I'm the victim

PhilDidge wrote:Some vigilantes, interesting

PhilDidge wrote:So why do countries like Sweden and Norway work then?

So your view is to take the law into your own hand then Victor, no need for laws then with your logic just anarchy.

The system may not be perfect but it is way better than people thinking they can ignore the law. If everyone thought like you they would be fighting anyone over any small infringement.

The anarchist philosophy our dear victor  

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:So why do countries like Sweden and Norway work then?

So your view is to take the law into your own hand then Victor, no need for laws then with your logic just anarchy.

The system may not be perfect but it is way better than people thinking they can ignore the law. If everyone thought like you they would be fighting anyone over any small infringement.

The anarchist philosophy our dear victor  

So how does the repeat offender with 100+ offences taken into consideration by a court that still has not imprisoned him see the law then didge?

PhilDidge wrote:So why do countries like Sweden and Norway work then?

So your view is to take the law into your own hand then Victor, no need for laws then with your logic just anarchy.

Yes ..because the law wont/cant/ doesnt want to protect me...

The system may not be perfect but it is way better than people thinking they can ignore the law. But these useless sub human scroats not only think they can ignore the law but do so If everyone thought like you they would be fighting anyone over any small infringement. no...only in defense of their own property and person

The anarchist philosophy our dear victor

really? I dont think so, not even near...merely a response to a broken system that does nothing to protect me or my property but play lip service to a few sound bites for propaganda
 

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:So why do countries like Sweden and Norway work then?

So your view is to take the law into your own hand then Victor, no need for laws then with your logic just anarchy.

Yes ..because the law wont/cant/ doesnt want to protect me...

The system may not be perfect but it is way better than people thinking they can ignore the law. But these useless sub human scroats not only think they can ignore the law but do so If everyone thought like you they would be fighting anyone over any small infringement. no...only in defense of their own property and person

The anarchist philosophy our dear victor

really? I dont think so, not even near...merely a response to a broken system that does nothing to protect me or my property but play lip service to a few sound bites for propaganda
 

Clarkson wrote:Didge it has no meaning if there are no punishments for repeat offenders.

You know damned well repeat offenders walk free 50 a 100 times.

PhilDidge wrote:

Clarkson wrote:Didge it has no meaning if there are no punishments for repeat offenders.

You know damned well repeat offenders walk free 50 a 100 times.

So your view is a repeat offender will always offend, and never change, is that your view?

Again that is not justification for violence, what is needed is like they have in the states, 3 strikes then a much harsher sentence. So do we need violence or to have harsher punishments Drinky on conviction?

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

So your view is the law does not work, thus all laws are redundant and there is no need for them, thus we allow anarchy to reign with no system of justice or if people are innocent, people will take the view they are guilty an act by know doubt unprecedented violence. The reality is your stance here is now all criminals will remain criminals and thus we should never allow any of them to have jobs or live in our society, why not introduce death camps to solve the issue grumpy?

So why do countries like Sweden and Norway work then?

NemsAgain wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

So your view is a repeat offender will always offend, and never change, is that your view?

Again that is not justification for violence, what is needed is like they have in the states, 3 strikes then a much harsher sentence. So do we need violence or to have harsher punishments Drinky on conviction?

He does make a good point though Didge, recidivism rates in this country are terrible

PhilDidge wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

He does make a good point though Didge, recidivism rates in this country are terrible

What we need is harsher sentences for those who do repeat offend, to say we should take the law into our hands every time is one step away from just ignoring all laws. I certainly can understand when sometimes it does happen, do not get me wrong but to say our system has failed to then by some here advocate anarchy is wrong!  

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



So your view is the law does not work, thus all laws are redundant and there is no need for them, thus we allow anarchy to reign with no system of justice or if people are innocent, people will take the view they are guilty an act by know doubt unprecedented violence. The reality is your stance here is now all criminals will remain criminals and thus we should never allow any of them to have jobs or live in our society, why not introduce death camps to solve the issue grumpy?

So why do countries like Sweden and Norway work then?

i DID NOT say that didge...stop trolling.....
Childish reply again

if not a majority, certainly a very significnt number of offenders are repeat offenders....
So some are offenders, not the majority

no need for death camps didge....just make the prisons hell holes of suffering and misery, such that you wouldnt EVER want a second dose....and then make sure the oxygen waster dregs of society that do these soul sapping crimes get sent there for a period. Make the system work...
Blimey, so you advocate us going back hundred of years to being uncivilized now then. You can make people pay their crime with access being denied for many things, not make them barely live in an inhumane way, seriously and you argue over humane methods to animals whilst in the next breath advocate barbarity with prisons, so illogical.

but then you would still have to get the cops off their arse....

NemsAgain wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


What we need is harsher sentences for those who do repeat offend, to say we should take the law into our hands every time is one step away from just ignoring all laws. I certainly can understand when sometimes it does happen, do not get me wrong but to say our system has failed to then by some here advocate anarchy is wrong!  

Im never going to advocate anarchy, but I do think our current system is not fit for purpose

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So how does the repeat offender with 100+ offences taken into consideration by a court that still has not imprisoned him see the law then didge?

Dear me , so now all criminals are repeat offenders?

The law is not perfect that does not mean you take the law into your own hands, that means you thus render the law irrelevant, thus it has no meaning, so which is it?

PhilDidge wrote:

Clarkson wrote:Didge it has no meaning if there are no punishments for repeat offenders.

You know damned well repeat offenders walk free 50 a 100 times.

So your view is a repeat offender will always offend, and never change, is that your view?

Again that is not justification for violence, what is needed is like they have in the states, 3 strikes then a much harsher sentence. So do we need violence or to have harsher punishments Drinky on conviction?

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Dear me , so now all criminals are repeat offenders?

The law is not perfect that does not mean you take the law into your own hands, that means you thus render the law irrelevant, thus it has no meaning, so which is it?

Misquoting again didge?

Where did I say all?

You said about people thinking they can ignore the law and I asked what those offenders with 100+ offences considered in court who have never been imprisoned think of the law.

I have not said all offenders fall into that group.

ALLAKAKA wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

So your view is a repeat offender will always offend, and never change, is that your view?

Again that is not justification for violence, what is needed is like they have in the states, 3 strikes then a much harsher sentence. So do we need violence or to have harsher punishments Drinky on conviction?

Do you agree that the killers of Lee Rigby should never be released from prison ?

grumpy old git wrote:So what do you suggest then didge...when my dog wakes me to tell me some useless pointless untermensch is thieving my tools and wrecking what he cant nick (in effect my livelyhood)

I call the cops, now you KNOW they wont come out withing at least an hour ..possibly not within days...

so...do I let them ruin my livelyhood....or do I stop them...by any means..and again you KNOW thats gonna involve violence

"hey, mr burglar put that back" aint gonna cut it....

nope sneaky sneaky WALLOP is the only available solution left to me isnt it....

I await your "alternative" with baited breath.....

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

i DID NOT say that didge...stop trolling.....
Childish reply again bull shit...you are putting words into my mouth ...that is trolling (by definition)

if not a majority, certainly a very significnt number of offenders are repeat offenders....
So some are offenders, not the majority
but a significant number yes or no????

no need for death camps didge....just make the prisons hell holes of suffering and misery, such that you wouldnt EVER want a second dose....and then make sure the oxygen waster dregs of society that do these soul sapping crimes get sent there for a period. Make the system work...
Blimey, so you advocate us going back hundred of years to being uncivilized now then. You can make people pay their crime with access being denied for many things, not make them barely live in an inhumane way, seriously and you argue over humane methods to animals whilst in the next breath advocate barbarity with prisons, so illogical. so you think the present holiday camps are ok I take it???  

but then you would still have to get the cops off their arse....

Sorry but in the main the Police do a very good job, nothing worse than an anarchist with his association fallacies all the time slagging off those who served our nation

PhilDidge wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

He does make a good point though Didge, recidivism rates in this country are terrible

What we need is harsher sentences for those who do repeat offend, to say we should take the law into our hands every time is one step away from just ignoring all laws. I certainly can understand when sometimes it does happen, do not get me wrong but to say our system has failed to then by some here advocate anarchy is wrong!  

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:So what do you suggest then didge...when my dog wakes me to tell me some useless pointless untermensch is thieving my tools and wrecking what he cant nick (in effect my livelyhood)

I call the cops, now you KNOW they wont come out withing at least an hour ..possibly not within days...

so...do I let them ruin my livelyhood....or do I stop them...by any means..and again you KNOW thats gonna involve violence

"hey, mr burglar put that back" aint gonna cut it....

nope sneaky sneaky WALLOP is the only available solution left to me isnt it....

I await your "alternative" with baited breath.....

So you are asking me a hypothetical situation in regards to your own property.

So you are not covered by insurance then?

You would also place not only yourself in harms way but those living there if you fail to stop them?

Have you thought this through?

Norway’s Prisoner Recidivism Rate Is Much Lower Than The United States’: The recidivism rate for prisoners in Norway is around 20 percent. Meanwhile, it’s estimated that 67 percent of America’s prisoners are re-arrested and 52 percent are re-incarcerated.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


What we need is harsher sentences for those who do repeat offend, to say we should take the law into our hands every time is one step away from just ignoring all laws. I certainly can understand when sometimes it does happen, do not get me wrong but to say our system has failed to then by some here advocate anarchy is wrong!  

Do you understand that if there were harsher sentences for those who repeat offend there would be next to no desire for people to take the law into their own hands?

The bloke in the story did not take the law into his own hands every time - he trusted the police and the legal system through multiple robberies and saw nothing done until finally he felt he had no choice because the police and legal system were giving him no protection or justice.

How many times does a person have to experience person failure of the legal system before they are justified in thinking it doesn't work and they are going to have to look after themselves because nobody else is going to look after them?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Ugh ... learn from the bad example of the U.S. The harsher the prison environment and the longer the convictions, the higher the rate of recidivism.

Norway’s Prisoner Recidivism Rate Is Much Lower Than The United States’: The recidivism rate for prisoners in Norway is around 20 percent. Meanwhile, it’s estimated that 67 percent of America’s prisoners are re-arrested and 52 percent are re-incarcerated.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/25/277771/norway-is-safe/

Rely on cool-headed facts and logic, not hotheaded anger and vengeance, if you want a safer country.

For fuck's sake, I'm only trying to help.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So you are asking me a hypothetical situation in regards to your own property.

So you are not covered by insurance then?

You would also place not only yourself in harms way but those living there if you fail to stop them?

Have you thought this through?

You do know that people who are broken into repeatedly have their insurance withdrawn dont you?

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:



Do you agree that the killers of Lee Rigby should never be released from prison ?

So if they were released from prison in 20 years say , it will be quite acceptable for some one to kill them.


They should never be released from prison, to me those with such brutal murders should always die in prison

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:So what do you suggest then didge...when my dog wakes me to tell me some useless pointless untermensch is thieving my tools and wrecking what he cant nick (in effect my livelyhood)

I call the cops, now you KNOW they wont come out withing at least an hour ..possibly not within days...

so...do I let them ruin my livelyhood....or do I stop them...by any means..and again you KNOW thats gonna involve violence

"hey, mr burglar put that back" aint gonna cut it....

nope sneaky sneaky WALLOP is the only available solution left to me isnt it....

I await your "alternative" with baited breath.....

So you are asking me a hypothetical situation in regards to your own property.

So you are not covered by insurance then?
yes ,but  

a )why should I HAVE to pay extortionate amounts of money to protect me from such acts...isnt that a form of "protection money" thus making insurance companies "racketeers"?
b)why should I then , having been a victim of such an act, be forced to pay out even more in premiums

Insurance should NOT be necessary, granted it is, but the fact it is shows that the system is broken


You would also place not only yourself in harms way but those living there if you fail to stop them?

thats a risk I suppose...but what makes you think I would fail :::grouch:: and theres always the dogs for back-up. Two of em would probably eat the evidence actually ::-3::  ::-3:: 

Have you thought this through?

Oh yes...  .

Irn Bru wrote:Does anyone believe the actions of Tony Martin were correct? Taking the law into your own hands by handing out a death sentence without trial and conviction. He shot a young lad in the back as he was running way.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/30/tonymartin.ukcrime2

ALLAKAKA wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

They should never be released from prison, to me those with such brutal murders should always die in prison

So if they were released from prison in 20 years say , it will be quite acceptable for some one to kill them.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Ugh ... learn from the bad example of the U.S. The harsher the prison environment and the longer the convictions, the higher the rate of recidivism.

Norway’s Prisoner Recidivism Rate Is Much Lower Than The United States’: The recidivism rate for prisoners in Norway is around 20 percent. Meanwhile, it’s estimated that 67 percent of America’s prisoners are re-arrested and 52 percent are re-incarcerated.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/25/277771/norway-is-safe/

Rely on cool-headed facts and logic, not hotheaded anger and vengeance, if you want a safer country.

For fuck's sake, I'm only trying to help.

PhilDidge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Ugh ... learn from the bad example of the U.S. The harsher the prison environment and the longer the convictions, the higher the rate of recidivism.

Norway’s Prisoner Recidivism Rate Is Much Lower Than The United States’: The recidivism rate for prisoners in Norway is around 20 percent. Meanwhile, it’s estimated that 67 percent of America’s prisoners are re-arrested and 52 percent are re-incarcerated.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/25/277771/norway-is-safe/

Rely on cool-headed facts and logic, not hotheaded anger and vengeance, if you want a safer country.

For fuck's sake, I'm only trying to help.

Exactly Ben, we should be looking to where systems are working, most of the arguments here ar based on being incensed with trying to justify vigilantism

grumpy old git wrote:
yes ,but  

a )why should I HAVE to pay extortionate amounts of money to protect me from such acts...isnt that a form of "protection money" thus making insurance companies "racketeers"?
b)why should I then , having been a victim of such an act, be forced to pay out even more in premiums
Simple then you have also rendered having insurance against theft now redundant and create a loss in business. Two I do not make the rules on insurance, you either pay up for system that covers your loses, or you run the risk of getting truely screwed. That though is not an excuse to get yourself killed

Insurance should NOT be necessary, granted it is, but the fact it is shows that the system is broken[/color]


thats a risk I suppose...but what makes you think I would fail :::grouch:: and theres always the dogs for back-up. Two of em would probably eat the evidence actually ::-3::  ::-3:: 
One no disrespect you are much older now, reaction times and strength will be weaker and slower than an able younger men of which they maybe multiple of which would render you at a big disadvantage. Who is to say the dogs are not put out of actions with knives, you are then stabbed and now you have left everyone else vulnerable? You take the risk and even worse not knowing what you maybe facing



Oh yes...  .

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Do you understand that if there were harsher sentences for those who repeat offend there would be next to no desire for people to take the law into their own hands?

The bloke in the story did not take the law into his own hands every time - he trusted the police and the legal system through multiple robberies and saw nothing done until finally he felt he had no choice because the police and legal system were giving him no protection or justice.

How many times does a person have to experience person failure of the legal system before they are justified in thinking it doesn't work and they are going to have to look after themselves because nobody else is going to look after them?

Yes sphinx but this is one story you are basing your whole argument over, not a collection or different circumstances of case. That again does not mean everyone should take the law into their own hands as there is risk in doing so, not only to yourself but those within a household and you have better get it right or the situation could end far worse. The reality is yes the system needs improving that though still does not justify people starting to take the law into their own hands, we thus render the law unworkable and then anarchy will set in and once that starts there is little going back from.
So your argument is based solely on the premise the situation needs to improve, but you are using the situation to justify revenge with people taking the law into their own hands again by doing negating the law we live by

grumpy old git wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Does anyone believe the actions of Tony Martin were correct? Taking the law into your own hands by handing out a death sentence without trial and conviction. He shot a young lad in the back as he was running way.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/30/tonymartin.ukcrime2

actually yes i do  the young lad ..aka a useless waste of oxygen scroat, was on a thieving mission....he wont do it again ...WILL HE.....

i also believe he was convicted for the wrong crime...

he should have got 10 years for illegal posession of a shotgun..because he was a disbarred person at the time...

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:



So if they were released from prison in 20 years say , it will be quite acceptable for some one to kill them.

,


And do you really think a jury would convict their killer ?


But back to your argument , they took the Law as they saw it into their own hands , so they welcome any anarchy that would result in their death.


How do you figure that out?

If you did that you would be convicted of murder or manslaughter at the least through the law.

Again I do not want them to be ever realeased and if people take the law into their own hands if they were to come out that would be on their own head, if they feel they are happy to spend time in fail for doing so. Would I be bothered if they were murdered, not  the slightest.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Yes sphinx but this is one story you are basing your whole argument over, not a collection or different circumstances of case. That again does not mean everyone should take the law into their own hands as there is risk in doing so, not only to yourself but those within a household and you have better get it right or the situation could end far worse. The reality is yes the system needs improving that though still does not justify people starting to take the law into their own hands, we thus render the law unworkable and then anarchy will set in and once that starts there is little going back from.
So your argument is based solely on the premise the situation needs to improve, but you are using the situation to justify revenge with people taking the law into their own hands again by doing negating the law we live by

I have not made any points other than to answer you based on anything other than this single case.

I have stated that I believe a person confronting a criminal on their own property should have the right to attempt to stop them leaving, and the right to chase and restrain.  I do not believe in vigilantism hunting down supposed criminals with no evidence other than word of mouth.

The man in the story did not take the law into his own hands -he did not set out to hurt or damage and was not punishing.  He was simply trying to restrain until police arrival and was unable to gauge accurately the force used in doing so.  Contrary to Hollywood myth your average person does not have the ability to work out how hard to hit someone to render them helpless and harmless without hurting them.  

Joy Division wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

actually yes i do  the young lad ..aka a useless waste of oxygen scroat, was on a thieving mission....he wont do it again ...WILL HE.....

i also believe he was convicted for the wrong crime...

he should have got 10 years for illegal posession of a shotgun..because he was a disbarred person at the time...

What Mr . Martin done was cowardish, why not confront the lad without the gun then?, he was running off anyway...

I'm shocked that you can speak of that young lad like that Grumpy, no l he should not have been thieving, but he never deserves a death sentence for it.

Do you think all thieves who do not harm anyone physically should be sentenced to death then ?

That young lad was somebody's son, and most likely just went a bit astray to make some money , but I'm sure he had plenty time at 16 to mend his ways....
Shame he won't get that now because of some wannabe hero going well OTT.

grumpy old git wrote:well didge thanks for your concern....but i'm still a lot fitter than you seem to think, I actually WORK for a living, a lot faster and whats probably more important...I'm a lot sneakyer and evil than you could possibly imagine...you dont think I'm going to openly challenge them OK corall style do you???? the dark suits me fine.....  

grumpy old git wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


What Mr . Martin done was cowardish, why not confront the lad without the gun then?, he was running off anyway...

I'm shocked that you can speak of that young lad like that Grumpy, no l he should not have been thieving, but he never deserves a death sentence for it.

Do you think all thieves who do not harm anyone physically should be sentenced to death then ?

That young lad was somebody's son, and most likely just went a bit astray to make some money , but I'm sure he had plenty time at 16 to mend his ways....
Shame he won't get that now because of some wannabe hero going well OTT.

I know that "lads" origins JD......

Joy Division wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

actually yes i do  the young lad ..aka a useless waste of oxygen scroat, was on a thieving mission....he wont do it again ...WILL HE.....

i also believe he was convicted for the wrong crime...

he should have got 10 years for illegal posession of a shotgun..because he was a disbarred person at the time...

What Mr . Martin done was cowardish, why not confront the lad without the gun then?, he was running off anyway...

I'm shocked that you can speak of that young lad like that Grumpy, no l he should not have been thieving, but he never deserves a death sentence for it.

Do you think all thieves who do not harm anyone physically should be sentenced to death then ?

no, but i think its a risk they should be aware they are taking

That young lad was somebody's son, and most likely just went a bit astray to make some money , but I'm sure he had plenty time at 16 to mend his ways....
Shame he won't get that now because of some wannabe hero going well OTT.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You do know that people who are broken into repeatedly have their insurance withdrawn dont you?

Why do you think that is Sphinx?

Now I know why, so what would be the reason it is withdrawn?

Again that does not mean people should place themselves into a situation that could see other people get hurt by their bravado action. It is all well and good to sit behind a PC and say what you would do in hindsight, dealing with one is a whole different kettle of fish  

Joy Division wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

I know that "lads" origins JD......

Ok Grumpy, the lad was a rogue , but he never deserved to loss his life

grumpy old git wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

actually yes i do  the young lad ..aka a useless waste of oxygen scroat, was on a thieving mission....he wont do it again ...WILL HE.....

i also believe he was convicted for the wrong crime...

he should have got 10 years for illegal posession of a shotgun..because he was a disbarred person at the time...

What Mr . Martin done was cowardish, why not confront the lad without the gun then?, he was running off anyway...

I'm shocked that you can speak of that young lad like that Grumpy, no l he should not have been thieving, but he never deserves a death sentence for it.

Do you think all thieves who do not harm anyone physically should be sentenced to death then ?

That young lad was somebody's son, and most likely just went a bit astray to make some money , but I'm sure he had plenty time at 16 to mend his ways....
Shame he won't get that now because of some wannabe hero going well OTT.

I know that "lads" origins JD......

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Why do you think that is Sphinx?

Now I know why, so what would be the reason it is withdrawn?

Again that does not mean people should place themselves into a situation that could see other people get hurt by their bravado action. It is all well and good to sit behind a PC and say what you would do in hindsight, dealing with one is a whole different kettle of fish  

Do you want the bottom line or the dressed up fancy version?

The bottom line is literally the bottom line - insurance companies are not in it for human interest and want profits.  The second a customer starts regularly and frequently costing them more than that customer is paying the company start looking to get out of the contract (which they will be able to do via the small print)

The dressed up version will involve explanations about suspecting the customer of at the very least careless negligence and more probably criminal collusion.  Sometimes they are even right about this.

Again I do not see the man in the story actions as bravado - I see it as a natural reaction to seeing someone in the process of stealing from him.