Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/8/09 10:30 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote:

At 8/7/09 11:15 PM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote: thats why i live in the states, so if a burgalor bursts into my house trying to take my stuff, all he'll take is a 12 gauge in the face

You can't simply blast any fool that sneaks into your house. Its all dependent on the situation.

;;;
I live on the east coast of Canada. We have had people shoot burgalers here in the past. The last one I can remember was a homeowner came home to find his house ransacked & one of the persons dashed downtstairs, he grabbed a rifle & chased him shooting him near a window.
He was charged with several crimes with a weapon & manslaughter & a jury trial seen him set free of all charges :)
proof that sometimes a jury of your peers is the best way to go.
Seems none of them wanted to ever come home to their places trashed by a piece of garbage, disguised as a human either !
Just remember if your going to shoot some strange asshole who has broken into your home...kill him ! that way there's only one side to the story...your side ! ! !

At 8/8/09 11:24 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/8/09 10:30 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote:

At 8/7/09 11:15 PM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote: thats why i live in the states, so if a burgalor bursts into my house trying to take my stuff, all he'll take is a 12 gauge in the face

You can't simply blast any fool that sneaks into your house. Its all dependent on the situation.

;;;
Canada Story Lulz

Yeah, not enough detail to see if it applies. You didn't mention if the burglars were fighting back or fleeing, etc. But still, i don't know anything about Canadian law, and i won't claim to.

At 8/8/09 11:31 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Yeah, not enough detail to see if it applies. You didn't mention if the burglars were fighting back or fleeing, etc. But still, i don't know anything about Canadian law, and i won't claim to.

;;;
You didn't read closely enough !
Like i said, at the end.... kill the bastard & then the only story is "your story" & you can say whatever you want.
Like " he turned at the window & pulled a large kitchen knife out !"
He ain't alive to contest "your story" & if you had to go get a large kitchen knife & place it in his dead hand, so much the better for your story.
Like I said, you kill 'em & your story is the only one there is, chances are better than not ,that no jury in the world will vote to convict you ;)
You could also do like another guy who killed a robber in his driveway, he got off as well. Protecting his family from an ongoing threat...now buddy will never be back to threaten them again. The average working class person has a real hate on for thieves, make them out to be violent or possibly violent & you get off around here anyway !

At 8/7/09 11:17 PM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote: No, they brandished a weapon, how the hell does one brandish a weapon and threaten the person when they are running? and if you have a shotgun with enough range, the spread could hit both of them. Anyway, they're on your property without permision, theres right in that

Gee I don't know, but if they were brandishing a weapon at you, how do you shoot them in the back?

It's also worth noting that it's not illegal to own a shotgun in England, but Martin used an illegally held shotgun, as his shotgun license was revoked after an incident in which he fired on a car.

Also, i don't know where your source got the weapon-brandishing thing from. Even Martin claimed in his defense that the burglars shone a flashlight at him, not brandished a crowbar.

At 8/8/09 11:58 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/8/09 11:31 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Yeah, not enough detail to see if it applies. You didn't mention if the burglars were fighting back or fleeing, etc. But still, i don't know anything about Canadian law, and i won't claim to.

;;;

What does this mean....?

You didn't read closely enough !
Like i said, at the end.... kill the bastard & then the only story is "your story" & you can say whatever you want.

I don't believe in that, Though i do have a disrespect for theives, and i'd probably enjoying shooting the motherfucker, i'd rather not kill the man, not if i don't have.

Like " he turned at the window & pulled a large kitchen knife out !"

Lying to justify what could legally be murder or manslaughter. Very Nice

He ain't alive to contest "your story" & if you had to go get a large kitchen knife & place it in his dead hand, so much the better for your story.
Like I said, you kill 'em & your story is the only one there is, chances are better than not ,that no jury in the world will vote to convict you ;)
You could also do like another guy who killed a robber in his driveway, he got off as well. Protecting his family from an ongoing threat...now buddy will never be back to threaten them again. The average working class person has a real hate on for thieves, make them out to be violent or possibly violent & you get off around here anyway !

No legal sytem is going to believe that defense. "Hes dead so he can't come back lol"
What are the chances that a burglar is going to rob a house he got caught in once already? Slim i'd bet.
Besides, even if you kill him, its still possible to prove that the killing wasn't justified. Like your example. If you could prove that the person was killed in the driveway. Well, if he broke into the house, then was killed in the drive way, doesn't that suggest he was fleeing the scene? Why would he run out of the house into the driveway? Although, it was possible he was in the drive way for other reasons. I don't know the details of the case. What i do know is, to justify the killing, the person has to have actively be threatening you

At 8/8/09 11:58 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/8/09 11:31 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Yeah, not enough detail to see if it applies. You didn't mention if the burglars were fighting back or fleeing, etc. But still, i don't know anything about Canadian law, and i won't claim to.

;;;
You didn't read closely enough !
Like i said, at the end.... kill the bastard & then the only story is "your story" & you can say whatever you want.
Like " he turned at the window & pulled a large kitchen knife out !"
He ain't alive to contest "your story" & if you had to go get a large kitchen knife & place it in his dead hand, so much the better for your story.
Like I said, you kill 'em & your story is the only one there is, chances are better than not ,that no jury in the world will vote to convict you ;)
You could also do like another guy who killed a robber in his driveway, he got off as well. Protecting his family from an ongoing threat...now buddy will never be back to threaten them again. The average working class person has a real hate on for thieves, make them out to be violent or possibly violent & you get off around here anyway !

I seriously, seriously hope this is satire. Otherwise you are exactly the sort of scum who, in your scenario, gets killed. The only difference between you and your murdered thief is that you're too much of a passive-agressive coward to act on your sociopathic urges. You're also retarded because you seem to be forgetting forensic evidence that counts more than someone's story in court: if you shoot someone in the back, the police will know that person has been shot in the back due to them being able to deduce the point of entry.

In England we are granted the right to self-defense, as a previous poster mentioned it has to be proportionate however. It is exactly the same in most American states (forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've heard some fairly gung-ho stuff about Texan law in this regard) and so the website posted is really just misrepresenting the facts to further their own political agenda. No matter how valid that agenda is such tactics mark them as below contempt.

In everyone's fear ongering, self-righteous indignity, do not forget that in this situation a person died. They did not need to die and, according to the law, did not deserve to die for their actions (presuming they hadn't been shot, but instead arrested). Therefore his death was wrong and the law exists specifically to redress wrongs.

At 8/8/09 12:24 PM, Pontificate wrote:

At 8/8/09 11:58 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/8/09 11:31 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Yeah, not enough detail to see if it applies. You didn't mention if the burglars were fighting back or fleeing, etc. But still, i don't know anything about Canadian law, and i won't claim to.

;;;
You didn't read closely enough !
Like i said, at the end.... kill the bastard & then the only story is "your story" & you can say whatever you want.
Like " he turned at the window & pulled a large kitchen knife out !"
He ain't alive to contest "your story" & if you had to go get a large kitchen knife & place it in his dead hand, so much the better for your story.
Like I said, you kill 'em & your story is the only one there is, chances are better than not ,that no jury in the world will vote to convict you ;)
You could also do like another guy who killed a robber in his driveway, he got off as well. Protecting his family from an ongoing threat...now buddy will never be back to threaten them again. The average working class person has a real hate on for thieves, make them out to be violent or possibly violent & you get off around here anyway !

I seriously, seriously hope this is satire. Otherwise you are exactly the sort of scum who, in your scenario, gets killed. The only difference between you and your murdered thief is that you're too much of a passive-agressive coward to act on your sociopathic urges. You're also retarded because you seem to be forgetting forensic evidence that counts more than someone's story in court: if you shoot someone in the back, the police will know that person has been shot in the back due to them being able to deduce the point of entry.

Exactly, i didn't even think about the moral, psychological questions that arrive from this. If someone broke into my house, thats already exposing my family to crime, and it'll probably terrify them already. Adding violence to the situation will only make it worse for them. I don't want my children exposed to violence. Just using any force, as justified as it is, will be of course have some sort of effect. Killing the person will make it worse. I never want my kids to think their father is a killer. But, the world is hard. Its dangerious, sometimes killing the burglar is required. But not always. Thats why we need laws that punish the people who kill when it isn't needed. I wouldn't say what he suggested was sociopathic, passive agressive, and opportunistic certainly.

In England we are granted the right to self-defense, as a previous poster mentioned it has to be proportionate however. It is exactly the same in most American states (forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've heard some fairly gung-ho stuff about Texan law in this regard) and so the website posted is really just misrepresenting the facts to further their own political agenda. No matter how valid that agenda is such tactics mark them as below contempt.

The law is bascially the same thing. The Gung-Ho Texas shit is really just the result of Texas's rebel past, thinkng their whole badass and shit. The same laws apply to them. The force has to be proportionate. Fighting fire with fire doesn't always mean drowning a spark in a inferno.

In everyone's fear ongering, self-righteous indignity, do not forget that in this situation a person died. They did not need to die and, according to the law, did not deserve to die for their actions (presuming they hadn't been shot, but instead arrested). Therefore his death was wrong and the law exists specifically to redress wrongs.

I couldn't agree more. Its not like they punish burglary with the death penalty. If the person does try to kill you, it becomes far more then just burglary, then its attemp at murder. Which will land a person in prison for a damn long time if they get convicted.

At 8/8/09 12:24 PM, Pontificate wrote:

At 8/8/09 11:58 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/8/09 11:31 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote:

In England we are granted the right to self-defense, as a previous poster mentioned it has to be proportionate however. It is exactly the same in most American states (forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've heard some fairly gung-ho stuff about Texan law in this regard) and so the website posted is really just misrepresenting the facts to further their own political agenda. No matter how valid that agenda is such tactics mark them as below contempt.

It's actually not exactly the same, most states have a "castle doctrine" law, Florida being the biggest one, stating if someone is in your house without your permission you don't have to retreat you can stand your ground and do by any means to stop them. It also give immunity from being sued by the bad guys family or himself. States that don't already have a pretty good law regarding home defense.

It is very wrong but its one of those things of many that happens in England, people protest a right, of equality and therefore they have the right to bring the " Supposedly good person to justice "
Its all wrong, but its formed of a society of over protectiveness and also been brought forward through people claiming that the Burglar"example" was discriminated/ignored whatever forgoten and not included in this spectrum of Right and Wrong.

I'm pretty sure you can claim self defense in England as long as you have evidence.
If someone breaks into your house with a gun it shouldn't be too hard to prove that you were just defending yourself.

I can't explain it but it's kind of complicated, i guess you'd need to prove that your life was definatly in danger if you kill someone otherwise it doesn't really measure up.
It's kind of like giving someone the death sentence just for breaking into a house i suppose.

You all seem to believe there is some moral ground for you to be convicted, because you killed some POS...It isn't like that in a courtroom. IF a jury of your peers decides to let you off. Your free.
That's one of the reasons persons charged for crimes where an intruder is killed uses the jury system, instead of judge alone. You get working class persons hear how your home was violated & you killed the intruder. I have never heard of their being a conviction for that.
I've even searched for examples & I searched my local newspaper archive( I have a subscription) & I couldn't find anything. For this area.
Google did have a bunch of articles (I googled 'Man shoots & kills intruder') but besides some that said there was justification, a couple of others were going to the grand jury for a decission on whether charges would be laid.

We don't have a grand jury system in Canada.

At 8/8/09 11:24 AM, Toadenalin wrote:

So in the Tony Martin case, it appears he shot a fleeing burgler in the back, which is not a proportionate response in English law, so it is acceptable in English law that he serves jail time for aggrevated manslaughter. I know America has a slightly different system, but the UK one seems acceptable to me, but rightly or wrongly favours the victim less.

It's really not that different. You're running about a 50/50 risk in America doing that, depending on the judge and jury.

At 8/8/09 03:50 PM, morefngdbs wrote: You all seem to believe there is some moral ground for you to be convicted, because you killed some POS...It isn't like that in a courtroom. IF a jury of your peers decides to let you off. Your free.

The moral ground, though important, doesn't really matter here. What does matter is that killing someone without needing to is illegal.

That's one of the reasons persons charged for crimes where an intruder is killed uses the jury system, instead of judge alone. You get working class persons hear how your home was violated & you killed the intruder. I have never heard of their being a conviction for that.

Not all Jurors are working class people. Besides, any good jury shouldn't care about things like that, the law, and how it applys, should be their primary concern. It shouldn't matter if both jury and convict are working class, what should matter is whether or not the person killed legally. I don't see how the defendants economic situation should matter. IF had to kill to defend him and his family, all good, if he didn't need to, he gets punished. Nothing else matters.

I've even searched for examples & I searched my local newspaper archive( I have a subscription) & I couldn't find anything. For this area.

This Area? You mean your province of Cananda?

Google did have a bunch of articles (I googled 'Man shoots & kills intruder') but besides some that said there was justification, a couple of others were going to the grand jury for a decission on whether charges would be laid.

Well i'd need to see those articles to know what its all about. Link plz?

We don't have a grand jury system in Canada.

At 8/9/09 12:46 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Well i'd need to see those articles to know what its all about. Link plz?

;;;
What part of google" Man shoots & kills intruder" are you incapable of following along with ?
I'm not about to copy 16,100 links for your viewing enjoyment ! ! !
If your capable of logging onto Newgrounds you have to be capable of doing a google search ! ! !

The first half a dozen including one about a man who shot another in Florida & a grandfather who shot his grandson (masked & armed breaking into his home)...haven't been charged.

:: link please -wtf- I believe this might be a new low for inter brain cell connectivity !

There is a line between self defense, and unnecessary violence. You cannot condone murder, but if it can be shown there was sufficient cause for a fight and that the death itself was accidental, then i dont believe too many charges are pressed.

At 8/9/09 08:12 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/9/09 12:46 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Well i'd need to see those articles to know what its all about. Link plz?

;;;
What part of google" Man shoots & kills intruder" are you incapable of following along with ?
I'm not about to copy 16,100 links for your viewing enjoyment ! ! !
If your capable of logging onto Newgrounds you have to be capable of doing a google search ! ! !

If theirs so many, of course you can simply link one or two of them.

The first half a dozen including one about a man who shot another in Florida & a grandfather who shot his grandson (masked & armed breaking into his home)...haven't been charged.

Without a link, you could make up any shit you want and pass it off as fact.

link please -wtf- I believe this might be a new low for inter brain cell connectivity !

One or two links its not asking much, you're making a claim, at least try to fucking prove it. Yes, i could just do it myself, but i can't guarantee i get the same article you do. We need the same source. Stop insulting, have some civility or get out. This isn't general. Besides, i'm not saying i'm smarter then, but i do use mostly proper grammar. Also, ;;;;, what does that mean?

@OP if you really feel like the system I set-up to favour the criminal then do the obvious thing. Don't rely on the police. Someone breaks into your house and you kill them accidentally. Dispose of the body and be done with it. It's not as if anybody going to commit a crime makes sure other people know their whereabouts!

No murder conviction if their is no body, until their is a body its simply a missing persons case!

At 8/9/09 08:40 AM, GLaDOSKitten wrote: There is a line between self defense, and unnecessary violence. You cannot condone murder

That's generally a moral issue to be honest.

As for the case in question i think if the burgler had died by say blunt truama from a heavy object, a knife or whatever else in terms of "self defence" then the guy would have got off. He used a gun though which was probably the wildfire for the court case since they are illegal.

As for the right to defend yourself and all that it comes down to your moral standing, personally if i felt my life was in danger(guy had a knife to stab me or whatnot) then i would feel happy to end his as fast as i could.(And dispose of the body) Same would apply in those "i only ment to beat the shit out of him but not murder him!" cases, in situations like that i'd feel more than ready to use a weapon and/or weapon to defend myself and dispose of the threat(fuck his/her right to life).

At 8/9/09 05:06 PM, Jinzoa wrote:
That's generally a moral issue to be honest.

As for the case in question i think if the burgler had died by say blunt truama from a heavy object, a knife or whatever else in terms of "self defence" then the guy would have got off. He used a gun though which was probably the wildfire for the court case since they are illegal.

In Britian, they want knives to be illegal too.

Actually, you already can't carry a knife with you on the street, so they're almost there.

At 8/11/09 04:55 PM, b0b3rt wrote: In Britian, they want knives to be illegal too.

Actually, you already can't carry a knife with you on the street, so they're almost there.

To an extent! If the blade is less than an inch you can carry it provided you have a reason i.e. its a tool for your job (courier opening boxes etc) but the fact of the matter remains, even if they made knives illegal. Every kitchen in the country has to have them, so it's not as if their ever gonna be hard to get a hold of!

At 8/9/09 05:06 PM, Jinzoa wrote: As for the case in question i think if the burgler had died by say blunt truama from a heavy object, a knife or whatever else in terms of "self defence" then the guy would have got off. He used a gun though which was probably the wildfire for the court case since they are illegal.

Shotguns are not illegal, only hand guns. You are still legally permitted to own a shotgun for purposes of defending your house in the UK. Nothing wrong with that!

At 8/11/09 04:55 PM, b0b3rt wrote: In Britian, they want knives to be illegal too.

Err, no, what the government wants is for them to palce dudner the same restricitons as other items such as swords which have to carried in a manner where theya re secure and not able to be drawn for use in combat and used as a weapon.

Actually, you already can't carry a knife with you on the street, so they're almost there.

You canc arry a knife as long as its blade is below a certain limit, and you can come up with a reasonable excuse for why you have it ( Ie, I work in a shop and use it to open up boxes)

At 8/11/09 05:22 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:
Err, no, what the government wants is for them to palce dudner the same restricitons as other items such as swords which have to carried in a manner where theya re secure and not able to be drawn for use in combat and used as a weapon.

You canc arry a knife as long as its blade is below a certain limit, and you can come up with a reasonable excuse for why you have it ( Ie, I work in a shop and use it to open up boxes)

Yes, I over-exaggerated slightly. But do you think that it's normal to not be allowed to carry a 2 inch folding knife with you at all? And if it's shorter, for you to have a "good" reason to carry it?

At 8/11/09 05:32 PM, b0b3rt wrote: Yes, I over-exaggerated slightly. But do you think that it's normal to not be allowed to carry a 2 inch folding knife with you at all? And if it's shorter, for you to have a "good" reason to carry it?

Normal? No, certainly not, nor do I approve of it, but I'm quite libertarian when it comes to an individuals freedoms. But that doesn't mean you should exaggerate the fact to make your argument look better...

At 8/11/09 05:37 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Normal? No, certainly not, nor do I approve of it, but I'm quite libertarian when it comes to an individuals freedoms. But that doesn't mean you should exaggerate the fact to make your argument look better...

You would have a different opinion if you lived in an area where gangs of kids went around looking to stab the fuck out of each other most nights! Its an instant 6month jail sentence if you get caught with a knife in Scotland, but that still doesn't stop them!

At 8/11/09 05:41 PM, Jon-86 wrote: etter...

You would have a different opinion if you lived in an area where gangs of kids went around looking to stab the fuck out of each other most nights! Its an instant 6month jail sentence if you get caught with a knife in Scotland, but that still doesn't stop them!

An instant 6 months? No trial, no appeals?

At 8/11/09 07:12 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote:

At 8/11/09 05:41 PM, Jon-86 wrote: etter...

You would have a different opinion if you lived in an area where gangs of kids went around looking to stab the fuck out of each other most nights! Its an instant 6month jail sentence if you get caught with a knife in Scotland, but that still doesn't stop them!

An instant 6 months? No trial, no appeals?

Thats how bad it is here... It has been accepted in Scotland for a few years now. (Can't find a link to the ad from a few years ago that they showed it to inform people)

But their going for something similar in England now http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk /crime/article4069395.ece

At 8/11/09 07:56 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 8/11/09 07:12 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote:

At 8/11/09 05:41 PM, Jon-86 wrote: etter...

You would have a different opinion if you lived in an area where gangs of kids went around looking to stab the fuck out of each other most nights! Its an instant 6month jail sentence if you get caught with a knife in Scotland, but that still doesn't stop them!

An instant 6 months? No trial, no appeals?

Thats how bad it is here... It has been accepted in Scotland for a few years now. (Can't find a link to the ad from a few years ago that they showed it to inform people)

But their going for something similar in England now http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk /crime/article4069395.ece

That is amazingly fucked up. Everyone deserves a fair and balanced court system. Even if the person is clearly guilty, a trial must be had.

At 8/11/09 08:08 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: That is amazingly fucked up. Everyone deserves a fair and balanced court system. Even if the person is clearly guilty, a trial must be had.

The way it i seen here is, nobody needs to carry a sward, machete, hunting knife or any knife with them. If their found with one then what other reason have they got to carry it other than to slash someone's face?

The knife ban actually has no impact on the life of anyone. It basically only effects guys and girls who carry blade and use them on other people who live in a different area, territory or street. Gang fighting has been the norm here for over a hundred years. Their are many social divisions.

When you first visit another country and then go back to that. It actually makes you sit back and think "damn I live in a fucked up place" and that's coming from someone who used to be into that and found it funny watching someone getting the shit kicked out of them. I thought that was how people behaved! That was normal for me.

And I've seen far worse. Its for that reason I agree with the knife ban and their jail time you get for carrying a knife. I myself have a small pen knife on a keyring that I use to open stuff, its legal and dose the job!

Of course we vote, but we British do try to live more civilized... not to say that it always works, but hopefully the way we do things will keep unnecessary deaths from happening. It comes down to... will more lives be saved this way or that way? You americans have your way... we have our way. It's not so much as a right to life as a right to PRESERVE all life. You don't have to kill... you can call and subdue and you can self defense... murder/killing should be an option left to war.