently unusual, that the police will probably arrest you. Just so that they can make you don't go anywhere whilst they check out what happened.
This taking what the fella on trust so much they didn't even arrest him.
It's a diferent aproach certainly.
We're big supporter's of individual rights over here. Being arrested can destroy a person's life and even a single night in jail is a life-changing experience for someone who was only defending him/herself.
The man was detained, his background was checked, he was thoroughly questioned (as were others in the area) and when the cops decided that there wasn't evidence of a crime they let him go. That's how it should be.
I'm fairly certain that his handgun was taken from him as evidence.
Quote: sootyj @ March 21 2012, 9:29 PM GMTIf in the UK you kill some one with a weapon it is considered sufficently unusual, that the police will probably arrest you.
In the UK, you can kill someone stone dead and at most serve 4 years in jail. We only punish two types of people in Britain - ordinary members of the public who defend themselves and crimes with a substantial cash value.
Hell, I could beat someone half to death and get away with community service.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ March 21 2012, 9:21 PM GMTSo are the brave men and women who fought in World War 2 defending Britain from the Nazis then.
Yes, obviously!
A point I've made again and again.
A kid who gets away with ABH, wounding with intent, ABH, multiple posessions of a deadly weapon. And finally gets a life sentence is a tragedy and a failure on multiple levels.
Quote: DaButt @ March 21 2012, 9:26 PM GMTThere's a big difference between killers and murderers. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person.
True. Renegade used both words, not me.
Did you listen to the 911 call that was in the BBC report? You can hear the boy screaming for help and the woman who made the call said that the screaming stopped after the gunshot. It doesn't sound like self-defence. And even if you kill someone purely in self-defence there should still be a thorough investigation. Anyone could claim self-defence as long as the killing looked haphazard and there were no witnesses, otherwise.
Big supporters of individual rights, as long as you don't trespass, because all rights are forfeit then.
Quote: zooo @ March 21 2012, 9:40 PM GMTYes, obviously!
Is that what you tell yourself after thieving all the bronze war memorial plaques? You monster, etc.
Quote: DaButt @ March 21 2012, 9:35 PM GMTWe're big supporter's of individual rights over here. Being arrested can destroy a person's life and even a single night in jail is a life-changing experience for someone who was only defending him/herself.
The man was detained, his background was checked, he was thoroughly questioned (as were others in the area) and when the cops decided that there wasn't evidence of a crime they let him go. That's how it should be.
I'm fairly certain that his handgun was taken from him as evidence.
Now that is bizarre.
I mean in the UK a night in the cells is a bit of a right of passage (never spent a night there....)
I'm torn on this. I certainly think you've made the argument for an armed citizenry. But this feels lax.
Quote: Harridan @ March 21 2012, 9:42 PM GMTDid you listen to the 911 call that was in the BBC report? You can hear the boy screaming for help and the woman who made the call said that the screaming stopped after the gunshot. It doesn't sound like self-defence. And even if you kill someone purely in self-defence there should still be a thorough investigation. Anyone could claim self-defence as long as the killing looked haphazard and there were no witnesses, otherwise.
There were people fighting and screaming, it's what happens in a fight. The screaming ended when the shot was fired and the trespasser was pacified. That is the only logical conclusion you can draw from the situation.
Anything else is pure speculation and inadmissable in a court of law. The police did hold an investigation and concluded that the man acted accordingly to protect his own life.
Anyone could claim self defence, anyone could claim they were harmlessly taking a short cut.