|
Whih is why the only aceptable fire arm should be a fifty pound Recoilless rifle...That way you do know.Texan burglars must have serious balls.And I don't want to get into specifics, but......
you NEVER, I mean NEVER. KNOW. WHO'S. CARRYING. HERE.Takes dingo out at 2000 meters.
BTW, you Aussies have some scary crime statistics. What gives?
Like What? They traced the cause of most aggressive behaviour to the Uranium in the Water supply catchment area...Between that and the Black hole Radiation...we are stuffed...Then again we make mean drunks.
...
BTW, you Aussies have some scary crime statistics. What gives?
Like What? ...
I had to check...
I was looking at burglary rates on a graph and from the looks of it you Aussies are serious overachievers when it comes to breaking into other people's houses and stealing their shit. Maybe that's why you're all such good D&D players.
|
|
...
BTW, you Aussies have some scary crime statistics. What gives?
Like What? ...I had to check...
I was looking at burglary rates on a graph and from the looks of it you Aussies are serious overachievers when it comes to breaking into other people's houses and stealing their s~%~. Maybe that's why you're all such good D&D players.
You can directly plot the rise of burglaries against the Local council persecution of the Owners of Savage Dogs.
Vegemite. Shiver.
|
Now I am brainwashing you into Australians…you needs a crate of Pauls Iced coffee (with the NT Logo – order online from Parmalat Australia) and some smoked ham sliced on vegemite covered bread.I'm gonna get some vegemite.
I never even had any.
Man,.....I can't do iced coffee. It's like a Brit drinking iced tea.
And I don't want to get into specifics, but......
you NEVER, I mean NEVER. KNOW. WHO'S. CARRYING. HERE.
Sure you do! The answer is, "Everyone."
|
|
Man,.....I can't do iced coffee. It's like a Brit drinking iced tea.Now I am brainwashing you into Australians…you needs a crate of Pauls Iced coffee (with the NT Logo – order online from Parmalat Australia) and some smoked ham sliced on vegemite covered bread.I'm gonna get some vegemite.
I never even had any.
The Iced coffee is to get rid of the taste of vegemite...if you dont like it.
Sure you do! The answer is, "Everyone."And I don't want to get into specifics, but......
you NEVER, I mean NEVER. KNOW. WHO'S. CARRYING. HERE.
I fail to see how this is a bad thing. I live in Arizona where it's much the same.
I fully would expect to go to prison. However, I would die for my kids, so prison doesn't seem like that big of a sacrifice.
Right! But not this guy we're talking about -- no, he thinks he's too clever for that by half. "I wasn't involved," he says in court -- after the neighbor sees him and yells at him to stop?! And don't tell me he's still in the throes of righteous anger or some crap, months later on trial. Or does he get a free pass for lying under oath, too? Anything he wants to do from now on? "You know, someone once threatened my kids, so I'm just gonna rob this here bank, because they need new bicycles for Christmas, and kill that guy over there, because his kids are mean to my kids at school."
I fail to see how this is a bad thing. I live in Arizona where it's much the same.
Nobody said it was bad. If somebody breaks into my place and threatens my wife, I'm not going to have to chase him down afterwards, because they'll need a #%@! crane to pick up his body off the floor. And when the judge asks if I did it, I'm gonna look him in the eye and say, "Damn straight I did" -- not give him some B.S. story about "not being involved."
I fail to see how this is a bad thing. I live in Arizona where it's much the same.Nobody said it was bad. If somebody breaks into my place and threatens my wife, I'm not going to have to chase him down afterwards, because they'll need a #%@! crane to pick up his body off the floor. And when the judge asks if I did it, I'm gonna look him in the eye and say, "Damn straight I did" -- not give him some B.S. story about "not being involved."
My mistake. Normally when I see statements like Heath's - "anyone you pass on the street could be carrying" - it's usually a complaint.
|
|
My mistake. Normally when I see statements like Heath's - "anyone you pass on the street could be carrying" - it's usually a complaint.I fail to see how this is a bad thing. I live in Arizona where it's much the same.Nobody said it was bad. If somebody breaks into my place and threatens my wife, I'm not going to have to chase him down afterwards, because they'll need a #%@! crane to pick up his body off the floor. And when the judge asks if I did it, I'm gonna look him in the eye and say, "Damn straight I did" -- not give him some B.S. story about "not being involved."
Just an observation. ;)
|
|
I fully would expect to go to prison. However, I would die for my kids, so prison doesn't seem like that big of a sacrifice.Right! But not this guy we're talking about -- no, he thinks he's too clever for that by half. "I wasn't involved," he says in court -- after the neighbor sees him and yells at him to stop?! And don't tell me he's still in the throes of righteous anger or some crap, months later on trial. Or does he get a free pass for lying under oath, too? Anything he wants to do from now on? "You know, someone once threatened my kids, so I'm just gonna rob this here bank, because they need new bicycles for Christmas, and kill that guy over there, because his kids are mean to my kids at school."
This is like Camus' the Stranger where he got tried for everything BUT what he actually did do.
This is like Camus' the Stranger where he got tried for everything BUT what he actually did do.
I've got him on trial for lying under oath. Which he evidently DID do. Perjury is illegal even in Britain, I think.
What is truth, if you get my meaning(?)
What is the definition of "is"? There's nothing metaphysical here; if a dude is caught perjuring himself, he should pay the penalty for that at least -- not be given immunity because he's lying about doing something that you personally feel is heroic, but that he's afraid the judge won't see that way. Lying under oath isn't cool, whatever kind of a super-stud you think the guy is.
Hell, I may well have done the same thing. But if I did, it wouldn't be out of a sense of impending danger (dude ain't coming back), but rather revenge. And I would expect to pay the price.
|
|
I'm gonna try to fake an Aussie accent when I inquire about the two foodstuffs at Tom Thumb.
Vegemite, Pauls Iced coffee, Mrs Macs Big Meat Pies, AMSCOL Ice cream (used to come in a Square Tin), Sheridan Brand Aussie Rules Foot Ball and Rulebook…pop up the park and teach the kids how to play Australian Rules football before the Chinese learn the game and get too good at it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And when you get done with killing the villains, you can turn the bodies into smoked salami and post them to the Judge.Never trust a man with a pig farm.
Old saying where I was growing up. "Y'know, there are acidic lakes in Perry County where you could dump a body and it would never be found."
She trailed off when she remembered he was a deputy. He said, "It's ok, we've a friend who says that all the time."
Yeah, but; what if they can't handle the truth?
That line only works for Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. I'm too cynical for it now. ;(
Anyway, neither of our Texas opinions is worth a cow flap in England, so I guess he'll just have to wait 'til they let him out. Have a good weekend, amigos!
I gotta go see a man about a dog.
Hope it ain't the Dingo?
This is like Camus' the Stranger where he got tried for everything BUT what he actually did do.I've got him on trial for lying under oath. Which he evidently DID do. Perjury is illegal even in Britain, I think.
Ahem. Just what are you trying to imply with this piece, Mr Gersen? Even in Britain? Are you insinuating that Her Majesty's Government is somehow lackadaisical in its approach to justice? I'll have you know we have the highest rate of incarceration in Europe. and your celebrities just love our libel laws. Even in Britain, indeed. The nerve of these uppity colonials.
The Government is there to protect me, not the law breakers.
This is the type of binary thinking I don't get, the idea that there are two distinct species of humanity -- "law-abiding citizens" vs. "criminals." Sometimes those sterotypes are true -- there are any number of career criminals, who will never be anything else; and some other people never even exceed the speed limit. But the idea that a "citizen" can commit crimes at will, and is perfectly excused in doing anything he wants (especially if he does it to "criminals") because he's a "good guy" -- that I find incomprehensible. Charlie Starkweather was a "law-abiding citizen" until he became a mass murderer.
The Government is there to protect me, not the law breakers.This is the type of binary thinking I don't get, the idea that there are two distinct species of humanity -- "law-abiding citizens" vs. "criminals." Sometimes those sterotypes are true -- there are any number of career criminals, who will never be anything else; and some other people never even exceed the speed limit. But the idea that a "citizen" can commit crimes at will, and is perfectly excused in doing anything he wants (especially if he does it to "criminals") because he's a "good guy" -- that I find incomprehensible. Charlie Starkweather was a "law-abiding citizen" until he became a mass murderer.
Well Kirth, I myself don't understand the "everything is a shade of grey" thought process myself. A man who perhaps took things too far is just as bad or worse than the guy who broke into his home and threatened his family(I don't know the extent beyond the article). Perhaps Britain will sleep better knowing this "dangerous criminal" is locked up.
|
|
Well Kirth, I myself don't understand the "everything is a shade of grey" thought process myself. A man who perhaps took things too far is just as bad or worse than the guy who broke into his home and threatened his family(I don't know the extent beyond the article). Perhaps Britain will sleep better knowing this "dangerous criminal" is locked up.The Government is there to protect me, not the law breakers.This is the type of binary thinking I don't get, the idea that there are two distinct species of humanity -- "law-abiding citizens" vs. "criminals." Sometimes those sterotypes are true -- there are any number of career criminals, who will never be anything else; and some other people never even exceed the speed limit. But the idea that a "citizen" can commit crimes at will, and is perfectly excused in doing anything he wants (especially if he does it to "criminals") because he's a "good guy" -- that I find incomprehensible. Charlie Starkweather was a "law-abiding citizen" until he became a mass murderer.
Maybe because both approaches are not fully correct. There is a wrong and a right. circumstances may mitigate the severity of wrong and right. Which is why we have courts instead of lynch mobs. It is also why we have a way to change our laws and have to from time to time.
|
|
Well Kirth, I myself don't understand the "everything is a shade of grey" thought process myself. A man who perhaps took things too far is just as bad or worse than the guy who broke into his home and threatened his family(I don't know the extent beyond the article). Perhaps Britain will sleep better knowing this "dangerous criminal" is locked up.The Government is there to protect me, not the law breakers.This is the type of binary thinking I don't get, the idea that there are two distinct species of humanity -- "law-abiding citizens" vs. "criminals." Sometimes those sterotypes are true -- there are any number of career criminals, who will never be anything else; and some other people never even exceed the speed limit. But the idea that a "citizen" can commit crimes at will, and is perfectly excused in doing anything he wants (especially if he does it to "criminals") because he's a "good guy" -- that I find incomprehensible. Charlie Starkweather was a "law-abiding citizen" until he became a mass murderer.
Gary,
That's odd, given you're engaging in it in your arguments in this thread. You think the assualter was less bad because he had a good reason for his crime. Guess what? That's shades of grey thinking. If it was black and white, he'd either deserve to be completely exonerated, or sent down for ten years like any other GBH with intent perpetrator. Instead, you think he should be found guilty but not punished because of the circumstances. That's shades of grey thinking in a nutshell: Circumstances influence the moral and ethical nature of an offence.EDIT: Also, if he hadn't 'taken thinga bit far', also known as tried to beat someone's brains out of their skull, then the dangerous criminal would have been charged and sent away for a long time. His actions prevented the justice you are protesting not being there.
EDIT PART 2: He wasn't treated the same. He was given a sentence less than the minimum sentence for the crime he was convicted of and 1/3 of what he should have been given according to the guidelines. Is there much point continuing with this if you're going to ignore the facts to make your point seem stronger than it is?
Gary,
That's odd, given you're engaging in it in your arguments in this thread. You think the assualter was less bad because he had a good reason for his crime. Guess what? That's shades of grey thinking. If it was black and white, he'd either deserve to be completely exonerated, or sent down for ten years like any other GBH with intent perpetrator. Instead, you think he should be found guilty but not punished because of the circumstances. That's shades of grey thinking in a nutshell: Circumstances influence the moral and ethical nature of an offence.EDIT: Also, if he hadn't 'taken thinga bit far', also known as tried to beat someone's brains out of their skull, then the dangerous criminal would have been charged and sent away for a long time. His actions prevented the justice you are protesting not being there.
EDIT PART 2: He wasn't treated the same. He was given a sentence less than the minimum sentence...
Paul, when it comes to the circumstances of a crime, there is always going to be a "grey" element to it and I don't have a problem with that. "Was it self defense" ", "was he protecting his family" etc.. I'm referring to the attitude of some of the people on this board's view that this man is a criminal no different than the man who was the real offender in this case. That's the greyness I was referring to. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Yes, I know that he got a sentence that was lighter than the minimum. Maybe that's the best that could be done, but it isn't right. The people here think that putting a man in prison is like putting him in detention in school or something. Do you have any idea what prison is like? Do you want to put a family man in that kind of environment? I know I don't want to.
Btw, Paul. I never did say he should get away scott-free. I mentioned probation in a previous post. I wouldn't even be against partial restitution for what he did.
|
|
The Government is there to protect me, not the law breakers.This is the type of binary thinking I don't get, the idea that there are two distinct species of humanity -- "law-abiding citizens" vs. "criminals." Sometimes those sterotypes are true -- there are any number of career criminals, who will never be anything else; and some other people never even exceed the speed limit. But the idea that a "citizen" can commit crimes at will, and is perfectly excused in doing anything he wants (especially if he does it to "criminals") because he's a "good guy" -- that I find incomprehensible. Charlie Starkweather was a "law-abiding citizen" until he became a mass murderer.
I'll explain it to you then.
It's not there to protect anybody or anything but the status quo. It would be impossible to protect the innocent. Too big.It is a system that is exploitable.
When you or somebody in your immediate family actually gets really really bludgeoned with a blunt instrument by a person who has a rap sheet about 3 pages long, each two lines of these pages representing one villainous deed, and has to be taken by helicopter to the hospital, there's a certain "satori" you will experience.
There ARE two distinct species, but you've labeled them wrong.
See, "law abiding" is fallacious. Everybody who jaywalks is a lawbreaker.
There's "predators" and "prey."
When this happens to you, you'll find out that it's all pretty much set up for the predator to continue on with it's predations. Because it has rights. And the system is just a game that it knows better than you due to three pages of rap sheet's worth of experience.
The predator gets away with it routinely anyhow. The "good guy...." he better not even THINK that the predator has a big fat ugly face that he'd like to stick a screwdriver in; or, if he does, he better not say so during discovery or the glib defense attorney will warp it all around somehow just tohelp let the predator out of it's cage.
And the prey better DAMN SURE NOT FIGHT BACK. OR IF HE DOES FIGHT BACK, HE BETTER NOT LOSE HIS SHIT ON THE F#~~ING PREDATOR. HE BETTER DO EVERYTHING ABSOLUTELY F$$&ING PERFECTLY AND NOT HAVE AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE, WARRANTED BY THE THREAT OF DEATH TO HIS CHILDREN OR NOT.
BECAUSE THAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, IS UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE TO OUR GENTLE SOCIETY IN THIS, THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE F$@!ING WORLDS.
What is truth, if you get my meaning(?)What is the definition of "is"? There's nothing metaphysical here; if a dude is caught perjuring himself, he should pay the penalty for that at least -- not be given immunity because he's lying about doing something that you personally feel is heroic, but that he's afraid the judge won't see that way. Lying under oath isn't cool, whatever kind of a super-stud you think the guy is.
Do they recognize the right not to incriminate ones self in the UK? It would seem prudent to exercise that right.
On the other hand law enforcement perjures themselves daily. Odd how our system is filled with non-violent victimless offenders as opposed to criminals who have actual victims.
|
|
What is truth, if you get my meaning(?)What is the definition of "is"? There's nothing metaphysical here; if a dude is caught perjuring himself, he should pay the penalty for that at least -- not be given immunity because he's lying about doing something that you personally feel is heroic, but that he's afraid the judge won't see that way. Lying under oath isn't cool, whatever kind of a super-stud you think the guy is.Do they recognize the right not to incriminate ones self in the UK? It would seem prudent to exercise that right.
On the other hand law enforcement perjures themselves daily. Odd how our system is filled with non-violent victimless offenders as opposed to criminals who have actual victims.
The right not to self-incriminate doesn't equal being allowed to lie about being involved.
Does anybody know where to get another article on this topic? I'm curious to find out if my opinion would change if I got info from another source.
|
|
Does anybody know where to get another article on this topic? I'm curious to find out if my opinion would change if I got info from another source.
Here's a link to the BBC report of the story.
Does anybody know where to get another article on this topic? I'm curious to find out if my opinion would change if I got info from another source.Here's a link to the BBC report of the story.
Thanks!
The right not to self-incriminate doesn't equal being allowed to lie about being involved.What is truth, if you get my meaning(?)What is the definition of "is"? There's nothing metaphysical here; if a dude is caught perjuring himself, he should pay the penalty for that at least -- not be given immunity because he's lying about doing something that you personally feel is heroic, but that he's afraid the judge won't see that way. Lying under oath isn't cool, whatever kind of a super-stud you think the guy is.Do they recognize the right not to incriminate ones self in the UK? It would seem prudent to exercise that right.
On the other hand law enforcement perjures themselves daily. Odd how our system is filled with non-violent victimless offenders as opposed to criminals who have actual victims.
Of course not, in the the US this basically means you never say anything to law enforcement unless you are forced to. Even the most trivial incorrect recollection can result in attempted prosecution. Law enforcement is the enemy, and it is hazardous to speak to them. Tragically many folks in the US think that law enforcement has some duty to protect them. Ironically this is only the case when you are in their custody.
|
Just remember the silencer - you wouldn’t want to wake the neighbours.Those are illegal.
Actually:
#1 find a firearms dealer with the proper class license#2 pay for the federal tax stamp (about 200 bucks)
#3 complete the paperwork and pass the BATFE backgroud check
#4 get the top local law enforcement person (usually a county sheriff) sign off on the paperwork(or get a judge to approve it if the sheriff is uncooperative)
#5 find one legally for sale (they're out there)
#6 purchase it through the dealer mentioned above
See, simple AND legal!
Same process for fully automatic weapons (though they are much more expensive and rare)
Just an FYI for those interested...........(I guess almost anything can be legal for purchase if you throw enough cash at the federal government)
Does anybody know where to get another article on this topic? I'm curious to find out if my opinion would change if I got info from another source.
You should also read the judge's statement on page two of this thread. (Just in case you missed it, I dunno)
And the prey better DAMN SURE NOT FIGHT BACK. OR IF HE DOES FIGHT BACK, HE BETTER NOT LOSE HIS s!%% ON THE f*@!ING PREDATOR. HE BETTER DO EVERYTHING ABSOLUTELY f*@!ING PERFECTLY AND NOT HAVE AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE, WARRANTED BY THE THREAT OF DEATH TO HIS CHILDREN OR NOT.
BECAUSE THAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, IS UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE TO OUR GENTLE SOCIETY IN THIS, THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE f*@!ING WORLDS.
Fully Grokked.