2009-12-15, 15:41 | Link #5041 | ||||||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Kamui4356; 2009-12-15 at 15:55. |
||||||
2009-12-15, 17:06 | Link #5043 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Why shouldn't there be a law that states that criminals are denied all legal and civil rights during both the commission of a crime and the escape from the scene, and that injuries sustained are not applicable for lawsuits or welfare? Then we wouldn't have this situation where an innocent man is imprisoned for chasing down and (permanently) disarming a thug who tied up and threatened his family.
And that part about the scumbag not being able to enter a plea is bullshit. The default plea should be "not guilty," which shouldn't matter much because any prosecutor should be able to nail this case. |
2009-12-15, 17:53 | Link #5044 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2009-12-15, 22:00 | Link #5045 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
I love it when people who don't know a thing about aviation engineering or aviation forensics speak up about plane crashes ..... o.O. But then half my family thinks I'm a MiB because I worked in classified areas of NASA and the Air Force so don't mind me.
__________________
|
2009-12-15, 23:10 | Link #5047 |
Aspiring Aspirer
|
I wouldn't find it surprising that he might have prejudice against the defendant.
Why is there so much protection for the instigators of the crime? Would the "crime" that was committed against the instigators have happened if the instigators didn't commit the initial crime? What could have Mr. Hussain do? Let his family be harmed and possibly be killed and let the slow hand of the law to act upon it? What Mr. Hussain did was civil service; he made it so that without out doubt that one of the instigators would no longer have the capacity to harm others. I am by no means an advocate of vigilantism (It can and does get very bad very quickly) but there's a certain line that the law should not be able to cross especially when the situation is so dire and the circumstances so fantastical. Let's hope he can appeal his charges and that the rest of the criminals get caught and locked up forever.
__________________
|
2009-12-15, 23:28 | Link #5048 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
It wasn't actually self defense, since the scum was running away when Hussain chased him down and beat the **** out of him. Of course, a criminal who would take hostages and threaten to kill them cannot be trusted not to return; nor would Hussain be considered a man if he did not take vengeance for the threat to his family.
|
2009-12-16, 00:17 | Link #5049 |
In scientific terms only.
|
I understand your point, but it's important to realize that necessary force only goes so far. In the news report, it noted that Salem, the criminal, suffered permanent brain damage after being hit by a cricket pole and continued to be beat after he was incapacitated. While I'm not trying to mitigate Salem's crimes, I am trying to say that Hussain went too far.
Even criminals have a right to be free from harm, though it could be argued, convincingly, that he revoked it after he decided to commit the crime. Even in that case, the pursuance of self-defense and the use of "castle" laws (though I'm not sure how they're termed in the UK) has to restrict itself to a certain amount of force. |
2009-12-16, 00:42 | Link #5050 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
I don't think the UK has the castle doctrine at all. Victims are required to run unless the criminal is literally about to kill them. By then of course, the victim has his back to the attacker and it's too late to defend himself anyway.
If all the news I've read about the UK is right, that country is filled with uncontrollable yobs, runaway bureaucracy, bone-headed cops, and people who dare to defend themselves being punished more harshly than actual criminals. All of this crap stems from the idea that criminals have rights that must be respected, even while committing the crime! Given that he and his family were tied up and threatened with death themselves by a man who clearly demonstrated that he had no qualms about killing, Hussain did the rationally correct thing by ensuring that Salem never put his family in danger again (which anybody with a brain knows will happen). How dare the judge talk about "rule of law" and "civilized society" when a asshole with 50 prior convictions was allowed to roam the streets. Since guns are banned in Britain, Hussain had no choice but to resort to an inefficient beating once he decided to eliminate the threat. Last edited by justsomeguy; 2009-12-16 at 00:53. |
2009-12-16, 02:20 | Link #5051 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
[QUOTE=ClockWorkAngel;2823002]I wouldn't find it surprising that he might have prejudice against the defendant. Why is there so much protection for the instigators of the crime? Would the "crime" that was committed against the instigators have happened if the instigators didn't commit the initial crime? What could have Mr. Hussain do? Let his family be harmed and possibly be killed and let the slow hand of the law to act upon it? What Mr. Hussain did was civil service; he made it so that without out doubt that one of the instigators would no longer have the capacity to harm others. I am by no means an advocate of vigilantism|/quote] Except in your previous paragraph. Quote:
I'm not necessarily against beating up criminals. But I wouldn't go as far as accusing the judge of bias when he clearly had grounds for his decision. That's the way the law's set up in the UK. What's he to do? Besides, it's no more absurd than a burglar having an accident in the home he broke into and suing the owner. |
||
2009-12-16, 03:40 | Link #5053 | |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
I am not so sure if US-american/NATO intervention will bring sustainable peace in the region. Which renders your whole argument void. You cannot force people to be democratic. There has to be at least a considerable amount of them who want democracy and fight for it/defend it. But imo there is not much hope - I guess that it will end in an equally authoritarian system as it was before. The only place were bringing peace and democracy by the means of war worked is europe and japan. I don't know why many people are still thinking that what worked in europe/japan is applicable to whole world.
__________________
|
|
2009-12-16, 05:11 | Link #5054 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-12-16, 05:14 | Link #5055 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Ever studied thermodynamics in Physics class? If it is melted or vaporised, then the plane would have turned into a frying pan for humans upon takeoff or activation of engine. There is something called entropy that spreads the heat from a body to another (Zeroth/First Law of Thermodynamics). I know nothing of aviation science, but simple science can explain alot of complex things.
__________________
|
|
2009-12-16, 06:12 | Link #5056 | |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
The other thing you mentioned are the oppressed afghan people. You said this alone would be more than enough reason. So, unless you just want to bring war to oppressed people because of war's sake, then I don't know what your point is. Maybe the goal is to let oppressed people suffer even more by the means of waging war and the chaos that is ruling afterwards? But I was thinking no sane person would think like that.
__________________
|
|
2009-12-16, 06:39 | Link #5057 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-12-16, 06:44 | Link #5058 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
|
Quote:
Last edited by mechabao; 2009-12-16 at 07:34. Reason: fixed |
|
2009-12-16, 06:49 | Link #5060 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|