But I thought gun control would eliminate this....

[goju]

"A man who stabbed an intruder to protect his family was still awaiting a decision on whether he faced charges last night, after the teenage burglar he injured admitted breaking into his home.

Antonio Caeiro, 33, is on police bail after stabbing burglar Brendan Porter in an incident with echoes of the Tony Martin case.

The 19-year-old of Gatacre Road, Cobholm, near Yarmouth, was treated for wounds to the leg and abdomen at the James Paget Hospital, Gorleston, after the incident on August 14.

He suffered the wounds in a scuffle after Mr Caeiro chased him out of his house at Tottenham Street, Yarmouth.

Porter appeared to have made a full enough recovery for his appearance at Norwich Crown Court yesterday, where he pleaded guilty to burglary.

Judge Daniel Worsley adjourned the case for reports until September 24, but warned Porter that all options, including prison, would be open to the judge.

Mr Caeiro did not wish to comment yesterday, as a friend, who did not want to be named, said: "He has to wait until September before he finds out whether or not he will face criminal charges.

"Obviously this is very distressing for him and his family and he can't wait for this whole matter to be over."

Speaking about Porter's court appearance, he said: "He is happy everything is being dealt with in the correct manner."

A CPS spokesman said last night that no decision had yet been made about the case involving Mr Caeiro.

issues of how far homeowners can go in defending their property was at the heart of Tony Martin, case. He shot dead a burglar and wounded another when at his farmhouse in 1999.

Mr Martin, of Emneth Hungate, near Wisbech, served a three-year jail sentence for killing 16-year-old Fred Barras and wounding Brendan Fearon."

Criminals 1, Citizens 0! You cant even defend your family anymore? I predict he will be charged and will serve time. Meanwhile, crooks all over the country are hooping it up and casing houses. Citizens of Great Britian beware, you are NOT entitled to defend yourself, only criminals are!

[MrBenchley]

1. "Citizens of Great Britian beware"

Tell us, how do the citizens of Great Britain who post here routinely to respond to rubbish like this? I mean, it's not like this is the first post of this sort.

[LibLabUK]

7. Eeeek!

I need a big-ass gun to protect me!!!

Please mighty, powerful and virile gun owners of america liberate me and my fellow serfs from the tyranny of a handgun free life...

[MrBenchley]

11. LOL!!

[Vladimir]

9. I hate Americans and their damn freedoms n/t

[LibLabUK]

10. You too huh? n/t

[MrBenchley]

12. Soon me and Dianne Feinstein

will be breaking down doors all over this country....bwahahahahaha....

[Vladimir]

13. Be sure to tell them

the evil British fascists sent you...

The empire strikes back motherfuckers!!!!!!

[LibLabUK]

14. Shhh!

You'll blow Viscount Benchley's and Baroness Feinstein's cover!

[MrBenchley]

18. Pip pip, cheerio, and all that, eh?

LOL!!

By the way, you'll be happy to know the problem with everybody but the gun-addled is that they're "brainwashed" and can't "think for themselves," according to a local authority....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=82823&mesg_id=82879&page=

[Vladimir]

20. The programming starts early here

all radios in Britain are designed to switch on to Radio 4 while the user is asleep and broadcast subliminal anti-gun propaganda...

[iverglas]

52. hey

Let us not forget Baroness Iverglas of East Ham, here. The ancestral home on Keppel Road



has been occupied by a pretty unarmed-looking bunch of sari-wearing tea drinkers who have already invited us in once, so resistence should be minimal ...

The other ancestral home, in Northamptonshire, was guarded by a snappish little white-haired pale-skinned woman who closed the door on us before we could get a foot in it, no doubt wary of middle-aged women bursting in and making off with her heavily-taxed telly, so the title of Baroness Iverglas of Wellingborough will likely go unclaimed.

[UpsideDownFlag]

51. dont forget me, guys!

i wanna grab as many guns as i can fit in my grubby little fingers

[thomas82]

67. delte

Delete, stupid comment. anger gets the best of me sometimes.
Tom

[Vladimir]

68. A burst, eh? Sounds like you got yourself

a bona-fide assault rifle there. Ain't there nothing better to spend moeny on?

[MrBenchley]

69. It'll be the puddle on the floor that needs cleaning....

[TX-RAT]

2. He suffered the wounds in a scuffle after Mr Caeiro chased him out of his

That answers one question.

You cant even defend your family anymore?
Sure you can.
You just can't chase them down the street, stabbing them. The threat was gone.

[skippythwndrdog]

3. Shades of Cook County!

Sounds about like the guy who shot the intruder with his "previously registered, but failed to keep the registration current" handgun in Illinois.

[gatlingforme]

80. Yeah, and that case is dead in the water, also, they will override

Blago's veto on the bill that will give citizens the right to defend themselves in an intruder situation. So, in the end, the citizens will be able to protect themselves against an intruder in the house.

[fob]

4. What did you think gun control was supposed to eliminate,

stabbing someone with a knife or burglary?

Either way that's a pretty silly connection.

[goju]

23. My sentiments exactly

We hear so often from our resident gun grabbers that eliminating guns from society will prevent such violence. Silly indeed.

[fob]

29. Perhaps I need to up the dose of sarcasm I use.

"resident gun grabbers"??? What guns have been "grabbed" from you?

You know what gun control did in this story? It made it NOT end in a shooting death(s). And what part of the guy chasing the burglar and stabbing him don't you understand as defending one's own home?

Guns or no guns, violence is inherent in the human species, gun control is about using some common sense in regards to an easily obtained, easily used, easily discarded death machine. Despite what Alan Keyes rambles on about, automatic weapons with high capacity magazines should not be in everyone's hands. You wanna celebrate the 2nd Amendment, buy a Musket and learn to load, fire and reload in under a minute.

[MrBenchley]

32. Welcome to the gungeon

[goju]

38. Perhaps...

You should investigate the meaning of irony. Or did you REALLY not understand my post?

"What guns have been "grabbed" from you?"

Well none actually. I have perfectly legal "preban" configs. :) But, should I wait till "some" are grabbed before pointing out the absurdity of the gun control agenda? Kinda like wait till my free speech rights are taken away before I, uh.... speak out against infringement?

"You know what gun control did in this story? It made it NOT end in a shooting death(s). And what part of the guy chasing the burglar and stabbing him don't you understand as defending one's own home?"

Yeah, I do know what gun control did, it endangered an honest citizens life by proscribing a tool of self defense. Evidently you didnt read the other story on this incident which clearly outlines the criminals use of a weapon and his attacks in the house.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/17/nstab17.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/17/ixhome.html

"Guns or no guns, violence is inherent in the human species, gun control is about using some common sense in regards to an easily obtained, easily used, easily discarded death machine. Despite what Alan Keyes rambles on about, automatic weapons with high capacity magazines should not be in everyone's hands. You wanna celebrate the 2nd Amendment, buy a Musket and learn to load, fire and reload in under a minute."

I agree with your first statement, violence cannot be legislated away no matter what the VPC tells you. Gun control however, is NOT about "death machines" ;) Gun control is about control, and votes, and power.

If you are entertaining comments by Keyes than I can understand your confusion.

[fob]

42. Are you sure YOU read the story?

GOJU: "Yeah, I do know what gun control did, it endangered an honest citizens life by proscribing a tool of self defense. Evidently you didnt read the other story on this incident which clearly outlines the criminals use of a weapon and his attacks in the house"

From the story you linked;

Mr Caeiro said the 19-year-old was touching his wife's legs at their Victorian terrace house in Great Yarmouth on Saturday. He said the intruder initially ran off, but when he returned to the house with an iron bar, he stabbed him. They fought in the kitchen and back yard before he fled wounded. Police picked a teenager up within minutes and took him to James Paget Hospital, Gorleston, Norfolk, where he was under guard last night. He was arrested on suspicion of burglary.

Mr Caeiro was arrested on suspicion of assault but later released without charge.
<snip>

OK, tell me what part of the gun control legislation you (don't) cite proscribes the choice of tool for self-defense? You still have not reconciled your statement that the gun grabbers have left this man with no means of defending his home. Also please describe how you think this would have gone if each had a gun to begin with. Would the shooting death of one or all persons involved be so far fetched?

As for the gun control agenda - Please direct us to the official one that states elimination of all guns from citizens as the goal. And yes you should speak up when you feel one of your rights is being taken away, however leave the hyperbole and outright misrepresentations out of it if you hope to get your message across.

[goju]

46. Let me help you...

"Mr Caeiro said the 19-year-old was touching his wife's legs at their Victorian terrace house in Great Yarmouth on Saturday. He said the intruder initially ran off, but when he returned to the house with an iron bar, he stabbed him. They fought in the kitchen and back yard before he fled wounded. Police picked a teenager up within minutes and took him to James Paget Hospital, Gorleston, Norfolk, where he was under guard last night. He was arrested on suspicion of burglary."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/17/nstab17.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/17/ixhome.html

There are a number of stories on this.. 2 were posted here. That is why I clued you into that in my previous post. Guess you missed it.

"OK, tell me what part of the gun control legislation you (don't) cite proscribes the choice of tool for self-defense? You still have not reconciled your statement that the gun grabbers have left this man with no means of defending his home. Also please describe how you think this would have gone if each had a gun to begin with. Would the shooting death of one or all persons involved be so far fetched?"

Well, since you are unfamiliar...The Firearms Bill of 1997 might be of interest to you. Think that might proscribe a choice of defense weapons?
I didnt say NO means to defense now did I? I said "A" tool, a particularly effective tool, a tool which when used properly, might well have saved that poor criminal from a belly slashing.
I imagine if they both had guns, it could have turned ugly. No, you didnt fetch too far on that.

"As for the gun control agenda - Please direct us to the official one that states elimination of all guns from citizens as the goal. And yes you should speak up when you feel one of your rights is being taken away, however leave the hyperbole and outright misrepresentations out of it if you hope to get your message across."

Ok, how bout right from the horses mouth, so to speak?

"We recoil in horror and search for explanations, but we never face up to the obvious preventive measure: a ban on the handy killing machines that make crimes so easy." Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center

"We must get rid of all the guns."
--Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of Handgun Control Inc

................Those are the goals, what are their tactics?

"I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that that kind of a record-keeping procedures is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another."
Charles Morgan, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office

"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily-given political realities-going to be a very modest. of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved. . . .' So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. . . . Our ultimate goal-total control of handguns in the United States-is going to take time. My estimate is seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal." Pete Shields, "A Reporter At Large: Handguns", July 26, 1976, 57-58, in the New Yorker magazine. At the time, Mr Shields was the Executive Director of NCCH, which changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. in 1978.

The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns, but we also have to take a step at a time and go for limited access first.
--Joyner Sims, Florida State Health Dept., deputy commissioner, Chicago Tribune, November 7, 1993


...........Lets contrast that with some wisdom from long ago....

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson




You didnt honestly think we pro gunners were making this up did you? Why would we waste time putting up straw men, like the controllers do, if our rights WERENT under attack? If you can peruse the VPC site and NOT see the hyperbole and outright misrepresentations coming from them, then it is too late for you. They claim/create another victim.

[fob]

62. Your contradicting yourself, not helping me.

There are a number of stories on this.. 2 were posted here. That is why I clued you into that in my previous post. Guess you missed it.


No, I didn't miss it. I took the snip from that exact link that you posted.

Well, since you are unfamiliar...The Firearms Bill of 1997 might be of interest to you. Think that might proscribe a choice of defense weapons?

I'll check it out, but I doubt it says in case of a guy breaking inot your house and touching your wifes leg, grab a knife instead of the gun you don't have because it's been banned. Words mean things.

Are you referring to the Firearms Bill of 1997 in the UK? What the hell does that have to do with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution? And you say I'm duped?

I didnt say NO means to defense now did I?

Perhaps you have had a stroke. Here's what you said in your original post, it's right there at the bottom and I'll reprint it here in bold for you.


You cant even defend your family anymore? I predict he will be charged and will serve time. Meanwhile, crooks all over the country are hooping it up and casing houses. Citizens of Great Britian beware, you are NOT entitled to defend yourself, only criminals are!

Oh and by the way, the excerpt from YOUR link that I posted shows the homeowner was arrested and REALEASED WITHOUT CHARGES. This is why I said you have to leave the irrational emotional argument out, it kills any credibility you may/may not have/had.

(FOB)Please direct us to the official one that states elimination of all guns from citizens as the goal.

For this one you cite the VPC as the answer. A quick visit to their site shows they are a 501(c) and nowhere do I see their position as "elimination of all guns from citizens as the goal", and your quote cited doesn't either. On their cite they advocate for regulation of the industry more as a health and safety issue rather than a manufacturing model only. Their call for a ban on handguns is for "future sale". It is disingenuous to conclude this means they advocate coming to your home and "grabbing your guns". I do agree, however, that if you feel this is getting too close to taking away your rights, you should join the debate, but again you do yourself a disservice by the spin.

The quote attributed to Sarah Brady is from 1994. When I search for that quote it comes up as from a Phil Donahue show appearance. What is the context of that quote? Also when I searched for that quote there were literally dozens of websites that had that and a list of many others from 1993-1994 when the Assault ban weapon debate was raging. Weveral of the quotes are presented out of context so they read opposite of intended. That one quote has been elevated in the "gungrabbers are coming" arena to the goal of the "gungrabbers", however that doesn't mean it is. Again hyperbole seems to reign supreme.


................Those are the goals, what are their tactics?

Well those may be the goals as you believe them to be, but their tactics are through legislation, what's the problem with that exactly? Any group can seek redress through their government, if you have a problem because those that are well-funded and organized get more access and therefore unfair influence, that's a different argument altogether.

...........Lets contrast that with some wisdom from long ago...

The Constitution as written didn't apply to blacks either, are you arguing that "wisdom from long ago" means no change in that "wisdom" is preferable?

If you can peruse the VPC site and NOT see the hyperbole and outright misrepresentations coming from them, then it is too late for you. They claim/create another victim.

I did peruse, and their position is there in black and white, and NOT as presented by you. I agree with some, disagree with others. Perhaps you should look in the mirror for someone that has been duped.

[goju]

64. Oh goody

"I took the snip from that exact link that you posted."

Well, wasnt quite the whole story but, as long as you are staying "informed" ;)

"Are you referring to the Firearms Bill of 1997 in the UK? What the hell does that have to do with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution? And you say I'm duped?"

Well damn, I dont remember bringing the 2nd into this debate. But since you did, I think this case has all kinds of relevance to the 2nd. This incident was in the UK, FYI. That would indicate some relevance to their Firearms Bill, yes? Since our gun grabby friends like to hold up other countries' efforts to ban guns as an example, I thought it relevant to point out where gun control has taken them. Kindof a compare/contrast analogy thingy..ya know?

"Perhaps you have had a stroke. Here's what you said in your original post, it's right there at the bottom and I'll reprint it here in bold for you."

Well I am kinda dizzy but that could be from a number of things. Stroke... nah. Where exactly in MY post did I claim they had proscribed all MEANS to defense? I think if you read closer, you will notice that I suggested the citizens of GB are not ENTITLED to defend themselves. Tools versus rights kinda thing and I think its quite obviously an opinion.

"Oh and by the way, the excerpt from YOUR link that I posted shows the homeowner was arrested and REALEASED WITHOUT CHARGES. This is why I said you have to leave the irrational emotional argument out, it kills any credibility you may/may not have/had."

No charges at this time, right? Isnt it still under review? Meaning they can still press charges if they see fit? Irrational, oh yes.

"For this one you cite the VPC as the answer. A quick visit to their site shows they are a 501(c) and nowhere do I see their position as "elimination of all guns from citizens as the goal", and your quote cited doesn't either. On their cite they advocate for regulation of the industry more as a health and safety issue rather than a manufacturing model only. Their call for a ban on handguns is for "future sale". It is disingenuous to conclude this means they advocate coming to your home and "grabbing your guns". I do agree, however, that if you feel this is getting too close to taking away your rights, you should join the debate, but again you do yourself a disservice by the spin."

Probably wont see a position entailing "confiscation of all world oil" on the bushista's site either, but that doesnt make ME sleep any better. Im afraid taking a lobbying group as dishonest as the VPC at face value might lead to herpes. If I post that statement on a website, would ya believe that too? Spin, or common sense? Id rather analyze information than regurgitate it, but whatever makes you comfy.

"The quote attributed to Sarah Brady is from 1994. When I search for that quote it comes up as from a Phil Donahue show appearance. What is the context of that quote? Also when I searched for that quote there were literally dozens of websites that had that and a list of many others from 1993-1994 when the Assault ban weapon debate was raging. Weveral of the quotes are presented out of context so they read opposite of intended. That one quote has been elevated in the "gungrabbers are coming" arena to the goal of the "gungrabbers", however that doesn't mean it is. Again hyperbole seems to reign supreme."

Well its nice to see you refer to a brady quote as "hyperbole". I tend to agree though I think you may have missed the fact that, she did say it. Tell me you didnt read the full context :eyes:

"Well those may be the goals as you believe them to be, but their tactics are through legislation, what's the problem with that exactly? Any group can seek redress through their government, if you have a problem because those that are well-funded and organized get more access and therefore unfair influence, that's a different argument altogether."

Their tactics are not outlined on their site, are they? Show me where the VPC, HCI, or the Brady Jihad actually comes clean with the public about their goals, or tactics? Do they ever mention that gun companies didnt evade the AWB, they adhered to it"? Do they take responsibility for putting out an incompetent piece of legislation, or do they blame gun companies for follow it? Do they acknowledge that banning one configuration or category of guns, is only the start for their war on the 2nd? Dont be fooled into thinking that propaganda and distortion are NOT in their bag of tricks.

"The Constitution as written didn't apply to blacks either, are you arguing that "wisdom from long ago" means no change in that "wisdom" is preferable?"

Right, cause blacks werent considered "citizens" correct? Those quotes were "about" citizens. Do we discount the ENTIRE constitution because it didnt apply to blacks? Do we discount EVERYTHING the founding fathers said because some owned slaves? Ridiculous analogy.

"I did peruse, and their position is there in black and white, and NOT as presented by you. I agree with some, disagree with others. Perhaps you should look in the mirror for someone that has been duped."

Really? You believe their position is 100% complete and accurate, in black and white as you say, because ... why? Because they are renowned for their honesty? Because they, above all other lobbying groups, wouldnt use propaganda and distortions to further their agenda? Because they provide an objective analysis on gun ownership? Because they tell the WHOLE story, not just their little slice? I dont know how to put THAT much faith in a lobbying group. How do you do that? Duped indeed.

[iverglas]

71. alrighty then

... I thought it relevant to point out where gun control has taken them. <the UK>

Why don't you do it??

Where have you shown "where gun control has taken" the UK??

Are you actually saying that "gun control" has taken the UK to a place where someone who stabs a person trespassing in his/her home is investigated for the possibility that s/he has committed a criminal offence?

Can you possibly explain your reasoning here?

Kindof a compare/contrast analogy thingy..ya know?

Um, no, I don't. Just not at all.

Are you actually saying that someone who stabbed a person trespassing in his/her home would *not* be investigated in the US for the possibility that s/he had committed a criminal offence?

And if not, that this would have something to do with "gun control"??


No charges at this time, right? Isnt it still under review? Meaning they can still press charges if they see fit? Irrational, oh yes.

You're still kinda new here, so you may have missed this story.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=46053#46072

Like that story that was posted back in October about the guy in Boca Raton, Florida, who successfully defended himself against an intruder by shooting and killing said intruder (in the back, as he fled) ... who turned out to be an unarmed 16-year-old engaged in a pre-Hallowe'en doorbell-ringing prank.

Last I checked, the "victim" had been charged with homicide, some time after the event, when the police had investigated it -- even though I was insistently told here that if he had done anything wrong he would have been charged on the spot, and it was plain from the initial news reports that he wasn't.

If we'd gone by that news report alone, we'd have thought that Mr. Milquetoast Accountant of Boca Raton, proud owner of a concealed carry permit and keeper of an in-home handgun, was a shining example of yer average citizen who deserves to have a firearm to defend his/her life against bad guys and whose tale illustrated the wisdom and necessity of having a firearm handy at all times.

At least the kid in the UK is alive to stand trial for any crimes he may have committed; the one in Boca Raton will never do the time for his crime ... whatever the time for doorbell-ringing might be.

Here's the story, as it played out here in the dungeon:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=18326#18331
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=18563#18632
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=19474#19560
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=21309#21428
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22603#22716


Right, cause blacks werent considered "citizens" correct? Those quotes were "about" citizens. Do we discount the ENTIRE constitution because it didnt apply to blacks? Do we discount EVERYTHING the founding fathers said because some owned slaves? Ridiculous analogy.

Have you considered occasionally, just occasionally, trying to take a point?

Did somebody say that your ENTIRE constitution should be "discounted", for any reason? Did anybody say anything that could reasonably and honestly have been interpreted as even suggesting any such thing?

Do you have a clue what an analogy is? Can you identify for us the one that you were calling "ridiculous"?


A hint for your new interlocutor, if s/he is reading: observe the responses I received from our friend here yesterday, and see the writing on the wall in terms of the work-to-results ratio that your efforts will achieve in the relatively short term ... I mean, it's already low in terms of quality, it will simply decline sharply in terms of quantity -- not of posts, which are really quite abundant; just of actual responses ...

[goju]

74. ?

"Can you possibly explain your reasoning here?"

Yep, if guns werent next to outlawed, that homeowner wouldnt have had to risk his life, and his families, in trying to fight off a violent attack with a bread knife. I guess its just a matter of who you sympathize with eh?

"At least the kid in the UK is alive to stand trial for any crimes he may have committed; the one in Boca Raton will never do the time for his crime ... whatever the time for doorbell-ringing might be."

Apples, meet oranges, oranges meet apples.

"Have you considered occasionally, just occasionally, trying to take a point?"

Nah...never occured to me :eyes:

"A hint for your new interlocutor, if s/he is reading: observe the responses I received from our friend here yesterday, and see the writing on the wall in terms of the work-to-results ratio that your efforts will achieve in the relatively short term ... I mean, it's already low in terms of quality, it will simply decline sharply in terms of quantity -- not of posts, which are really quite abundant; just of actual responses .."

Ya know, I think that allegation has been made about a few others here too. Wonder who they might be....hmmm

[fob]

75. Thanks for the hint, it's obvious that this topic is too emotional to Goju

to discuss rationally

[goju]

76. Damn right its emotional

but Id like to see where Ive become irrational. Can you show me such a post?

Im not being nasty unlike some others on the opposite side. I might use sarcasm and humor (?) to get a point across but we are all guilty of that from time to time.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bowens43]

5. How would gun control eliminate stabbings?

How would it eliminate crime?

What nonsense. Nothing but distortions and exaggerations.

[goju]

24. It wont

My point exactly. But the gun grabbers continue to hope that you wont see the absurdity of their agenda.

[LibLabUK]

6. A link?

"Antonio Caeiro, 33, is on police bail after stabbing burglar Brendan Porter in an incident with echoes of the Tony Martin case."

Echos of the Tony Martin case?

Where's the shotgun, dead teenager and creepy old hermit who liked to brag about shooting and killing "gypos"?


"He suffered the wounds in a scuffle after Mr Caeiro chased him out of his house at Tottenham Street, Yarmouth."

See this is the crux of it, as someone else commented, you have no right to assault anyone... Once the threat to you or someone else has ceased, you have no right to "defend" yourself.

The burglar was no longer in the man's house and as a result no longer posed a threat to the man or his family.

"A CPS spokesman said last night that no decision had yet been made about the case involving Mr Caeiro."

The Crown Prosecution Service has yet to decide whether or not to persue a case against the man. I guess they'll be consulting the police and deciding whether or not there are any criminal charges to be answered.

"issues of how far homeowners can go in defending their property was at the heart of Tony Martin, case. He shot dead a burglar and wounded another when at his farmhouse in 1999. Mr Martin, of Emneth Hungate, near Wisbech, served a three-year jail sentence for killing 16-year-old Fred Barras and wounding Brendan Fearon."

He shot into a darkened room from the stairs on which he was standing.

He shot the teenager in the back, and then shot at the fleeing adult. He failed to call an ambulance and left the teenager to bleed to death.

He was originally found guilty of murder by a jury, but this was reduced to manslaughter on appeal.

"Criminals 1, Citizens 0!"

Where? The burglar plead guilty... he'll be punished.

"You cant even defend your family anymore?"

Where'd it say that?

"I predict he will be charged and will serve time."

Probably, from the little detail you provided it seems like he should.

"Meanwhile, crooks all over the country are hooping it up and casing houses."

Huh? Why?

"Citizens of Great Britian beware, you are NOT entitled to defend yourself, only criminals are!"

Eh? Where'd you draw this conclusion from?

I have the right to employ reasonable force in the defence of my life and property. That hasn't changed.

What this case is about (again, you provide very little facts, not even a link to the article you got this from) is a man who appears to have gone beyond reasonable, and committed assualt or possibly G.B.H.

[goju]

16. Link

Sorry, I lost my connection....

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED28%20Aug%202004%2009%3A30%3A07%3A907

Echos of the Tony Martin case?

I think they were referring to home invasions by criminals and one's right to defend oneself.

"The burglar was no longer in the man's house and as a result no longer posed a threat to the man or his family."

YOU make that decision when someone breaks into your house. YOU determine when the person is no longer a threat. I promise you, it isnt that black and white. Especially if you have kids. I would rather not have a court make that decision for me.

Why was Martin's charge reduced?

"Where? The burglar plead guilty... he'll be punished."

What message does that send to every other 2 bit theif? And what message does it send to law abiding citizens? That there is even a question about Caeiro actions is troubling.

"I have the right to employ reasonable force in the defence of my life and property. That hasn't changed."

Are you sure? I think it has changed, and continues to change. The burden of proof, in terms of self defense, has shifted to the victim. If some idiot decides to break into your house, he has a very promising chance of first, not being shot since guns are next to illegal. Second, not even being challenged, since citizens have to calculate how much time they are willing to spend in jail. And third, not facing any real jail time if they do get caught.

The "right" you think you have is subject to review, after the fact.

"What this case is about (again, you provide very little facts, not even a link to the article you got this from) is a man who appears to have gone beyond reasonable, and committed assualt or possibly G.B.H."

I provided the whole article, got kicked off before I could edit to provide the link. But "I" am not providing facts, just my take on what the article reported.

I think "reasonable" is the ability to empathize with someone who's had a traumatic experience in the defense of his life, and his family's safety. I dont think having sympathy for a criminal who could have potentially killed him/them, is reasonable.

Maybe its just me but, once you are in my house without my welcome, you have lost all your rights. And I dont see any benefit in waiting for a judge to tell ME how to properly defend what is mine.

[LibLabUK]

25. Hmm

"YOU make that decision when someone breaks into your house. YOU determine when the person is no longer a threat. I promise you, it isnt that black and white. Especially if you have kids. I would rather not have a court make that decision for me."

Well, the UKGB&NI is a country under the rule of law. We don't allow vigilantes to exact summary justice.

"The burden of proof, in terms of self defense, has shifted to the victim."

No. The burden of proof has always rested upon the prosecution not the victim, and continues to.


"If some idiot decides to break into your house, he has a very promising chance of first, not being shot since guns are next to illegal."

Bzzzt... wrong.

Guns are not illegal. Handguns are illegal to possess, but anyone may apply for a licence to possess a rifle or shotgun. The thing is, hardly anyone chooses to.

So the reason a burglar faces almost no risk of being shot is the same as the reason I face almost no risk of being shot.. Guns of any sort are exceedingly rare because hardly anyone chooses to own one.


"Second, not even being challenged, since citizens have to calculate how much time they are willing to spend in jail."

Err, nope.

As I stated, I have the right to use reasonable force in defending my life, that of my family and my property. The key word is reasonable.


"And third, not facing any real jail time if they do get caught."

You get a reasonable spell in gaol for burglary. Judges are given a certain amount of leeway in the sentances that they hand down.

"The "right" you think you have is subject to review, after the fact."

AND?

If you shot a burglar, I'm willing to put money on your local DA having to make a decision on whether or not to convene a grand jury. There has to be a review of your actions, afterall we live under the protection of laws, and those laws are there to protect everyone.

"Maybe its just me but, once you are in my house without my welcome, you have lost all your rights. "

I think it's just you.

I guess "inalienable" just doesn't mean what it used to...

"Why was Martin's charge reduced?"

The court of Appeal took mitigating circumstances into consideration.

The appeal judges accepted new psychiatric evidence that Martin was suffering from a paranoid personality disorder and acting under diminished responsibility when he shot Barras. - BBCNews

[goju]

30. Funny

Its amusing how you equate protecting ones family to "vigilante" justice.

"No. The burden of proof has always rested upon the prosecution not the victim, and continues to."

Yeah, you can surmise from his immediate arrest where the burden of proof lies. :eyes:

"Guns are not illegal. Handguns are illegal to possess, but anyone may apply for a licence to possess a rifle or shotgun. The thing is, hardly anyone chooses to."

Bzzzt... I said "next" to illegal, didnt I?

"Err, nope.
As I stated, I have the right to use reasonable force in defending my life, that of my family and my property. The key word is reasonable."

Right, and YOU determine what is reasonable? Err, nope! Some judge who has probably NEVER had to confront such an ordeal gets to make that decision for you.

"You get a reasonable spell in gaol for burglary. Judges are given a certain amount of leeway in the sentances that they hand down."

Yeah I can tell. Afterall, the judge WARNED him that jail time was still an "option".

"If you shot a burglar, I'm willing to put money on your local DA having to make a decision on whether or not to convene a grand jury. There has to be a review of your actions, afterall we live under the protection of laws, and those laws are there to protect everyone."

Im not holding our system up as any different. We suffer from the same misguided, criminally-compassionate justice system. Maybe not to the same extent but, I wouldnt take the bet.

"I guess "inalienable" just doesn't mean what it used to.."

Well no, not really. Crooks can get sent to prison, loss of some rights there. I see no disparity between my position and the justice system.

[iverglas]

54. "I see no disparity ...

... between my position and the justice system."

There's those funny specs again. Are you going to tell us where you buy 'em, so we can see the strange things you see, and avoid seeing the real world, too?


I guess "inalienable" just doesn't mean what it used to..
Well no, not really. Crooks can get sent to prison, loss of some rights there.

No. Please -- let me know what you aren't understanding, and then maybe I or someone else can assist you.

Crooks who get sent to prison DO NOT LOSE RIGHTS.

Rights -- of the "fundamental" or "human" variety -- are INALIENABLE.

They cannot / may not be sold, surrendered, mislaid OR TAKEN AWAY.

The ABILITY TO EXERCISE a right may be interfered with.

A "crook" has the RIGHT TO LIBERTY -- or else why on earth would anyone bother with a trial in the first place???

The trial -- part of the rule of law that has been alluded to here -- is the process by which society decides whether justification exists for interfering in the exercise of the right to liberty.

The purpose of a trial is *not* to determine whether someone is a crook and therefore has no right to liberty.

The purpose of a trial is to determine whether someone committed a criminal offence which provides justification for denying him/her the ability to exercise certain aspects of the right to liberty.

PEOPLE DO NOT "LOSE" RIGHTS. People do not "forfeit" rights. People do not have rights taken away from them. Not when they enter your home, not when they are convicted of criminal offences, not ever.

So, to get back to the disparity between your position and the justice system:

The justice system applies due process in order to determine whether there is justification for interfering in the exercise of someone's rights.

You, on the other hand, if you harm or kill someone other than to avoid harm or death, where you have a reasonable belief that there is no other way to avoid such harm or death, are just a criminal: someone who breaks the laws that are made in order to protect other people's ability to exercise their own rights.

Right, and YOU determine what is reasonable? Err, nope! Some judge who has probably NEVER had to confront such an ordeal gets to make that decision for you.

And yes: if you harm or kill someone, the burden IS on you to prove that you did it within the parameters of that exception to criminal liability. If you have some other idea of how this should work, feel free to propose and argue it ... keeping in mind that it will apply equally to anyone who decides to harm or kill you.

The person you might like to harm or kill HAS A RIGHT TO LIFE and to the protection of society. Always, in all places, at all times. If you still don't grasp that pretty easy fact, raise your hand and extra tutoring will be made available at no charge.

[goju]

57. Welcome back

I missed ya! ;)

"There's those funny specs again. Are you going to tell us where you buy 'em, so we can see the strange things you see, and avoid seeing the real world, too?"

Sure, just call 1-800-VPC-LIES They will set you up.

For all your ranting...2 pages of misery, let me just change my statment to: "Well no, not really. Crooks can get sent to prison, interference of some rights there." Happy now?

"You, on the other hand, if you harm or kill someone other than to avoid harm or death, where you have a reasonable belief that there is no other way to avoid such harm or death, are just a criminal: someone who breaks the laws that are made in order to protect other people's ability to exercise their own rights."

Im aware of the laws iverglas. I think you are missing my point. If someone comes into MY house, all bets are off. Laws be damned.

"If you have some other idea of how this should work, feel free to propose and argue it ... keeping in mind that it will apply equally to anyone who decides to harm or kill you."

Oky doky, thanks for permission.

[iverglas]

58. "2 pages"

? What do you do, print it out for private study?

Excellent idea. Read 'em over three times each, stuff may get past those lenses.

[goju]

59. Cant

I fall asleep after 6 or 7 hundred words.

[iverglas]

79. btw

"cant", indeed.

cant 1. insincere pious or moral talk.
2. ephemeral or fashionable catchwords ...

Quite a good summary of the content, that header of yours was.

[goju]

81. Or arent you clever

:)


NOT!

[iverglas]

82. durn

My Oxford Concise just doesn't help with this "arent". "Arendt", perhaps?

"Arendt, you clever!" would indeed be an appropriate thing to say to Hannah.

The banality of evil ...

[goju]

84. Indeed n/t

[MrBenchley]

61. Another law-abiding responsible gun owner...NOT

"all bets are off. Laws be damned."
Yeah, why let a little thing like laws or civilization blunt the joy of killing?

[Vladimir]

8. No, you aren't allowed to chase someone out of the house

with a knife AND THEN KEEP CHASING AND STABBING THEM WHILE THEY ARE TRYING TO RUN AWAY.

And we wouldn't have it any other way.

[-..__...]

15. That artticle is misleading...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/17/nstab17.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/17/ixhome.html

"Husband stabs burglary suspect

A suspected teenage burglar was in a serious condition last night after being stabbed by a man whose house he allegedly broke into.


In a case echoing that of Tony Martin, Antonio Caeiro, 33, claimed yesterday that he was acting in self-defence when he fought the youth with a 12-inch bread knife after being woken by his wife's screams when she found him in their bedroom in the early hours".

Mr Caeiro said the 19-year-old was touching his wife's legs at their Victorian terrace house in Great Yarmouth on Saturday. He said the intruder initially ran off, but when he returned to the house with an iron bar, he stabbed him. They fought in the kitchen and back yard before he fled wounded. Police picked a teenager up within minutes and took him to James Paget Hospital, Gorleston, Norfolk, where he was under guard last night. He was arrested on suspicion of burglary."

8<-------- Snip

[Vladimir]

17. If that is true

he will of course be acquitted. I suspect the youth claims otherwise...

[goju]

19. Naturally

And who are we to believe? I would bet the judge/magistrate/what have you.. gives "equal" weight to both parties.

Please someone show me that I am wrong.

[Vladimir]

21. There should be clear forensic evidence either way

knife wounds are messy, there would be blood in the house or street, and you can DNA test. Its not a case of one person's word against anothers.

[goju]

22. Not to be overly contrarian but

Clearly they could possibly determine, objectively, where the altercation took place but, that doesnt necessarily mean they ascribe self defense to it. They could easily determine that the victim used undue force to dispatch the threat, shameful as it is for me to contemplate, it wouldnt be the first time.

[LibLabUK]

26. Hmm

"They could easily determine that the victim used undue force to dispatch the threat, shameful as it is for me to contemplate,"

It's possible, ofcourse the "They" in this case would be a jury.

"it wouldnt be the first time."

References?

[goju]

31. No

The prosecution would determine whether or not he even gets charged, right? That would be BEFORE a jury ever gets to hear it.

Being accused of something tends to sway opinion. Look at Kerry for proof there.

Do you HONESTLY need references for this? Really? Let me know, I will find them. I just cant believe you would doubt it. :shrug:

[Vladimir]

33. Well if you are saying that

once charged, a defendant can't get a fair trial... what alternative to the trial by jury do you propose?

[MrBenchley]

35. So this guy stabbing a kid in the back is like Kerry?

You'll notice there's not a word of distress from any of our "pro gun democrats" that nobody is more enthusiastically passing along false charges about John Kerry than the gun lobby and the gun owners' on-line forums...

[goju]

36. I didnt say that

Prosecuters decide what goes to trial. Therein lies a distinct possibility that you will be charged with a crime for which there is no "reasonable" basis. That doesnt mean all jury trials are unfair but if there is grey area, simply being accused tends to sway opinion.

[Vladimir]

37. Well who should decide what goes to trial? n/t

[goju]

39. Ok

So you are sparring with me then ;) Sounds fun!

Obviously prosecuters should decide.. that was not my point. My point is, the laws and decision making behind what constitutes "reasonable" self defense is questionable at best. It is entirely dependent on the whims and experiences of the prosecuter, DA, etc. That is a scary when you consider how easily a person's agenda can influence what crimes go to trial. I would hate to see a string of anti gun zealots making those decisions.

[Vladimir]

41. And I would hate to see a string of

vigilantes make them, but neither is very likely. There has to be a certain element of trust in the system otherwise no law can work. The law is fuzzy because its a fuzzy situation - unless you say that once someone breaks into your home they are fair game for anything I don't see how you can have anything other than a nuanced law.

[goju]

43. I say they are fair game until

a prosecutor can prove otherwise. And the burden of proof should be substantial. As it is now, they arrest first and ask questions later.

If someone is in my home without welcome, dont ask me to prove he wasnt a threat. Just being there without my welcome MAKES him a threat, and Id rather not spend time analyzing the severity of that threat or the criminal intent of the perpetrator.

[Vladimir]

44. If he is acquitted he can always sue

for wrongful arrest if its the case that the police was too quick to arrest - indeed this is something the police always has to take into account.

[goju]

47. Not sure

Actually here in the states its a policy in some jurisdictions to arrest the person regardless of the circumstances. Once they have investigated, then they move forward with charges, or not. I dont know what they do across the pond as a matter of procedure.

[Vladimir]

48. In the UK, I am pretty sure that is not the policy n/t

[LibLabUK]

34. Okay...

"The prosecution would determine whether or not he even gets charged, right?"

Yes, the CPS would.

"That would be BEFORE a jury ever gets to hear it."

Yes.

"Being accused of something tends to sway opinion."

And?

We have sub judice laws, one of the reasons why the full details of the case won't be known until it either comes to court or is dismissed.

This way we make it harder for juries to be swayed by the press.

"Do you HONESTLY need references for this? Really? Let me know, I will find them."


I'll take you up on that...Can you find them please.

[goju]

40. Then we agree?

You seem to agree that a prosecutor with an agenda could easily file charges, or not, depending on their persuasion. I am NOT comfortable with the trend toward "compassionate" criminal justice.

Links on the way....

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_110503_elderlygun.html
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/crime/defense/may1995/davis.html
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1090918813215680.xml
http://www.selfdefenseforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3568.html

This one really speaks to the problem with blindly relying on the criminal justice system.....
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/133697_dvarrests05.html

---
More broadly, if someone in an abusive relationship ends up wrongly arrested -- or, even if they are correctly arrested in that one situation, but the context isn't taken into account in sentencing and treatment -- trust in the criminal justice system as a whole ends up eroded, said King County District Court Judge David Steiner, who presides over a specialized domestic violence court in Redmond.

"It takes the confidence away from the victims to get involved with the police, to get involved with the courts," Steiner said. "And, if they can't utilize the police or the courts, then who are they going to turn to? So much of the problem of domestic violence is the victims or the survivors are convinced that they can't do anything."
---

Cant do anything...... Well I have some ideas but I guess the VPC turned them into permanent victims already. Shameful.

[LibLabUK]

45. Let's see.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_110503_elderlygun.html

Guy has illegal gun, pays the price for it.

http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/crime/defense/may1995/davis.html

This source isn't a news-site...

But again, he was CHARGED after he killed someone.


http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1090918813215680.xml

Again, woman charged after she killed someone.

http://www.selfdefenseforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3568.html

Nice site..

Again, charge is from illegal possession of an offensive weapon.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/133697_dvarrests05.html

Never heard of battered-husbands?

The police were taking what they thought was the correct course of action (their rules stated they needed to make an arrest, and they had evidence that the man had been assaulted).

Again, if it goes that far the woman will get her day in court.

We have laws, if you break them you get charged and possibly taken to court where your circumstances and excuses will be judged and decided upon by a jury. That's how it works...

Or are you suggesting that you should have the "It's coming right for me!" JimBob Southpark defence where any action legal or not is excusable?

"You seem to agree that a prosecutor with an agenda could easily file charges, or not, depending on their persuasion."

Why? The CPS is apolitical... why would they do waste public money on a charge that wouldn't stand up in court?

Can't speak for your politically appointmented and elected judiciary and prosecutors..

[goju]

49. Exactly what are you looking for?

Instances of victims who are charged, but not convicted? Thats what I provided. Instances of victims who are charged and later convicted? Those stories dont tend to make news unless it involves a well known person and the news whores follow it. Instances of people wrongly convicted? Google it, I wont waste my time on the obvious.

The CPS is apolitical because its run by the borg? Do people NOT have opinions that MIGHT influence their decisions in the CPS?

[LibLabUK]

53. Hmm

"Instances of victims who are charged and later convicted?"

Yes.. this is exactly what I want. The media conspiracy not to report these things is quite funny.

"The CPS is apolitical because its run by the borg? Do people NOT have opinions that MIGHT influence their decisions in the CPS?"

Possibly, but qui bono?

[Vladimir]

27. I am confident that they will get it right

call me naive ;)

[LibLabUK]

28. Naive..

such a beautiful name.. is that French? :P

[iverglas]

50. "But I thought gun control would eliminate this...."

I have to ask. Do you find your thoughts in crackerjack boxes maybe?

[goju]

60. No

I get "those" thoughts from the VPC. Strange, isnt it?

[iverglas]

63. "I get 'those' thoughts from the VPC. ...

... Strange, isnt it?"

It is indeed! Very, very strange. I believe that was my point ...

[goju]

65. Its hard to avoid it when

its spewed here every day with relentless and unquestioned support. Kinda makes you wonder why they would choose one lobby over another but, whatever works!

Edit: By the way, I sent you a question via PM last week. Just a reminder, not harping on you.

[MrBenchley]

66. Funniest post yet....

"Kinda makes you wonder why they would choose one lobby over another"
Geeze, goju, tell us....which one of those lobbies is spreading the Swift Boatters' lies on their website?
Which one has a website laden with attacks on Kerry and Edwards?
Which one has racists, nutcases and criminals on its Board of Directors?
Which one threw a big party for the Republicans last night?

Here's a tip, it wasn't the VPC....

[iverglas]

72. .

The question you asked had been fully answered on the board. Maybe it's time you got that gold star thingy, if you actually missed those instances. If you saw them and didn't understand them, it ain't my problem.

I do not respond to unsolicited private messages unless I happen to feel like it. I didn't.

[goju]

73. Now now, you are slipping

Notice anything?

Thats ok on the question, I understand. I was actually thinking the same thing but I wanted more input from you.

[library_max]

55. Let's see what we have here.

A story about an altercation in the UK between a homeowner and a would-be burglar. Nobody got killed. The burglar got stabbed. Apparently there is some disagreement about whether he got stabbed trying to escape or stabbed after he returned with a weapon of his own. The burglar is being charged; no decision has been made in the homeowner's case.

So where's the problem? The homeowner successfully defended his home, without a gun. No decision had been made in his case, presumably because it had not been resolved whether the burglar was attacking or fleeing at the time, something forensics should be able to establish quite plainly.

What remains, except to make up stuff to complain about, and fabricate a connection to gun control laws?

The UK has one-fourth of our murder rate per capita. That's what gun controls were supposed to do, and by cracky they did it.

[MrSandman]

56. If this happened here,

The homeowner would be in big trouble. According to State Police, a homeowner can shoot, beat, club, a burglar. But to use an edge...NO.

[UpsideDownFlag]

70. interesting side note...the crime wasn't commited with a gun.

maybe you should bitch about knife control.

[Pert_UK]

83. Just because you can't understand something.....

and / or choose to disengenously misrepresent it, it ain't necessary so.

I thought that the mental capacity to restrain oneself from rabid outrage until one had at least read and understood the news story was a pre-requisite for posting on DU. It seems I was wrong. You have done a fantastic job of essentially concluding the exact opposite of most of the article, plus something about guns which doesn't make any sense.

Is it worth pointing out that:

a) the burglar has been charged and is in court, whereas the homeowner isn't - so much for "Criminals 1, Citizens 0". Did you EVEN READ the article?

b) the homeowner chased the burglar outside before stabbing him (self defence eh?)

c) you're getting all worked up about something that hasn't even happened yet, simply by assuming a result that you don't want and then criticising it before it has even happened.

d) Tony Martin fired a shotgun blindly into the dark, hitting a 16 year old boy in the back and killing him. He did NOT defend his property with reasonable force. If he had I'd be 100% behind him.

e) "crooks all over the country are hooping it up and casing houses" - you're right. I passed a distinctly suspicious looking child with a hoop in the playground outside school today, and when I got home this evening imagine my horror to find it had indeed been cased - a massive Samsonite lobbed onto the roof to block the chimney. Would you Adam-&-Eve it?

f) I've never heard of Great Britian, but rest assured that I'll dig out an atlas this evening and ensure I never visit there by mistake. It sounds like a terrible place.

g) What the fuck has this got to do with guns or gun control in Britain?

h) Dude, where's my link to the source story?

i) Bell

j) End.

[library_max]

85. "I thought that the mental capacity to restrain oneself from rabid outrage

until one had at least read and understood the news story was a pre-requisite for posting on DU."

Really? How long have you been posting in JPS again?