 |
|
|
#1
14-08-2005, 19:30
|
||||
|
||||
tough life
Yob gets boozing life ban
By ALASTAIR TAYLOR A DRUNKEN thug has been banned from buying booze in his home city for LIFE. Cleaner Richard Hurst, 21, started drinking when he was 12 and has been locked up seven times since he was 15. Now he cannot buy alcohol at any pub, club, bar, off-licence, corner shop or even supermarkets in York. He can’t even walk down a store aisle containing alcohol. The ban was handed out at York Crown Court as Hurst was jailed for four years for bursting into a house and beating a man in his own bed. Judge Paul Hoffman said he was “assessed as having the potential to cause serious harm to members of the public”. Hurst, who admitted actual bodily harm, has been caged for offences including kicking a shop assistant in the head, burglary and wounding..... http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005370142,00.html 
|
| Guest Info |
|
+:+:+ Forum Headquarter +:+:+ |
|
#2
14-08-2005, 19:49
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
That's because you Brits let them take your guns away. In Florida it is OK to shoot someone on your property that you **feel** threatened by. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155303,00.html Note the term, "would-be" and a bunch of States have followed suit. The NRA magazine "The American Rifleman" has a page of "The armed citizen" each month outlining true stories of just such a thing being averted, usually with excellent results, as in one dead SOB.
|
|
#3
14-08-2005, 20:08
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dave this are words that are very political.
So what you are saying, that if we had one too many and visit your house (estate), finding some beers in your house, you could just shoot us down, because you feel treatened? Well then I prefare, the drinking -ban of this unfortuned fellow! 
|
|
#4
14-08-2005, 21:26
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"管它黑貓白貓，會抓老鼠的就是好貓"
|
|
#5
14-08-2005, 21:30
|
|||
|
|||
|
A bit of an emotive subject this. While I feel that US society is a bit too trigger-happy (the right to 'bear arms' has been taken way too far IMHO), over on this side of the pond, if someone forces entry into your house and you attack them to defend your property/family, most of the time you're looking at a charge ! How fcuked up is that ? Remember the Tony Martin case ? The bit I don't like is that he shot a kid in the back- but if the kid wasn't breaking into his house, he'd still be alive.
A happy medium would be best, but the 'human rights' industry that has exploded over here will always seek to defend the criminal minority at the expense of the law abiding majority. I'm not saying LOS is exactly crime-free, far from it, but as it's mid-way between UK & US (the long way round !) it'll do for me. plus the girls are way better....
|
|
#6
14-08-2005, 21:37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Sorry although I believe everybody has the right to defend there property, Shooting someone in the back is not defending it because the person is not a threat to you if they are running away, And thats exactly what happened in the Tony Martin case unfortunatly.
__________________
LIFES A BIT*H THEN U MARRY 1 
|
|
#7
14-08-2005, 22:10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
But then what happens Ally when the same person comes back to rob you the next night. Are you then allowed to shoot him if he is facing you? The Tony Martin case was heavily publised as he was the victim of numerous robberies and defending his property. I think he got a raw deal. If the thieving scumbags continue to get preferentual treatment to the victim they are robbing,then the world has gone mad. As said before ,its all highly emotive,but I dread the day should we become like the US and be allowed to use guns to defend ourselves.There are too many guns already in the wrong hands. I come from a generation when the death penalty was in force, and I rue the day it was done away with. I also know I am in a minority with my opinion,but I really believe in an eye for an eye.I also believe it was a good deterrent,and nobody will change my mind on that.
__________________
I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my Granddad Not screaming in fear like his passengers
|
|
#8
14-08-2005, 22:39
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think he got a raw deal too, but I also think that, as the guns were held illegally, and the fact that he shot the kid in the back, there was always going to be a price to pay.
|
|
#9
15-08-2005, 00:14
|
|||
|
|||
|
it seems more and more people are leaving britain for a better life away, due to all these young yobs , isnt it time this country was sorted out completey . as for the justice system,what a waste of time, why didnt they lock up the yob from leeds the 1st time he commited an offence, if so then none of the other victims would have bn injured. i`m proud of my country , yet im leaving it in a few months, due to way the place is going down hill.why should we pay taxes for these scum who`ve commited murder to stay in jail, why not just shoot them, then the jails wouldnt be over crowded.........
|
|
#10
15-08-2005, 00:44
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If he was face to face with the burgular and felt in danger of his life, Then yes he can shoot him but not when the fella was running away, Nobody should be allowed the right to be judge and jury and take a man's life no matter what the crime, Thats what we have laws for, I know a lot of them are not fair but we have to follow them or face the punishment.
__________________
LIFES A BIT*H THEN U MARRY 1
|
|
#11
15-08-2005, 01:05
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I thought it was a poor shot. It should have been his head.
__________________
I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my Granddad Not screaming in fear like his passengers
|
|
#12
15-08-2005, 01:18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Why was the kid that Tony Martin shot doing out on bail? He had been convicted of more than 20 burglaries but was not locked up.
When Tony Martin reported previous burglaries to the police, they either did not respond or turned up hours later. Shooting the kid in the back was not right, but the police and justice system failed Tony Martin (and society). Criminals seem to have more rights than decent law abiding citizens and this will lead to more cases like the TM one. If I had been on the jury, I would have voted not guilty, even though I know in the eyes of the law he was technically guilty. It is time the tables were turned on the scumbags.
|
|
#13
15-08-2005, 01:35
|
||||
|
||||
|
In the past there were signs saying "Trespassers will be shot" , if you ignored the sign and put yourself at risk , that was your hard luck. Nowadays, there are so many Civil Rights/Civil Liberty groups that if a burgular injures himself in your house , "you" can get taken to court for compensation.
Where has it all gone wrong????? As for yobs in Thailand, jail,take their passports and ban them from ever coming back. A lot of countries do it to football fans, so whats the difference with tourists.
__________________
Member of Phuket Hash House Harriers
|
|
#14
15-08-2005, 01:44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#16
15-08-2005, 10:15
|
|||
|
|||
|
A copper once told me, on the quiet of course, that if some scumbag breaks into your house, drag the fcuker upstairs to beat him up. According to form it's a much greater offence to be upstairs due to the potential of kids being asleep, whether there's any kids in there or not. The law will treat you more leniently then (FFS why does the law always lean towards the criminal's fcuking rights !?!
 ). I think the cops are as pissed off about the sh1te laws as the rest of us. I'd guess this won't matter if ya live in a bungalow... 
|
|
#17
15-08-2005, 11:16
|
||||
|
||||
|
You're probably better off to kill the guy. If you only wound him, his lawyers will take everything you own. Kill him you stand about as much chance of getting off or pleading out on an assault or involuntary manslaughter.
Plus the SOB won't be after anyone else. Same same for child molesters. Kill em and save a kid. 
|
|
#18
15-08-2005, 15:48
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I've got a mate who's in the policeforce and he told me if you catch someone in your house do not injure them if your going to do anything then you have to kill them. He reckoned otherwise they sue you for damages etc, but dead they of course cannot make any claim or plea against you and you make up a story about self defence and accidental death. But how many of us could actually kill someone?
__________________
If I havn't done it already, then i'm gunna do it today.
|
|
#20
15-08-2005, 21:31
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Hi molly . I am fine, and i will be there so u can ring the bell some times  
|
|
#21
20-08-2005, 06:21
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
They are still out there though and if you know where to look you can pick one up, unfortunately, even with all the tough legislation, and I agree with the Police on this, it has just ensured that the 'wrong' people now have the Rifles/Pistols/Shotguns in thier hands. I train people to shoot, police forces, foreign military, security officers etc therefore my livelihood was at stake when I had to move my weapons to France (where I can legitimately license, store and use them and do a duty free run now!!  ) It is a very emotive issue and one I feel very strongly about. Think about taking away everything in society that you could kill someone with for instance. Wouldn't be a great deal left! People kill people IMHO. Time for bed said Zebede!!
__________________
The idea is to die young.........as late as possible.
|
|
#22
20-08-2005, 12:16
|
||||
|
||||
|
I tend to agree with Denver on this..
Complete and uncontrolled (or almost uncontrolled) firearm ownership does over time flood the streets with guns.. Massive increase in gun crime and accidents.. generally a pain in the ****.. However complete and total gun control (banning) merely means the only ones who have guns are criminals.. I have not been in any country where getting an unlicensed illegal gun was an impossible task so then if people want them and are unafraid of the consequences and laws they will still own them.. The demographic and profile of gun owners in that case becomes one of lawbreakers and risk takes.. Not the best group to be holding the heat. I would prefer a very strong gun licencing and control system. Make sure everyone goes through a long training and probationary process so they know how to handle as safely as possible the weapon they wish to own.. Make them have strong and lock boxes for gun and ammo.. Take it away from them if they commit a crime (not parking offense or dangerous driving etc but you get my meaning).. Make it difficult but not impossible to have one. This way the gun owning demographic can be balanced by those that are prepared to learn, think, work at it, invest time etc.. Definately a more measured analytical group. You only have to look at nations like the swiss to know that gun ownership is not a complete precurser to massive gun crime and guns on the streets.
__________________
Men have only 2 emotional states, hungry and horny.. So ladies, if you see me without an erection, make me a sandwich.
|
|
#23
20-08-2005, 15:29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Excellant Post LivinLOS,
Very well structured and rational, I wish I had put it like that. I do agree with what you say. I just wish others would give it a little thought. Legitimate ownership of weapons is fine in my opinion. Triggers don't pull themselves!! Bottles don't jump from bars and hit people over the head. Baseball bats, tyre levers or monkey wrenches etc don't bash people of thier own accord. Security staff take nail clippers off me prior to departure, yet I get a metal knife to eat my meal on the plane! The knife isn't going to kill someone, unless it is picked up and used! A totally silly analogy - but true! To farmers, a shotgun is just as tool, as a shovel, pick, hoe or tractor is. He now has to jump through hoops to own one. Our Olympic full and small-bore shooting teams as well as the Biathlon boys and girls cannot even train in thier own country anymore because of this now, quite OTT legislation. Again, a very emotive issue and I am glad to see such rational responses from folk out there. I wish mine was!
__________________
The idea is to die young.........as late as possible.
|
|
#24
20-08-2005, 18:07
|