http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2269229/Pensioner-arrested-for-chasing-away-youths-with-plank.html

Quote :

"Sydney Davis, 65, a father-of-two, dialled 999 when his home in the Pinehurst area of Swindon, Wilts, came under attack. But when police failed to turn up over the next two hours he decided to take action himself. ... Suddenly a really big rock came crashing into the kitchen. I just grabbed the wood, which was the nearest thing I could find, and chased them off. "The police turned up just as I was chasing them. As a result I was arrested, but they didn't arrest any of them." Mr Davis was handcuffed, taken to a local police station and later charged. Wiltshire Police confirmed both the charge against him and the fact that no one else had been arrested in connection with the incident."

And in a similar vein:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032755/Businessman-grabbed-thug-smashing-window-charged-assault.html

Quote :

"Steve Kink apprehended a thug after catching him breaking into a mobile phone shop late at night. Although the 47-year-old was punched in the face, he managed to pin the offender to the floor. ... the next day the suspect had been let off with a caution for criminal damage. But his shock turned to fury when days later police officers turned up at his house to arrest him for assaulting the thug. ... He said: 'I am very grateful for what Steve did and at the end of the day he has done the police's job for them."

Just a couple of lessons from our neighbors why you should never allow or expect anyone else to be completely responsible for your safety.

7/9/2008 8:55:12 PM

Hear, hear.

7/9/2008 8:57:25 PM

fuck the police

7/9/2008 9:43:05 PM

see the liberal paradise that awaits us

7/9/2008 9:57:30 PM

Ummm, a guy was allowed to blast two criminals in the back as they were running away from HIS NEIGHBORS HOME

We have a very long way to go before we get to the level of a story like the above.

[Edited on July 9, 2008 at 10:04 PM. Reason : a]

7/9/2008 10:04:11 PM

Isn't it nice to know that in America we have no right to defend ourselves or our property?

7/9/2008 10:11:23 PM

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv05107.pdf

7/9/2008 10:11:55 PM

Quote :

"Ummm, a guy was allowed to blast two criminals in the back as they were running away from HIS NEIGHBORS HOME "

To much outcry... wont take long.

Honestly trole, you would have preferred the guy in texas be charged. correct

7/9/2008 10:21:15 PM

No, I think in this situation, having to live out the rest of your life knowing you did something so fucking stupid and heinous as murdering two guys who weren't a threat to you at all is enough punishment.

On the one hand, I think a long hard look at these laws in Texas should take place, but on the other hand, the instances where something like this happens is probably so low that it might not be worth the effort. I'd say if it happens like this again within the next 5 years, then it should really be studied.

Just like I said in the other thread, I'm not upset that the scum of the earth is dead. I'm just concerned that something more bizarre could happen where some dumbass that knows this story feels motivated by it and ends up shooting someone that wasn't burglarizing a home.

7/9/2008 10:26:24 PM

I think we should be allowed to murder indiscriminately

7/9/2008 10:27:32 PM

THanks you two. See what I mean by it wont be long until this happens here.

murder is a bit strong. when we victimize criminals in this country.. we have clearly lost something. imo

7/9/2008 10:42:24 PM

No I'm serious

7/9/2008 10:44:34 PM

i bet

[Edited on July 9, 2008 at 10:47 PM. Reason : .]

7/9/2008 10:47:24 PM

It's called survival of the fittest and it worked for billions of years before we came along

7/9/2008 10:49:14 PM

If you are being serious, ill give you a serious response. We live in a society of laws. However, we cannot place our safety and survival completely in our govt or services at all times, so there are times when we have to make a decision. When we do so, our govt should not penalize the person making an attempt to stop a crime or protect himself or others. imo

[Edited on July 9, 2008 at 10:55 PM. Reason : .]

7/9/2008 10:55:07 PM

Quote :

"When we do so, our govt should not penalize the person making an attempt to stop a crime or protect himself or others. imo "

No one thinks this. But the problem is the system doesn't magically know who is legitimately defending themselves, and who might be lying to make something look like defense when they were really setting someone up to be killed.

Which is why like the texas guy who shot the robbers SHOULD be investigated, and if it is found he did nothing wrong, then he should he exonerated.

7/9/2008 11:32:58 PM

I understand your point moron, I still disagree about the guy in florida. Seems pretty cut and dry. He sees two guys breaking into the next door house. Turns out they are career criminals. Calls the police, when it looks like they are going to get away, he steps in.

The problem when you start penalizing people for trying to help, more will be less likely to do ANYTHING. imo

[Edited on July 10, 2008 at 8:12 AM. Reason : .]

7/10/2008 8:09:35 AM

You get to defend YOUR property. That's it. Period. It's not your responsibility to defend the property of a place you work at that you do not own, it is not your responsibility to defend your neighbor's property, you only get to defend YOUR property.

If they are leaving your property, your responsibility ends, and you should not chase them. If you chased them off, good for you, don't put yourself at risk going after them, especially not off your property, because then the self-defense laws get hazy.

If you are COMPLETELY UNCONNECTED with the place that is getting robbed, as in with the second article, you cal the cops and GTFO, because that is completely not your legal responsibility. And it SHOULDN'T be. The cops are there to make sure idiot citizens don't get themselves killed trying to be heroes. And SO WHAT if the guys get away? It is not your fucking problem.

7/10/2008 10:11:58 AM

It seems to me that a lot of libertarians are using this 'self defense' plea as an excuse to go out there and shoot people. At least thats how the ones on TWW are framing it.

7/10/2008 10:16:19 AM

if you hadn't let that guy run into the elevator, uncle ben parker might still be alive today

7/10/2008 10:20:41 AM

^^ Because, above all else, heaven forbid that law-abiding citizens have guns.
(I didn't frame that so well up above, because I was pissed.)
I'm all for shooting the asshole that is trying to hurt you and yours on your own property, but shooting the asshole that's trying to hurt your neighbor and his starts to get really hazy. Cue the cops bringing up terms like "vigilantism" and trying to secure their power base by getting more brutal, and arresting people that do this. It's pretty obvious, from where I'm sitting, that that's the reaction the cops will give, so stay the fuck out of it.

[Edited on July 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM. Reason : Oh, good, we like this topic.]

7/10/2008 10:22:52 AM

i like how this thread turns from the two original articles back to the Joe Horn case...I guess its impossible to defend what happened in either of the cases in the 1st post of this thread, so its more convenient to change the subject to shooting people. What the fuck do guns have to do with either of the two stories?

7/10/2008 10:23:23 AM

DailyMail? Far right tabloid owned by an extreme rightist.

7/10/2008 10:23:49 AM

Quote :

"i like how this thread turns from the two original articles back to the Joe Horn case...I guess its impossible to defend what happened in either of the cases in the 1st post of this thread, so its more convenient to change the subject to shooting people. What the fuck do guns have to do with either of the two stories?"

Can you read?

Well, b4k4 has a good point with his comment based on some of the laws we have here, but then Republicans comment made it sound like we are heading down the same road with his "liberal paradise" statement. My rebuttal to that is we allowed a guy to go free after he killed two guys by shooting them in the back after they were running away from him after they were robbing his neighbors house. It doesn't take a retarded monkeyTreeTwista to see that we are a long long way away from where they are in England on this topic. If you can't see at all how these two things are connected, then you should probably save us all the thread shitting and not reply.

7/10/2008 10:33:41 AM

Quote :

"DailyMail? Far right tabloid owned by an extreme rightist."

Yeah I frequent a site populated by about 1/3 brits, and whenever a story posted is followed by a link to they Daily Mail, rolly eyes usually follow.

7/10/2008 10:37:20 AM

and my point is trole that we arent that far from the liberal paradise from the outrage, esp among the younger voters.

Fur, again, I see your point, but i disagree. Its amazing to me how little sense of community/responsiblity some people feel. If it doesnt affect you and yours..then its someone elses problem. That is the "idea" I disagree with. There are people that will stand up to criminals and when that happens our courts should not punish thier bravery.

I guess by your definition, you shouldnt be surprised that no one helped that guy that got hit by the car and everyone just walked away. After all, someone will do something, but just not me. correct? Since we are COMPLETELY UNCONNECTED and all.

7/10/2008 10:43:40 AM

"We definitely don't fancy the general public going about protecting themselves against your basic criminal. Pretty soon they start feeling all independent and such... and we know what happen when the last batch of colonists felt all cocky and independent.

See how that gent only got a piece of wood to protect his home, and the Queen Mum here has me with a machine gun protecting her batch of motorcars."

[Edited on July 10, 2008 at 10:47 AM. Reason : cheerio]

7/10/2008 10:46:34 AM

At what point do you limit the right of the citizens to enforce the law? If they step up and try to enforce the law and get injured is it an additional crime or is the criminal just defending himself? The law needs to have clear limits in this area.

I personally think (and this is only based off of my personal musings) that self defense should be limited to your personal being, family, and personal property.

7/10/2008 10:47:59 AM

Quote :

"and my point is trole that we arent that far from the liberal paradise from the outrage, esp among the younger voters"

Ummm, what? Younger voters? Thats nearly a paradox.

7/10/2008 10:48:28 AM

Quote :

"we are a long long way away from where they are in England on this topic."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/10/national/main1699174.shtml

7/10/2008 10:52:32 AM

trole, my point is that younger people lean liberal. As evident here, you also see the outrage against the man being more widespread here than other boards. We are an aging nation and moving towards the left. the shift in demographics will bring along shifts in policy.

monky, I think if you sit around in some cases waiting for someone else to DO something, you do a diservice to yourself and your community. Im not saying you ignore the presence of the cops and do what you want. Im saying, that if someone chooses to stand up for the community our community shouldnt punish them.

9/11 is a great example of what waiting for someone else to do something and following our "rules" isnt a great idea sometimes.

7/10/2008 10:59:54 AM

But lawyer Phillip R. Hurwitz, who represented Buckman in the criminal case and also filed the civil suit in April in state Supreme Court, told the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle that Crespo and Vega crossed the line by pursuing Buckman and attacking him.

"The danger was past," Hurwitz told the paper. "These two employees took it upon themselves to go after Mr. Buckman after he left the store."



There is it society. Lay down and take it. Stop a crime? get sued.

7/10/2008 11:03:18 AM

^^^ So now you're into proving my points for me?

Quote :

"As evident here, you also see the outrage against the man being more widespread here than other boards"

Eh? If someone isn't unequivocally fine with what happened with Joe Horn, they are outraged? Please show me the outrage on this board. Once you do that, I'll show you the outrage that anyone should even think about bring Joe Horn to trial.

[Edited on July 10, 2008 at 11:10 AM. Reason : a]

7/10/2008 11:08:15 AM

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=532160

7/10/2008 11:21:43 AM

Please, start quoting some comments of outrage. Maybe I have my understanding of it wrong. Maybe a mere whimper or discussion of a given topic is outrage to you. At this point, I can't tell.

7/10/2008 11:24:42 AM

Quote :

"So now you're into proving my points for me?"

I'm proving that we're not in fact a "long long way away" from where they are in England, when employees of a business subdue an armed robber (a repeat offender btw), and they end up getting sued...that was the opposite of your point in case you're too retarded to remember...your point was that Horn can get away with shooting people in the back...how about these guys? They confronted a guy who had a gun and got sued for protecting their lives

7/10/2008 11:47:15 AM

Quote :

"They confronted a guy who had a gun and got sued for protecting their lives"

Anyone in America can sue anyone they please. Did the cops charge these men like they did in England? Nope. So I'll reiterate, we're a long way away. If you want to make the case that we aren't, you need to do a better job than you are doing.

7/10/2008 12:02:08 PM

Quote :

"Did the cops charge these men like they did in England?"

no, the "victim" and his lawyer charged these men...took them to trial to defend themselves...kind of like how you go to trial to defend yourself after the cops charge you for something

Whether you are arrested by the police or sued by a "victim" and their lawyer, they're both societal tools used to dissuade anyone from protecting themselves...its simply 2 different ways to discourage people from defending themselves or their property, regardless of how inept the police might be in responding...in both cases its "let the police handle it"...we're definitely not "a long long way away" from England in that respect...its just more cases of being fucked over for doing the right thing

like eyedrb mentioned, I'm glad some of the passengers of Flight 93 didn't sit back and "let the police handle it" or I'm sure we would've had 4 buildings hit that morning

7/10/2008 12:47:27 PM

Quote :

"Ummm, a guy was allowed to blast two criminals in the back as they were running away from HIS NEIGHBORS HOME We have a very long way to go before we get to the level of a story like the above. "

It never hurts to be reminded of the outcome of surrendering your right to defense to others.

Quote :

"Which is why like the texas guy who shot the robbers SHOULD be investigated, and if it is found he did nothing wrong, then he should he exonerated."

The trick was, it was investigated. And it was determined there was no crime committed. All a prosecutor has to do in a grand jury trial is to prove that he has a case to make at all. He doesn't have to deal with the defense, it's just the prosecutor trying to convince 12 people that he has enough evidence that a criminal trial is necessary.

Quote :

"If you are COMPLETELY UNCONNECTED with the place that is getting robbed, as in with the second article, you cal the cops and GTFO, because that is completely not your legal responsibility. And it SHOULDN'T be. The cops are there to make sure idiot citizens don't get themselves killed trying to be heroes. And SO WHAT if the guys get away? It is not your fucking problem."

It's not your responsibility, but it shouldn't be a crime for you to step in either. Cops are not some magical supermen with powers of observation beyond those of normal men. Nor are their senses of right and wrong and their abilities to make judgement calls any more or less special than your average law abiding citizen. And it absolutely is your problem. Every time a criminal gets away with something, they are emboldened. It reenforces that they can do it and get away with it. And every time that happens, they get another chance to commit another crime. It is your problem because the safety and peace of your home, your town and your country are yours to protect. As they say, the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Quote :

"DailyMail? Far right tabloid owned by an extreme rightist."

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the basic facts were up for dispute. But here a local news source, enjoy:

http://www.thisisdorset.net/display.var.2380586.0.man_who_stopped_a_burglar_faces_assault_charge.php

Quote :

"At what point do you limit the right of the citizens to enforce the law? If they step up and try to enforce the law and get injured is it an additional crime or is the criminal just defending himself? The law needs to have clear limits in this area."

Yes, it is an additional crime. Self defense laws are quite clear that you don't get to claim self defense if you are the aggressor in the situation. Similarly, the person attempting to stop the crime must only use force reasonably necessary to stop the crime, and retain the criminal until the police can arrive. So, to use the second article for an example, the criminal should have been charged with both breaking and entering and assault (though the citizen declined to press charges which is why he wasn't charged with assault). The criminal on the other hand should not have been allowed to press charges of assault as a reasonable person would have used the same tactics to stop the crime and hold the criminal given the situation.

7/10/2008 12:57:01 PM

So if a non-violent robbery occurs and the thief is retreating (running) and some Joe Blow (not the victim) comes out with a gun and starts shooting at you - the non-violent robber is the aggressor?

The thief is a criminal at this point - this much we are agreed on, however I see the unrelated citizen as raising the bar here and becoming the aggressor. It is not a citizens duty to enforce the law, it is the police's job.

7/10/2008 1:15:31 PM

aggressor is nearly a synonym for instigator, so the non armed robber would still be the aggressor since he "started it"

its a lot more cloudy in that circumstance though, it would probably require a grand jury hearing for Joe "Blow"...but in the articles posted, neither of the British victims attempted to use guns, and in the story I posted about the robber who sued, that robber did have a gun and the victims did not

7/10/2008 1:18:36 PM

Quote :

"Whether you are arrested by the police or sued by a "victim" and their lawyer, they're both societal tools used to dissuade anyone from protecting themselves."

Societal tools? Rofl. It's real funny when you struggle this hard to find creative ways to try and cling to the point you're failing to make. Cops enforcing the law is certainly not a "societal tool" (whatever that means). But apparently there is a great movement among robbers and thieves to let the upstanding citizens know they'll be sued if you interfere with their line of work. rofl. Really? Societal tool?

You found one instance where a felon serving 18 years is attempting a civil suit juxtaposed with a guy who smoked two bitches in the back and isn't having to stand trial for it and you're trying to use this as an example of how we aren't far away from cops arresting folks for defending against robbers? The Joe Horn example destroys your position, don't you get it? End of discussion.

Quote :

"It never hurts to be reminded of the outcome of surrendering your right to defense to others."

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to do my best to thwart the liberal invasion so this doesn't happen.

Quote :

"It's not your responsibility, but it shouldn't be a crime for you to step in either. Cops are not some magical supermen with powers of observation beyond those of normal men. Nor are their senses of right and wrong and their abilities to make judgement calls any more or less special than your average law abiding citizen."

They aren't supermen, but they are trained properly to handle a gun and extreme situations and on average have been in such a situation more than your next door neighbor. How many cops would have smoked these guys in the back? You didn't have a good answer for this last time I asked you.

Quote :

"It is your problem because the safety and peace of your home, your town and your country are yours to protect."

When crime becomes uncontrollable in my area, I'll start having this mindset. It seems like if something were broken, this country would have descended into anarchy a long time ago.

Quote :

"Similarly, the person attempting to stop the crime must only use force reasonably necessary to stop the crime, and retain the criminal until the police can arrive."

Which is why you can't find shit about the guys from 2006 mentioned in Twista's link. I think we can safely assume they came out the victor in their court case (if it even went to trial) because they used the force necessary to stop the crime.

[Edited on July 10, 2008 at 1:34 PM. Reason : a]

7/10/2008 1:33:55 PM

Quote :

"Cops enforcing the law is certainly not a "societal tool" (whatever that means)."

of course it is but how would you know, you admittedly dont even know what the term means...maybe you should understand the term before you go trying to deny something so obviously true

Quote :

"a guy who smoked two bitches in the back and isn't having to stand trial for it"

he went before a grand jury and the grand jury determined based on the circumstances he didnt need a further trial...you make it sound like Horn wasn't even arrested and taken downtown and put in front of a grand jury to defend himself against what he did...but i guess thats the only way you can try to make your point

7/10/2008 1:40:32 PM

Like it or not, Twista has a point in regards to Horn.

7/10/2008 1:44:24 PM

Whoa boy, lots to talk about here.

Quote :

"I guess by your definition, you shouldnt be surprised that no one helped that guy that got hit by the car and everyone just walked away. After all, someone will do something, but just not me. correct? Since we are COMPLETELY UNCONNECTED and all."

Precisely. None of the people in the surrounding area were trained and qualified and licensed by society to aid the victim at the time of the accident. Call 911, and then it's not your problem, because if you do try to interfere with proper medical care that they will receive, then you can be found at fault for any problems that arise.
Same thing goes for law enforcement. You are interfereing with the situation, and trying to do the cops' jobs for them. They will retaliate against you.

Quote :

"It's not your responsibility, but it shouldn't be a crime for you to step in either. Cops are not some magical supermen with powers of observation beyond those of normal men. Nor are their senses of right and wrong and their abilities to make judgement calls any more or less special than your average law abiding citizen."

These guys are normal citizens, but that have been granted special training and protection by the state. Properly trained medical and law enforcement officials are protected by the state for fault that arises when they're on the job. Normal citizens aren't. Really, it all comes down to insurance, or who's protected when the lawsuits start flying.

7/10/2008 1:44:54 PM

Quote :

"of course it is but how would you know, you admittedly dont even know what the term means...maybe you should understand the term before you go trying to deny something so obviously true"

Please educate me. Unlike you, I'm willing to learn. I'm betting you won't do it though.

Quote :

"you make it sound like Horn wasn't even arrested and taken downtown and put in front of a grand jury to defend himself against what he did...but i guess thats the only way you can try to make your point"

He wasn't arrested. He went before the jury to plead his case so that he wouldn't go to trial. Now, try to connect this back to England where cops arrested a guy for chasing after some youths with sticks and tell me how the US is so dangerously close to this liberal fantasy land that you and 1337 are claiming.

7/10/2008 1:52:19 PM

Quote :

"He wasn't arrested."

well he was handcuffed and detained and taken downtown for questioning, and he went before a grand jury for 2 weeks so that the legal system could determine what should happen to him...you made it sound like the cops just drug the bodies off, said "good job Cowboy" and left him on his way

a societal tool is just that...a tool of society...prisons, police, courts, etc...maybe i'd be more likely to elaborate if you didn't mock the shit out of the term in the first place because you were too arrogant to think it was real, and then mockingly ask me to define the term while immediately assuming that i wouldnt...you're just being a bitch as usual

7/10/2008 1:56:54 PM

Quote :

"well he was handcuffed and detained and taken downtown for questioning"

link plz. I can't find anything other than he was not arrested. I don't find anything that says he was cuffed or detained.

Quote :

"you made it sound like the cops just drug the bodies off and left him on his way"

No, I made it sound like he wasn't arrested with 2 dead men laying on the ground versus arrests in England for chasing kids with a stick. How you're still arguing this is beyond me.

Quote :

"a societal tool is just that...a tool of society...prisons, police, courts, etc...maybe i'd be more likely to elaborate if you didn't mock the shit out of the term in the first place because you were too arrogant to think it was real, and then mockingly ask me to define the term while immediately assuming that i wouldnt...you're just being a bitch as usual"

When wikipedia and google searches done't reveal anything about "societal tool" being some sort of commonly accepted terminology in whatever circles it would be accepted in (like global warming, for instance), then I can't help but wonder what it is that you cooked up in that little noggin of yours and tried to post here. Whatever you want to call it, I'm still interested to know what this "thing" is that criminals are wielding (and apparently in large numbers) against private citizen such that they are afraid to protect themselves during robberies and the like.

7/10/2008 2:07:27 PM

Quote :

"I don't find anything that says he was cuffed or detained"

did you listen to the 911 call???

Quote :

"I'm still interested to know what this "thing" is that criminals are wielding (and apparently in large numbers) against private citizen such that they are afraid to protect themselves during robberies and the like."

huh? here is 'societal tool' used in a few sentences that I was able to google myself...maybe in context you'll understand what this simple term means

Quote :

"Today's prison industry in America is the modernized plantation and is being used as a societal tool of containment for young black men"

Quote :

"Free will is part of the ego. Ego is a necessary societal tool. But we can live without it."

Quote :

"The premise of all legal matters are fairly simple concepts that anyone should be able to understand. Otherwise they are ineffective as a societal tool. "

do you still want to be a smartass about that term now that you find out that its YOU who doesnt understand it and not me?

[Edited on July 10, 2008 at 2:26 PM. Reason : examples]

7/10/2008 2:11:07 PM

Quote :

"did you listen to the 911 call???"

I just did again. The 911 operator tells him to lay down. Thats it. You're simply wrong on this point.

7/10/2008 2:16:08 PM