[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
So shooting an unarmed child in the back is a minor wrongdoing in your eyes. Not really a lot of point arguing with you past that statement.
16 is a young adult. His accomplace was a 30 year old grown man. How the hell do you expect Martin in the heat of the moment to have accurately deduced Barras age? I feel bad for a 16 year old getting shot but home invasion is a serious violent crime. Barras and Fereas were committing a violent crime and put Martin in the position of having only a moment to decide how to respond, it is totally unreasonable to class Barras as a child under those circumstances. You don’t want to argue it because you know I am right.
It was not a violent crime. They entered the property and then when confronted they tried to leave. At that point as they were running away they were shot in the back. That is why it was so straightforward for the jury to convict. [/quote]
Martin was in his hoem when they broke into it. That isn’t burglary, that is home invasion. Home invasion is an act of violence that is why home invaders in the US can recieve life in prison. Home invasion is a highly traumatising experience, the stress alone can cause someone to die that is just one reason why it a violent crime.
There is a lot of psychology involved with home invasion. For a home invader there is a sense of domination over their victim that they get off on, much like how a rapist gets off on their domination over a rape victim. For the victim there is a sense of violation and loss of control that is deeply damaging.
Barras and Ferreas repeatedly broke into Martins home and repeatedly raped him of any sense of security in his own home. Under those circumstances I can totally understand why Martin would want to take back control of his home environment by shooting them. They brought that on themselves. They victimised Martin till he fought back then the govenrment victimised Martin even worse.
[quote]
Martin was jailed because he broke the law. I have very little sympathy for the kid that got shot, he should not have been there to be shot however Martin was an unstable guy who broke the law.
His defence at the retrial was based around how mentally unstable he was, that is hardly someone I would be handing a gun to.
You are as disingenuous as ever. Martin was forced into claiming he was unstable because the legal system was unfairly stacked against him because it makes no provision for self defense. A sanity plea is the defense he could use.
Had he been able to legitimately show that he was being threatened then he could have claimed self defence. The problem is that when you shoot someone in the back as they run away from you no jury is going to allow that it was self defence. So either he was mentally unstable or he commited murder, neither situation helps your argument. [/quote]
No he could not claim self defense, the law in Britain has not allowed the use of a firearm for self defense since the 1920’s. They repeatedly broke into Martins house and left him feeling completely unsafe in his own home. Just because they didn’t physically harm him that doesn’t mean that they didn’t inflct severe mental harm. They repeatedly provoked him till he flipped out, what happened after that is totally their own fault.
[quote]Badunk wrote:
I bet if Martin was a black immigrant who had shot a white man burgling his house, the BNP guy wouldn’t be championing his right to defend his home.[/quote]
If that had been the case I am sure that Labour would have come to his aid. Especially if he was a muslim and the gun he used was one he kept handy for the jihad.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
England’s Children’s Minister wants a review of the case of two police officers told they were breaking the law, caring for each other’s children.
The country is run by people with the same mentality as Cock. They want every aspect of peoples lives heavily regulated by the government. They want everyone investigated. The country is a miserable police state.
Did you actually read the report? A department has filed an issue and senior members of the government have commented that the case needs to be reviewed because the department probably has misenterpreted something and waded in unnecessarily. Seems like the process is working ok to me.[/quote]
Are you serious? Two mothers simply babysitting for each other requires approval from senior members of the government? It seems the process is putting the government nose into matters where it doesn’t belong. You would see that as ok because you Guardianistas love big government.
As I pointed out earlier individuals and small groups are easily picked off, that is why we have the militia clause in the second amendment. The Davidians did not have support outside of their little cult so what they did was a dumb idea. Now if on the other hand half the state of Texas had been on their side and been ready to fight alongside them there is no way the government could have controlled them.
Only an idiot who is completely lacking in comon sense like you cannot understand that the second amendments right to rebellion is not going to work for some fringe group or lone wolf that does not have widespread support.
Large groups of people don’t need guns to change things in a democracy. They can vote for change. Small groups who do not have the support of the majority will always be seen as nutters.[/quote]
When the people in a democracy are disamred like the British their democracy can be snatched away from them in a flash. When that happens and you lose the vote there will be nothing you can do because you will not have the means to do anything. When that happens it will be too late to try and amass the means of rebellion.
[quote]
You are full of bullshit excuses. There is no good reason why self defense shold ever have been outlawed by the British government in the 1920’s. All they need to do is change the law so that people can own firearms AND they can use them for self defense. This is not complicated rocket science. This is simple common sense that rational people can easily understand.
Way to slip and slide and try to change the argument. You tried to imply that me not wanting government time taken up repealing the 97 law was a sign that I didn’t care about people’s safety. I point out how ridiculous that is and you change the subject and start talking about a total change to UK gun laws. Which would be about as simple as changing the law in the US to ban all guns. It would also be about as popular. [/quote]
I am not slipping and sliding. An Englishmans home is his castle is an ancient principle of comon law. Allowing people to use firearms to secure their home again would be a return to the way things were for centuries. It would have a huge impact on all the burglaries and home invasions. So it would be quite worthwhile to do.
[quote]
If it could be changed back without taking up lots of parliament time then great. I think that it is stupid that the British Olympic shooting team has to travel abroad to train for instance.
So in other words if they could it like they did with the 97 ban. They used all the drama and emotions surrounding Dunblane to bully any dissenters into keeping quiet so they could rush it through. I watched an MP on TV say now is the time to push this through because the emotions of the moment are high.
Not at all, if they could flick a switch and change it back then good, that is a benefit for sports shooters. Other than that, not something that is important enough to take time up with. There are far more important issues that the government should be focussing on. Instead parlimentary process gets bogged down with nonsense ‘hot topics’ like Fox Hunting bans and restriction on guns when only a tiny minority of people in the UK had guns.
Wow! People are being murdered by criminals because they are defenseless, but you are worried about sports. You remind of Hitlers artwork. Hitler would draw street scenes of government buildings in Vienna, with beautifully detailed buildings but the people on the streets were little stick figures. People were insignificant to Hitler and people are insignificant to you.
Again with your histrionics. We were referring to a specific law which only really affected sports shooters and gun collectors. Now you are ranting about Hitler. [/quote]
No I was comparing you to Hitler, because you both see humans as insignificant and have no problem twith using the powers of the state to crush them.
[quote]
I think it is stupid that a farmer living in an isolated farm was sentenced to life in prison for shooting two home invaders and women can’t defend themselves from rapists without facing prosection. How the Olympic shooting team’s training would factor in to your thinking instead of self defense is astonishing. People are being killed and having their lives destroyed because they can’t defend themselves and you are thinking about sports trophies. Incredible.
Martin was sentenced for commiting an act of murder. He deliberately shot a defensless person that was not at that moment threatening his life. That is the law. His conviction was overturned not on the basis that he was acting in self defence but on the basis that he had diminished responsibility due to the fact he suffered from paranoid delusions.
He was the victim of a home invasion. Home invaders are dangerous, violent criminals. Martin was sent to jail because britain is full of assholes like you who want to second guess an old man who was assaulted in his home by two men who are one of the most dangerous types of violent criminals there is. The grossly unfair manner in which the British legal system treated Martin and others is a disgrace.
More histrionics. Someone tried to burgle his house, when they discovered that someone was in the property they turned and ran. At that point they were shot in the back. He was hardly an old man, he was 55. At no point was he assaulted and for you to describe a couple of sneak theives as ‘the most dangerous types of violent criminal that there is’ is absolutely laughable and just goes to show how suited you are to the daily mail and it’s sensationalist style. [/quote]
That was not a burglary that was a home invasion.
Fuck you and you bullshit editing. I wrote ONE of the most dangerous not “the most dangerous”. What I wrote is true, people who commit home invasions are very dangerous. There are a lot of people who have been raped, tortured and murdered in home invasions. I am not sensationalizing anything. The maximum penalty for home invasion in the US s life in prison.
[quote]
In the US, Martin would not have been able to get a gun license in most states due to his paranoid delusion disorder.
In the US shotguns aren’t licensed. More importantly in the US the law is based upon the old English Common law, “an Englishmans home is his castle” which allowed people to use deadly force to defend their home from invasion by felons. Since a mans home is his castle and under rules of retreat it is considered his final retreat, homeowners are given much benefit of the doubt criminally if they shoot a home invader inside their home.
Except that is not what ‘An Englishmans[sic] home is his castle’ means. All it means is that you can refuse entry to your home and it has never actually been that meaningfully applied under the law in the US or the UK if the police turn up with a warrant they can march into your house.[/quote]
No the law also allowed Englishmen to use deadly force against felony invasions of their home.
[quote]
Because Martin no longer had the benefit of the ancient common law right of castle defense he was forced to make an insanity plea because he could not plead self defense because of the unfair, fucked up, British laws on self defense with firearms that you constantly bring up.
The way you ignore inconvenient facts is sick. You have some serious issues.
In most US states Martin would also have been found guilty, this is not due to gun laws, this is due to the fact that if you shoot someone who is running away from you in the back, it is not normally considered self defence. [/quote]
They were inside his house when he shot them. Criminally he would have been given benefit of the doubt in the investigation afterwards. Also because he could claim self defense he would have had nothing to fear in immediately calling 911 and having the police come over to investigate. Which means that in the US they might very well have found Barras in time to save his life.
[quote]
Self defence is a non issue when it comes to the 97 law changes, they had no bearing on self defence as there was no right to a gun for self defence before the law changes. I have typed this same sentence multiple times but you still don’t seem to get it.
Oh of course I forgot, all the British are so proper and law abiding that if they or their family were attacked and they had a firearm available to defend themselves with they wouldn’t use it. For a proper British subject would sooner see their entire family brutally slaughtered in front of them than violate one of her Majesty’s laws. It just wouldn’t be proper old boy her Majesty’s law means more to a proper Englishman than life itself. I get it now.
Well as only a couple of thousand people were affected by the law change in 97 then the impact would have been negligible (as I have already stated several times.)[/quote]
No the whole country was affected. Because the change in law made it very clear that there was now to be a free for all where anyone with a gun has nothing to fear if they use it. That is why the number of crimes committed with guns doubled in the first five years.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The US congress has it’s own cable channel Cspan. Every week on Cspan they broadcast Prime Ministers questions. They have also broadcasted PM’s Q on PBS. They have done this for years I have been watching it since John Major was PM.
I have had an internet connection since 96 that I have been able to get online news from. Most news sources in Britain leave much to be desired. I read the BBC for years till their political biases became too much to ignore.
Well you have no excuse then!
You are living in your own dream world of wishful thinking. The election of two MEP’s was a watershed. The most likely result is that people are going to see that all the dire doom and gloom predictions by the old gang parties do not happen. Then at the next election the millions of voters who sat on the fence and did not vote for the old gang or anyone else decide to support the BNP.
Before the June elections all the old gang parties made a unified appeal to the voters that it is us against the BNP. The low voter turn out means that millions sat on the fence in an election between the old gang and the BNP. You are not facing the reality that the low voter turnout means that millions of voters could not be motivated to vote for the old gang in order to stop the BNP.
Not voting is a vote! It is a vote of NO confidence. Face it Cock the old gang are damaged goods. They have had decades of power where they have taken their position for granted while repeatedly screwing the people. They have decades of damage to overcome to win back voters. What they need to do to win back voters they have no credibility on. In the time that Labour has been in power Britain has taken in more immigrants than America did during 1890-1900. Labour credibility on immigration is nonexistant and Tory credibility is dodgey at best.
If you actually had any depth of knowledge you would know that everyone said exactly the same when the BNP got a a couple of local councillors elected a few years back. Again there was a big outcry, a higher turnout at the next election and the BNP got spanked. Same will happen again.
A few years back? If you actually had any depth of knowledge you would know that things have changed in the last few years. It was only two years ago the muslims blew up the London Underground and it was only last year that they had failed bombings on nightclubs and the Glasgow airport.
It has only been a year since the economy collapsed under the weight of mass immigration and government incompetence. Only a blind fool like you can’t see that the ground has shifted underneath the political establishment. The old gang have made a complete mess of the country and they have nothing to offer but more of the same.
The BNP is the ultimate protest vote for a people who have been bullied and thretened into silence by political correctness that devalues and degrades them.
Especially if stories like senior members of the BNP making up lies about murders by minorities as propeganda continue to come out.
Dream on jerky boy. There is no way that mistakenly saying two stabbing victims are dead when they are still on life support comes close to MP’s claiming millions bogus expenses and lining their pockets while at the same time denying the Army and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan decent body armour because there is no money for it.
If you think that the man who filed the police complaint that led to the police investigation of MP’s expenses, getting his facts slightly wrong in a video blog, is worse than a millionaire like David Cameron, using taxpayer money to clear Wysteria off of his mansion while Marines are coming home in body bags because they had inferior body armour you are badly mistaken.
Here is a prediction for you. The dead Marines inferior body armour/MP’s expenses scandal is not over yet and there might be a day of reckoning come the next election.
The BNP have always used hype, lies and propeganda to try to swell up outrage. People like Nick Griffen have far too many skeletons in their closet to ever really get anywhere.
More pots and kettles from Cock. Noone has used hype and lies more than Labour. People have died as a result. Dave Cameron misappropriated tax payer money to clean wysteria off of the chimney of his mansion while troops in afghanistan were dying because they don’t have proper kit! 25 of the new prospective candidates for MP that the tory’s will run in the next election have since their selection taken on jobs as lobbyists! The BNP has nothing like that on it’s record.
Of course there is political corruption in all parties, but at least the base tennets of the other parties are not hatred and exclusion.
That is patently false. Labour absolutely hates white people, they hate Christians, they hate Jews, they hate men, they hate women, they hate homosexuals, they hate success, they have promoted policies of discrimination based upon race, gender, religion, economic status.
No party in Britain is more hateful and exclusionary than Labour.
OK, lets play another fun game of Sifu Fact Check!
according to Sifu, the July 7, 2005 bombings were 2 years ago. (I remember them well, I was on the tube at the time it happened, as were my wife and father.)[/quote]
Okay I forgot it was July 7 not July 07.
[quote]
According to Sifu the 30 June, 2007 Glasgow Airport bombing was 1 year ago. The nightclub attempted bombings happened the same week incidentally. [/quote]
So I lost track of time. What I remember about that is my parents spent two days in lockdown at Heathrow sleeping on a concrete floor with police holding machine guns standing guard over them.
[quote]
Next you blame a global recession on UK immigration policy, might need some economics majors to help explain that one to Sifu. [/quote]
While the economy was doing well Britain had millions of unemployed people who did not get off of benefits because Labour flooded the country with cheap immigrant labor. This means that while the economy was doing well it had all the dead weight of benefits recipients to carry through higher taxes. Higher taxes are a drag on the economy that kept the economy from reaching it’s full potential.
The cheap labor caused wage stagnation and dragged down the labor markets so that wage growth was less than the rate of inflation. That did not help people to keep up with their bills. Using millions of cheap immigrants to put millions of British workers onto welfare played a big role in the British economy crashing and is going to make it very difficult to get the economy moving again, because of all the dead weight.
[quote]
One thing that you do get right is that the BNP is a protest vote, but that is kind of the point, you don’t actually want the protest vote guys to get in, you just want the other guys to change things up a bit. [/quote]
Labour and Tory are not going to change, they need to be swept aside and new thinking brought in.
[quote]
Incidentally, in case you didn’t know. Cameron is not part of the Labour party. Just from your post, you seem to think that he is.[/quote]
Cameron is a charter member of the leftist militant group UAF, that is how he got the nickname “Clawhammer Cameron” after the UAF clawhammer attack on political opponents of Labour and the Tory’s up in Manchester sent a man to hospital earlier this year.
Cameron does bill himself as the nu-Tony Bliar. The conservatives are no longer a true conservative party, they ally themselves with communists.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
So shooting an unarmed child in the back is a minor wrongdoing in your eyes. Not really a lot of point arguing with you past that statement.
16 is a young adult. His accomplace was a 30 year old grown man. How the hell do you expect Martin in the heat of the moment to have accurately deduced Barras age? I feel bad for a 16 year old getting shot but home invasion is a serious violent crime. Barras and Fereas were committing a violent crime and put Martin in the position of having only a moment to decide how to respond, it is totally unreasonable to class Barras as a child under those circumstances. You don’t want to argue it because you know I am right.
It was not a violent crime. They entered the property and then when confronted they tried to leave. At that point as they were running away they were shot in the back. That is why it was so straightforward for the jury to convict.
Martin was in his hoem when they broke into it. That isn’t burglary, that is home invasion. Home invasion is an act of violence that is why home invaders in the US can recieve life in prison. Home invasion is a highly traumatising experience, the stress alone can cause someone to die that is just one reason why it a violent crime.
There is a lot of psychology involved with home invasion. For a home invader there is a sense of domination over their victim that they get off on, much like how a rapist gets off on their domination over a rape victim. For the victim there is a sense of violation and loss of control that is deeply damaging.
Barras and Ferreas repeatedly broke into Martins home and repeatedly raped him of any sense of security in his own home. Under those circumstances I can totally understand why Martin would want to take back control of his home environment by shooting them. They brought that on themselves. They victimised Martin till he fought back then the govenrment victimised Martin even worse.
Martin was jailed because he broke the law. I have very little sympathy for the kid that got shot, he should not have been there to be shot however Martin was an unstable guy who broke the law.
His defence at the retrial was based around how mentally unstable he was, that is hardly someone I would be handing a gun to.
You are as disingenuous as ever. Martin was forced into claiming he was unstable because the legal system was unfairly stacked against him because it makes no provision for self defense. A sanity plea is the defense he could use.
Had he been able to legitimately show that he was being threatened then he could have claimed self defence. The problem is that when you shoot someone in the back as they run away from you no jury is going to allow that it was self defence. So either he was mentally unstable or he commited murder, neither situation helps your argument.
No he could not claim self defense, the law in Britain has not allowed the use of a firearm for self defense since the 1920’s. They repeatedly broke into Martins house and left him feeling completely unsafe in his own home. Just because they didn’t physically harm him that doesn’t mean that they didn’t inflct severe mental harm. They repeatedly provoked him till he flipped out, what happened after that is totally their own fault. [/quote]
Burglary is the act of entering a property that is not yours with the intent to steal. There is no such crime in the UK as home invasion.
And in the UK you still have the right to use a gun for self defence, what you don’t have the right for is to own a gun for self defence.
There is also no evidence that the burglars had robbed Martin in the past, this was just suposition brought up by Martin’s lawyers to help with his defence.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
England’s Children’s Minister wants a review of the case of two police officers told they were breaking the law, caring for each other’s children.
The country is run by people with the same mentality as Cock. They want every aspect of peoples lives heavily regulated by the government. They want everyone investigated. The country is a miserable police state.
Did you actually read the report? A department has filed an issue and senior members of the government have commented that the case needs to be reviewed because the department probably has misenterpreted something and waded in unnecessarily. Seems like the process is working ok to me.
Are you serious? Two mothers simply babysitting for each other requires approval from senior members of the government? It seems the process is putting the government nose into matters where it doesn’t belong. You would see that as ok because you Guardianistas love big government.[/quote]
Again for those in the cheap seats, I don’t read the Grauniad.
And the point is this is a non story. Someone fucked up, once it was brought to people’s attention, it was realised that someone fucked up. End of.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
So shooting an unarmed child in the back is a minor wrongdoing in your eyes. Not really a lot of point arguing with you past that statement.
16 is a young adult. His accomplace was a 30 year old grown man. How the hell do you expect Martin in the heat of the moment to have accurately deduced Barras age? I feel bad for a 16 year old getting shot but home invasion is a serious violent crime. Barras and Fereas were committing a violent crime and put Martin in the position of having only a moment to decide how to respond, it is totally unreasonable to class Barras as a child under those circumstances. You don’t want to argue it because you know I am right.
It was not a violent crime. They entered the property and then when confronted they tried to leave. At that point as they were running away they were shot in the back. That is why it was so straightforward for the jury to convict.
Martin was in his hoem when they broke into it. That isn’t burglary, that is home invasion. Home invasion is an act of violence that is why home invaders in the US can recieve life in prison. Home invasion is a highly traumatising experience, the stress alone can cause someone to die that is just one reason why it a violent crime.
There is a lot of psychology involved with home invasion. For a home invader there is a sense of domination over their victim that they get off on, much like how a rapist gets off on their domination over a rape victim. For the victim there is a sense of violation and loss of control that is deeply damaging.
Barras and Ferreas repeatedly broke into Martins home and repeatedly raped him of any sense of security in his own home. Under those circumstances I can totally understand why Martin would want to take back control of his home environment by shooting them. They brought that on themselves. They victimised Martin till he fought back then the govenrment victimised Martin even worse.
Martin was jailed because he broke the law. I have very little sympathy for the kid that got shot, he should not have been there to be shot however Martin was an unstable guy who broke the law.
His defence at the retrial was based around how mentally unstable he was, that is hardly someone I would be handing a gun to.
You are as disingenuous as ever. Martin was forced into claiming he was unstable because the legal system was unfairly stacked against him because it makes no provision for self defense. A sanity plea is the defense he could use.
Had he been able to legitimately show that he was being threatened then he could have claimed self defence. The problem is that when you shoot someone in the back as they run away from you no jury is going to allow that it was self defence. So either he was mentally unstable or he commited murder, neither situation helps your argument.
No he could not claim self defense, the law in Britain has not allowed the use of a firearm for self defense since the 1920’s. They repeatedly broke into Martins house and left him feeling completely unsafe in his own home. Just because they didn’t physically harm him that doesn’t mean that they didn’t inflct severe mental harm. They repeatedly provoked him till he flipped out, what happened after that is totally their own fault.
Burglary is the act of entering a property that is not yours with the intent to steal. There is no such crime in the UK as home invasion. [/quote]
Oh yes they do have home invasions in Britian. This is in todays paper!
Heavily pregnant woman raped in her own home by gang of burglars armed with sawn-off shotgun
A heavily pregnant woman was raped at gunpoint in her bedroom by a gang of armed burglars who broke into her home.
The 33-year-old victim, who was seven months’ pregnant, was watching TV with her boyfriend when the balaclava-clad men forced their way into their North London home.
Her 39-year-old boyfriend was threatened and hit around the head with the butt of a sawn-off shotgun as they demanded the keys to their Audi TT which was parked outside.
The woman was then grabbed and forced upstairs by one of the attackers and forced to perform a sex act on him which police have described as ‘oral rape’.
He threatened to shoot the couple unless she did what he said.
Speaking for the first time about the rape, the victim said: 'I just wanted to protect my baby. I was absolutely terrified and being so late in the pregnancy I didn’t want to get into a fight where they might hurt me or my baby.
‘He (the rapist) said it was my lucky day.’
Her boyfriend added: ‘I pleaded, I was shouting, “She’s pregnant, she’s pregnant, leave off her, tell me what you want”.’
The men took the couple’s grey Audi TT and other items including an iPod, cash, debit cards and a laptop from their Finsbury Park home on May 14 last year.
The car was found abandoned two days later in Portland Road, near Seven Sisters Underground station.
Police said details were being revealed only after other efforts to trace the men had failed, adding that a £20,000 reward is being offered for help in catching the gang.
Officers said the woman went on to have her baby without any problems.
Detective Inspector Robert Pack, the investigating officer, said he hoped ‘allegiances had changed’ over the past 14 months as he appealed for information.
He said: 'Every rape is a very serious crime but what makes this all the more shocking was that the victim was so clearly heavily pregnant.
'It was all the more traumatic because it took place in the couple’s home.
Here is the important part Cock.
The couple are still haunted by the attack.
The female victim said: ‘Everything that you believe to be safe is no longer safe. You can’t walk into the bedroom and feel relaxed because you remember that someone was in there who wasn’t supposed to be there.’
Home invasion is the crime of entering a private and occupied dwelling, with the intent of committing a crime, often while threatening the resident of the dwelling. It is a legally defined offense in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, and applies even if entry is not forced.
Home invasion differs from burglary, which is usually defined as unlawful entry into any occupied or unoccupied building, with intent to commit one of a list of specified offences. Home invasion covers an intent to commit any crime.
Home invasion may be accompanied by other crimes. Home invaders commit breaking and entering, and are sometimes intent on assault, robbery, rape, or murder.
Few statistics are available on home invasion as a crime, because it is not technically a crime in most states. Persons charged with “home invasion” are actually charged with robbery, kidnapping, and assault charges.
Perhaps the most well-known home invasion of all time is the November 15, 1959 quadruple murder of the Clutter family by Richard “Dick” Hickock and Perry Edward Smith in rural Holcomb, Kansas. The murders were detailed in Truman Capote’s world-famous “nonfiction novel” In Cold Blood.
Most recently, two paroled criminals were charged with six counts of capital murder during a home invasion into the Petit family home in Cheshire, Connecticut on July 23, 2007. During the invasion, the mother died of asphyxiation due to strangulation and the two daughters died of smoke inhalation after the suspects allegedly set the house on fire. The men were charged with first-degree sexual assault, murder of a kidnapped person, and murder of two or more people at the same time. The state attorney is seeking the death penalty against the suspects.[
Another home invasion occurred on November 26, 2007 when Washington Redskins star Sean Taylor was murdered during an overnight home invasion of his suburban Miami home. Four defendants were charged with this crime
[quote]
And in the UK you still have the right to use a gun for self defence, what you don’t have the right for is to own a gun for self defence. [/quote]
Oh you can use a gun for self defense but you can’t own one for that purpose. So Britain is still the worlds leader in bullshit!
[quote]
There is also no evidence that the burglars had robbed Martin in the past, this was just suposition brought up by Martin’s lawyers to help with his defence. [/quote]
You are so full of shit. According to everything I have read there were numerous police reports by Martin and his neighbors. Several of Martins neighbors stated that they believe it was the same gang that hit their houses.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
England’s Children’s Minister wants a review of the case of two police officers told they were breaking the law, caring for each other’s children.
The country is run by people with the same mentality as Cock. They want every aspect of peoples lives heavily regulated by the government. They want everyone investigated. The country is a miserable police state.
Did you actually read the report? A department has filed an issue and senior members of the government have commented that the case needs to be reviewed because the department probably has misenterpreted something and waded in unnecessarily. Seems like the process is working ok to me.
Are you serious? Two mothers simply babysitting for each other requires approval from senior members of the government? It seems the process is putting the government nose into matters where it doesn’t belong. You would see that as ok because you Guardianistas love big government.
Again for those in the cheap seats, I don’t read the Grauniad.
And the point is this is a non story. Someone fucked up, once it was brought to people’s attention, it was realised that someone fucked up. End of.[/quote]
Obviously it does not register with you that there is anything wrong with big government that involves itself in regulating as many facets of peoples lives as it possibly can.
Your hypocracy is astounding. You wouldn’t want to any debaste on repealing the firearms ban to take up important government time, but you see nothing wrong with senior members of the government having to use their time to sort out a dispute over babysitters.
And the point is this is a non story. Someone fucked up, once it was brought to people’s attention, it was realised that someone fucked up. End of.
Maybe.
IF that situation has been rectified.
But you’ve said similar things about the knife issue and the woman sued for “insulting” Muslims…
I honestly don’t know if you’re right or not, but it certainly appears that you may be trying to minimize the significance of such things. [/quote]
You are seeing a pattern here aren’t you. Where we point osmething out then Cock comes in and tells us “there’s nothing wrong here, move along along, nothing to see move along, don’t think about it Move along”.
Knowing what the British are like it would not surprise me in the least to find out that Cock is a government employed spin doctor who is paid to troll message boards to disarm debate and quell dissent…
There certainly is a theme to all of Cock’s posts that there is nothing wrong with Britain whatsoever. Everything in Britain is wonderfully wonderful, anything that might look bad to the outside observer is just a misunderstanding because everything in Britain is wonderful.
Oh and get this. Cock isn’t a Guardianista he’s a Tory?!?!?! The Labour government cabinet is full of Marxists Internationalists who have ruined, turned the country into a police state and turned the country into a multi tribal mess that is breaking apart. But we never hear our resident Tory say anything critical of Nu-Liebour. For someone who claims not to be a Guardianista he certainly has the mindset of one.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Knowing what the British are like it would not surprise me in the least to find out that Cock is a government employed spin doctor who is paid to troll message boards to disarm debate and quell dissent…
[/quote]
I don’t think so. All of my limey friends are like Cockney in that they refuse to acknowledge the defects in their country and government. Kind of the exact opposite of us Americans, whose love of country in no way equals love of government.
And the point is this is a non story. Someone fucked up, once it was brought to people’s attention, it was realised that someone fucked up. End of.
Maybe.
IF that situation has been rectified.
But you’ve said similar things about the knife issue and the woman sued for “insulting” Muslims…
I honestly don’t know if you’re right or not, but it certainly appears that you may be trying to minimize the significance of such things. [/quote]
Knife issue is a non issue. The newspaper misrepresented the facts.
Insulting Muslims case has not come before a court yet and none of the facts are in the public domain. I reserve judgement on the case until the facts are available instead of falling for the Daily Mail’s facist propeganda.
This latest case seems to be a storm in a teacup. Hopefully the officers involved get at the very least a serious bollocking for being stupid and wasting people’s time.
Oh yes they do have home invasions in Britian. This is in todays paper!
[/quote]
Couple of points for you as you don’t seem to be able to get see past your own sensationalism.
The crime being discribed in the news report is very, very different from a couple of unarmed sneak burglars breaking into a house then running away when they discover it is occupied.
Secondly, even in your favourite comic they describe it as a burglary. The reason for that is that the crime is Burglary. There is no such crime in the UK as Home Invasion.
No, you are the world leader in bullshit. Again and again I have pointed out the gapping innacuracies in what you post.
[quote]
There is also no evidence that the burglars had robbed Martin in the past, this was just suposition brought up by Martin’s lawyers to help with his defence.
You are so full of shit. According to everything I have read there were numerous police reports by Martin and his neighbors. Several of Martins neighbors stated that they believe it was the same gang that hit their houses.[/quote]
Everything you have read is the Daily Mail, the BNP Manifesto and Mein Kampf so that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
And the point is this is a non story. Someone fucked up, once it was brought to people’s attention, it was realised that someone fucked up. End of.
Maybe.
IF that situation has been rectified.
But you’ve said similar things about the knife issue and the woman sued for “insulting” Muslims…
I honestly don’t know if you’re right or not, but it certainly appears that you may be trying to minimize the significance of such things.
You are seeing a pattern here aren’t you. Where we point osmething out then Cock comes in and tells us “there’s nothing wrong here, move along along, nothing to see move along, don’t think about it Move along”.
Knowing what the British are like it would not surprise me in the least to find out that Cock is a government employed spin doctor who is paid to troll message boards to disarm debate and quell dissent…
There certainly is a theme to all of Cock’s posts that there is nothing wrong with Britain whatsoever. Everything in Britain is wonderfully wonderful, anything that might look bad to the outside observer is just a misunderstanding because everything in Britain is wonderful.
Oh and get this. Cock isn’t a Guardianista he’s a Tory?!?!?! The Labour government cabinet is full of Marxists Internationalists who have ruined, turned the country into a police state and turned the country into a multi tribal mess that is breaking apart. But we never hear our resident Tory say anything critical of Nu-Liebour. For someone who claims not to be a Guardianista he certainly has the mindset of one.
[/quote]
If you look back through my posts you will see plenty where I happily discuss a number of things that are very wrong in the UK.
What I am not prepared to do is have an ignorant, facist, racist purveyor of propaganda spread their lies and misrepresentations without calling them on it.
The issues in the UK would not be solved by giving everyone guns or by sending all the non-white, non-Christians ‘home’. These are your two suggestions and they are both as retarded as you are.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
And the point is this is a non story. Someone fucked up, once it was brought to people’s attention, it was realised that someone fucked up. End of.
Maybe.
IF that situation has been rectified.
But you’ve said similar things about the knife issue and the woman sued for “insulting” Muslims…
I honestly don’t know if you’re right or not, but it certainly appears that you may be trying to minimize the significance of such things.
Knife issue is a non issue. The newspaper misrepresented the facts. [/quote]
No, the knife issue is an example of the over-regulation of British society.
[quote]
Insulting Muslims case has not come before a court yet and none of the facts are in the public domain. I reserve judgement on the case until the facts are available instead of falling for the Daily Mail’s facist propeganda. [/quote]
They were arrested and criminally charged because they said something in the living room of their own home that someone didn’t like. What a pathetic country Britain is when people can not freely speak their mind in the living room of their own home. What is even more pathetic is it is full of assholes like you who see nothing wrong with the government restricting freedom of speech.
[quote]
This latest case seems to be a storm in a teacup. Hopefully the officers involved get at the very least a serious bollocking for being stupid and wasting people’s time.[/quote]
The case of the police constable baby sitters is another example of the over regulation of society by a control freak police state.
Oh yes they do have home invasions in Britian. This is in todays paper!
Couple of points for you as you don’t seem to be able to get see past your own sensationalism.
The crime being discribed in the news report is very, very different from a couple of unarmed sneak burglars breaking into a house then running away when they discover it is occupied.
Secondly, even in your favourite comic they describe it as a burglary. The reason for that is that the crime is Burglary. There is no such crime in the UK as Home Invasion. [/quote]
No it was not very different. Those people were terrorized in their home by thugs who got off on terrorizing people in their home, just like Fereas and Barras. The only difference is Martin eventually turned the tables.
What this latest crime shows is just how dangerous invasions can become. Home invasion is not children playing childrens games. It is a very serious crime that can easily turn violent, and can leave a person psychologically scarred for life. As the woman who was raped said she no longer feels safe in her home because she doesn’t know if when she walks around a corner she is going to run itno someone who should not be there.
[quote]
And in the UK you still have the right to use a gun for self defence, what you don’t have the right for is to own a gun for self defence.
Oh you can use a gun for self defense but you can’t own one for that purpose. So Britain is still the worlds leader in bullshit!
No, you are the world leader in bullshit. Again and again I have pointed out the gapping innacuracies in what you post.
There is also no evidence that the burglars had robbed Martin in the past, this was just suposition brought up by Martin’s lawyers to help with his defence.
You are so full of shit. According to everything I have read there were numerous police reports by Martin and his neighbors. Several of Martins neighbors stated that they believe it was the same gang that hit their houses.
Everything you have read is the Daily Mail, the BNP Manifesto and Mein Kampf so that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.[/quote]
Really? The Martin case is mentioned in the BNP manisfesto and Mein Kampf?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
And the point is this is a non story. Someone fucked up, once it was brought to people’s attention, it was realised that someone fucked up. End of.
Maybe.
IF that situation has been rectified.
But you’ve said similar things about the knife issue and the woman sued for “insulting” Muslims…
I honestly don’t know if you’re right or not, but it certainly appears that you may be trying to minimize the significance of such things.
Knife issue is a non issue. The newspaper misrepresented the facts.
No, the knife issue is an example of the over-regulation of British society.
[/quote]
The story in the paper was shown to be factually incorrect, try a different approach.
Neither you nor I know what happened therefore it is pure speculation on your part.
[quote]
This latest case seems to be a storm in a teacup. Hopefully the officers involved get at the very least a serious bollocking for being stupid and wasting people’s time.
The case of the police constable baby sitters is another example of the over regulation of society by a control freak police state. [/quote]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Oh yes they do have home invasions in Britain. This is in todays paper!
Couple of points for you as you don’t seem to be able to get see past your own sensationalism.
The crime being described in the news report is very, very different from a couple of unarmed sneak burglars breaking into a house then running away when they discover it is occupied.
Secondly, even in your favorite comic they describe it as a burglary. The reason for that is that the crime is Burglary. There is no such crime in the UK as Home Invasion.
No it was not very different. Those people were terrorized in their home by thugs who got off on terrorizing people in their home, just like Fereas and Barras. The only difference is Martin eventually turned the tables.
What this latest crime shows is just how dangerous invasions can become. Home invasion is not children playing children’s games. It is a very serious crime that can easily turn violent, and can leave a person psychologically scarred for life. As the woman who was raped said she no longer feels safe in her home because she doesn’t know if when she walks around a corner she is going to run into someone who should not be there.
[/quote]
If you want to relate two unarmed men attempting to burgle what they think is an empty house with a gang armed with shotguns forcing their way into a house that they know has people in and raping one of them then it just shows how truly stupid you are.
[quote]
And in the UK you still have the right to use a gun for self defense, what you don’t have the right for is to own a gun for self defense.
Oh you can use a gun for self defense but you can’t own one for that purpose. So Britain is still the worlds leader in bullshit!
No, you are the world leader in bullshit. Again and again I have pointed out the gapping inaccuracies in what you post.
There is also no evidence that the burglars had robbed Martin in the past, this was just supposition brought up by Martin’s lawyers to help with his defense.
You are so full of shit. According to everything I have read there were numerous police reports by Martin and his neighbors. Several of Martins neighbors stated that they believe it was the same gang that hit their houses.
Everything you have read is the Daily Mail, the BNP Manifesto and Mein Kampf so that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
Really? The Martin case is mentioned in the BNP manifesto and Mein Kampf? [/quote]
No but it was mentioned in the Daily Heil in great detail.