[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i do understand that sometimes you have to reap havoc in order to set your bounderies. I also understand that when adrenaline is pumping and you have a chance to turn the table on your assailants, you go for it. I would even go as far as saying that the law in the UK, and in Holland, is skewed in favor of the criminal, and that is wrong…[quote]
Everybody is different. Years of martial arts training has given me the self control so that I probably wouldn’t beat someone like that. Then again he probably wouldn’t have made it out of the house. The problem is the law is written by people who come from priviledged backgrounds who live in good areas where they have never been through something like that, so they have absolutely no empathy for the homeowner.
[quote]
…there is, however, a difference between selfdefense and attempted manslaughter. Forcibly holding someone until the police comes will not end with you in jail. Beating his head in with a club will… [/quote]
There is also a difference between attacking someone who you have never seen before, who has given you no reason to attack them and having someone attack you, take you prisoner and then proceed to push buttons inside your head that noone has a right to push. I can understand not wanting people to take the law into their own hands but there also needs to be understanding that an extreme experience like the homeonwer went through can trigger an extreme response that you can’t just shut off in a moment. These are primal survival instincts, not some game like the court is treating it as.
Fighting the guy in your own home to protect your family and violently throwing them out is fine.[/quote] According to whom? [quote] Killing them in self defence whilst they are attempting to attack you or your family is fine. [/quote] According to whom? [quote]
Chasing after them with a lynch mob is not acceptable.[/quote] According to whom? [quote]
Not only have you turned into a violent attacker,[/quote]According to whom? [quote] taking the law into your own hands,[/quote] According to whom? [quote] but you have also selfishly put your self at risk for no good reason.[/quote] According to whom?
According to whose authority is it that you make these judgements by?
Do you have a problem with overt violence? For a man who doesn’t believe in God I respectfully inquire: When a man/woman acts out on his instinctual nature for the purpose of self preservation of life, where do you get this negative qualification that weights on his behavior as “vile” - is violence always qualitatively “vile”?
What about covert violence, or does that go by another name, if so what might that be?
Does the use of one’s own authority for self preservation of life immediately qualifies one as a predator/animal/criminal?
Is it selfish to use one’s self preservation instinct to ensure that the threat to one’s family life is completely eliminated? Is the police going to offer 24/7 protection to ensure the attacker will not return when the man of courage is not home and his family is vulnerable? Having being violated in your own home and overcome the violator how would you live knowing he is still out there, FREE. The burglar is free, is the man who just chased him out of his house FREE? Is his wife FREE. Are their children FREE?
Was there psychological justice?
What is that to you? That is his call to make, not your own and not society’s. We don’t have to live with the consequences of this drama - he does. You don’t have to comfort and reassure his wife and his children every day and night because they are now psychologically fragile not knowing if that thug will return for them. That man made a choice. The community which you interestingly judged as a “mob” supported him and would have likely taken care of his family had he died for them.
Strong individuals = strong communities = less power to the “goody goody two shoes” government telling us how not to exercise our free will in matters of life and death thus leaving us open to attack, vulnerable and dependent on their will to ensure the preservation of our lives.
I strongly invite you to think deeply on the relationship between authority and free will.
And who is controlling you when you have to face life threatening situations in your life.
And if you self preservation instinct is being overruled by complete reliance on your government to protect you, I wish you good luck.
[/quote]
According to the laws of every modern society on the planet. You choose a lawful society or you choose an Anarchy. If an Anarchy is what you want then fine, it is a valid argument however be honest and admit you want an anarchy with all that it entails.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
They are not a whites only party. [/quote]
So where is that coming from? Is it all spin from Bliars minions?
( Did you see him on the news going in for interrogation on the Iraqi inquiry? I want to see what the British people are going to do about that, too )
[/quote]
…Alpha F, are you an “indigenous Caucasian”?[/quote]
I was born in Brazil. Arrived in London aged 18. Just turned 39. Never been back to Brazilian soil.
If you want to know which culture I mostly identify with/am fond of I would say Native Indians.
Hospitable, non-interested helpers/free givers, honourable, respect and live with nature not just mindlessly and greedily taking from it and taking it for granted. Comfortable with their bodies and ‘natural instincts’ which are viewed as ‘uncivilised’ such as honest expression of aggression. Protective of women and children. Warriors. Strong hearts.
That is as close to courage and as close to free as I can think a society can be.
I am seriously, seriously considering moving into a Native Indian community. Or start my own.
Forget gym. I want to work labour - not vote for it, ;).
And I want to die working. And I want to die free.
I am not impressed with our civilised society. And since I don’t have a solution all I can do is not become part of the problem.
[/quote]
You are aware that those peaceful environmentally neutral Native Indians were responsible for wiping out the majority of large animal species that lived on the North American contintent long before ‘the white man’ set foot there?
[quote]
…there is, however, a difference between selfdefense and attempted manslaughter. Forcibly holding someone until the police comes will not end with you in jail. Beating his head in with a club will… [/quote]
There is also a difference between attacking someone who you have never seen before, who has given you no reason to attack them and having someone attack you, take you prisoner and then proceed to push buttons inside your head that noone has a right to push. I can understand not wanting people to take the law into their own hands but there also needs to be understanding that an extreme experience like the homeonwer went through can trigger an extreme response that you can’t just shut off in a moment. These are primal survival instincts, not some game like the court is treating it as. [/quote]
I agree with you and have already stated that there should have been leniency in the sentencing however he still needs to be charged for the crime that he committed
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is some fresh lunacy from the Britains joke of a legal system. This man and his family were the victims of a home invasion by three armed men. Because he beat one of the men with a cricket bat he recieved 30 months in prison while the home invaders were set free.
The traditional concept of justice has become perverted in modern Britain. The law no longer acts as a bulwark to protect decent citizens.
In a degraded culture of misnamed ‘human rights’ and institutionalised leniency towards serial thugs, it is all too often the honest people who end up being punished while the criminals walk free.
The twisted values of the criminal justice system have been exposed by the case of Munir Hussain, a wealthy businessman jailed this week for tackling a dangerous burglar.
[/quote]
They were attacked, they successfully defended themselves at that point if they had stopped, no issue. Problem is that once the self defence situation ended, they chased after one of the guys, caught him then beat him senseless whilst he was defenceless on the ground. Regardless of the fact that this guy had attacked the men first, their actions constitute assault and they were correctly charged and sentenced. [/quote]
Typical Guardianista bullshit.
[quote]
You cannot have people in a civilised society extracting their own justice and it is typical of the Daily Heil to twist it around using inflammatory language like ‘For his vigorous action in defending his family and his home against a brutal assailant, he was given a prison sentence of 30 months’[/quote]
Wrong. You cannot maintain a civilized society by protecting criminals from the consequences of their actions and arresting people who don’t deserve it. They don’t give that severe of a sentence to murderers.
[quote]
This was not defending, this was attacking. [/quote]
NO! That was an occupational hazard, which could reaonably be assumed to be a risk of committing a home invasion, tying someone up and terrorizing him with threats to kill him and his family in his home. It is the criminals fault that his victim freaked out, got loose and beat him down with a bat. Punishing a victim who was provoked into freaking out while letting the criminal who provoked the attack go free to commit more crimes is wrong. [/quote]
Bullshit and you know it. You have to separate the crimes. The guys broke into someone’s house and tied up the occupants at knifepoint. That is a crime that needs to be punished. Then a separate crime took place where two men decided to take the law into their own hands, chase after someone and beat them senseless, this is a crime that also needs to be punished. [/quote]
No they were not two seperate events. They freed themselves as the home invasion was still in progress. They were in hot pursuit when it went outside. The criminals had put those men in fear for their lives. They wanted to be gangsta and ended up getting thugged upon by their victims, that is karma.
[quote]
Now admittedly in the second crime there was extenuating circumstances and you would therefore hope that there was some leniency in the sentencing but the crime has to be punished.[/quote]
Those criminals made the homeowner feel helpless and impotent in his own home, because they got off on the power. To be the victim of such an assault is psychologically damaging. The homeowner took back control of his home. The therapuetic benefits to the homeowner should count for something. If the homeowner had to chase the thugs out into the street and beat him down with a bat to feel he had restored the sanctity of his home, it is the thugs fault for starting that drama.
Sifu you are missing the point, probably willfully. [/quote]
I do understand the law and the point you are trying to make.
[quote]
In the same situation I would probably want to do exactly what these guys did. That is exactly the reason why their actions have to be punished. [/quote]
I wouldn’t have ended up in that situation because I have extreme issues with restraints, someone would have had to die when they tried to tie me up. This was a violent home invasion. This was not a simple burglary. The fact that they tied this man up and then terrorized him with knives and threatened to kill him and his family is exactly the reason why he should not be punished. The law taking the side of the home invaders sends the wrong message to criminals.
The message the law should be sending to criminals is the home invaders crossed a line that they should not have crossed. If you are going to cross the line like that then we are not going to second guess innocent homeowners. If you provoke someone like that till they freak out you are on your own. we are not going to defend scum.
[quote]
Even if the law were changed in the way the Telegraph is asking, these guys would have been prosecuted for assault. They were not in their home, they were not defending anything. They got together a lynch mob, went after the burglar and beat him over the head until he had brain damage breaking a cricket bat they hit him so hard.[/quote]
No, that was a singular uninterrupted event that started in their home, where it ended up is irrelevant. How did they gather up a lynch mob? Did they call their cousins, their uncles, their brothers and say “get the Imam, tell him to bring a knife, because we are going to go find these guys, chop their hands off and put them on a stick like they do in the old country”? No they didn’t! This was heat of the moment. Those home ivaders started some shit they shouldn’t have and it followed them. This wasn’t a childs game of tag like the law is treating it.
[quote]
And to call the Telegraph leftist is hilarious. It is called the Torygraph due to it’s right leaning agenda.[/quote]
Wake up and smell the coffee. When the Tories leader is billing himself as the spiritual heir to Tony Bliar and he is not pilloried by the Telegraph one cannot consider the Telegraph to be anything but left wing.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
They are not a whites only party. [/quote]
So where is that coming from? Is it all spin from Bliars minions?
( Did you see him on the news going in for interrogation on the Iraqi inquiry? I want to see what the British people are going to do about that, too )
[/quote]
…ofcourse i never said that the BNP was a whites only party. They are required by law, in order to play along with the big guys, to admit everybody. Don’t fall for the smoke screen Sifu is trying to put up. The BNP is up there with France’s Le Pen en Wilders…[/quote]
Their constitution was in place for over thirty years but it wasn’t an issue until they had electoral success and became a genuine threat to the power of the “big guys”. [/quote]
…so you are admitting that for over thirty years they were a whites only party?
[/quote]
No. The new equalities act which calls for discrimination in hiring based upon skin color and gender also has provisions for membership in organisations. They changed before the new law went into effect. [/quote]
…wow, i read that over and over again and still i can’t make sense of it. Let me refrase the question: was, at any time in it’s history, the BNP a whites only party?
[/quote]
For thirty years up until they started winning elections nobody had a problem with them restricting their membership in the same manner that the Black Police Officers Association restricts it’s membership.
Then after their success in the June EU parliamentary elections Labour sent it’s racist thug Trevor Phillips after them with the intent of financially draining the party with a costly legal battle so they wouldn’t have the money to contest next years general election.
So rather than fight a battle that even if they won would leave the party broke and in anticipation of the new equalities act they changed their constitution.
The irony of it is Trevor Phillips attack has backfired. Because now that they have opened up their membership they are getting new members who have wanted to join for years.
A Sikh who claims that Islam is based on â??deception, fraud and surprise attackâ?? is set to become the first non-white member of the British National Party.
Rajinder Singh, 78, who emigrated from the Punjab region of India in 1967, said yesterday that he would be honoured to become a member of the BNP because it is the â??only party who has the guts to say the word Muslimâ??.
â??Itâ??s a natural process in the Muslim psyche, to take over. The fear of Islam is well founded, well justified,â?? he told The Times. â??I donâ??t hate Muslims. By definition a Sikh is supposed to love all â?? even the enemy.â??