"Happy" Slapping

[Riprorin]

The new law lets people "meet force with force, including deadly force."

It applies when they are under an attack that prevents death or bodily harm.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Of course, this will turn into a leftist gang tackle.

This is AT P&N so I wouldn't expect any outrage over innocent people who are minding their own business getting smashed in the face.

They should have guns and shoot the bastages.

Are the London Police (Bobbies) still unarmed???

If it were in Florida we'd be seeing the bodies hit floor now that the new gun law has passed.

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

A good example of a misguided but arguably well-intentioned liberal policy gone wrong.

Do us a favor an move to Country that doesn't have the problems you don't like here, preferably China.

Um, I'm refering to the ban on handguns in the UK.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
How did he trample the first amendment?

well, if you want to get serious about my joke of a reply....

"Giuliani's aggressive tactics, described by former Mayor Dinkins as assuming that the ends justify the means, required vastly more arrests when criminal descriptions were vague. Many argue that the NYPD's new policies curtailed the civil liberties of innocent citizens, particularly minorities. (He was sued over 2 dozen times on First Amendment issues and lost each case.)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani#Mayoral_Career

see also: http://www.alternet.org/election04/19673/

Rudy Giuliani was a GREAT crime fighter and most New Yorkers realized that. Dinkins was a lame mayor under whose reign crime soared. Who the heck cares what he has to say about Giuliani. The fact remains that Giuliani has become one of New York's greatest mayors and he is the main reason behind the reduction in crime. I would want a mayor like Giuliani to be the leader of my city.

The NYPD did not curtail the civil liberties of innocent citizens. They enforced the law and were aggressive in seeking out thugs and criminals. There is a HUGE difference. So if a black person robbed a bank, you would profile EVERYBODY or profile specially black males? That is my question to you. The NYPD started doing more of the latter and thus made the city a great city once again. They transformed a crime infested hole to one of the America's safest cities. A city where you can once again walk out at 2 AM and feel safe.

I would defend Rudy Giuliani with every strength I have. He is the person who came within feet of getting hit by a falling body from the World Trade Center. He is the man who restored law and order and orchestrated a great recovery effort after 9/11. I will always have a place in my heart for him.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: conjur
There's a difference between banning guns (which is stupid, imo) and limiting their use. This new law will allow people to shoot someone they don't like and claim they felt threatened for their life. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Besides, the US is NOT the UK.

Self defense is not a criminal act.

It is a relatively new concept that people have somehow given up their right to defend their person and property.

People should not be required to retreat in the face of violent crime. They should be lawfully enabled to provide the assailant with an acute case of lead poising.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
How did he trample the first amendment?

well, if you want to get serious about my joke of a reply....

"Giuliani's aggressive tactics, described by former Mayor Dinkins as assuming that the ends justify the means, required vastly more arrests when criminal descriptions were vague. Many argue that the NYPD's new policies curtailed the civil liberties of innocent citizens, particularly minorities. (He was sued over 2 dozen times on First Amendment issues and lost each case.)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani#Mayoral_Career

see also: http://www.alternet.org/election04/19673/

Can you tell me how not paying for a museum is trampling someone's first amendment rights. Last I checked, it simply prohibited the government from interfering with speech. I've never read it in such a way that it required the government to subsidize particular speech.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: conjur
There's a difference between banning guns (which is stupid, imo) and limiting their use. This new law will allow people to shoot someone they don't like and claim they felt threatened for their life. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Besides, the US is NOT the UK.

Self defense is not a criminal act.

It is a relatively new concept that people have somehow given up their right to defend their person and property.

People should not be required to retreat in the face of violent crime. They should be lawfully enabled to provide the assailant with an acute case of lead poising.

While I am not in favor of gun control the way the UK does it, I think it's important to point out that people might not be all that responsible with their weapons. I have no problem with defending yourself, but there are certainly people in this country who I don't trust with guns.

Edit: I think this might be unclear. I'm ok with having and using a gun to defend yourself. But let's be realistic here, every gun owner is not some 18th century farmer fighting off the British troops. A lot of gun owners use their guns in agressive or stupid ways, or they are simply irresponsible with them. Not to say this is always the case, but the dummies need to be dealt with if possible.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: RiprorinAre the London Police (Bobbies) still unarmed???

Not completely. Once guns were taken away from the honest citizens the violence began to rise. Some, but not all, Bobbies now carry guns.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: RainsfordPlease tell me what in the hell this topic had to do with Liberals? At all. Even a little bit.

It is the liberal groups who prefer to disarm the honest citizens thus creating an environment which favors the criminal. Thus, allowing even more Government intrusions based on the promise of protection.

It will be very interesting to see how much punishment is metted out to the first person who defend themselves from these attacks.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: RiprorinHuh. It's rather ironic that NYC, which is overwhelmingly Democrat, elected the Republican Giulani TWICE.
twice.

Mayor Giulani, Senator Kane, Govenor Schwarzenegger, etc. are all liberals who run in liberal states as republicans.

It is why we need to not confuse liberals with democrats.

Democrats and republicans have different ideas and are neither good nor bad. Radicals, from either party, are dangerous and, unfortunately, they are given the press. Then, members of both parties will use the antics of radicals to broadly smear the other parth. I'm guilty of this myself.

 

[Minchenden]

I usually only read Rip's threads for amusement, as the majority of his views are so strange, warped and idiotic that, to paraphrase someones sig. "I won't waste my time matching wits with the witless".

However, as a Brit., who has lived in NJ and worked in NY since 1986, and who travels home at least four times a year, I am extremely proud to admit to being a liberal who, whilst not worshipng Europe, can certainly appreciate the social and political advantages of several W. European countries over the US.

"The last time I was in the UK strolling through central London I saw about a half-dozen people who had been accosted."

I think that is probably just wishful thinking (if he is actually capable of such) on Rip's part. Believe me, I have strolled through London many times over the last year or so, at all hours of the day and night, and been to places Rip certainly hasn't, yet not once have I seen anyone accosted, let alone half a dozen. Believe me, one is a hell of a lot safer in London than NY.

So, Rip, exactly WHERE were you strolling in Central London? And have you tried strolling through Central Park at night? I doubt it, as you are still able to post on P&N.

Strangely enough, though, in NY & NJ there have been 3 attempts (all unsuccessful) at mugging me.

As for Guiliani, he really didn't do much except clean up Times Square and hold lots of pro police TV interviews. The guy is about as straight as an English country lane and as trustworthy as a $7 note.

NY City was a dump, still is a dump, and always will be a dump.

And Raildogg, please, please take Guiliani as your Mayor. With the twaddle you generally write, you richly deserve each other.

"He is the person who came within feet of getting hit by a falling body from the World Trade Center. "

I too was there. I too came within feet of being hit by several bodies. Is that a qualification for Mayor?

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: raildoggThe NYPD did not curtail the civil liberties of innocent citizens. They enforced the law and were aggressive in seeking out thugs and criminals.

Perhaps not... But he did say he would (ab)use the Ricoh laws to confiscate individuals cars if the officer merely stated that the individual was suspected of being intoxicated. He further stated that even if they were not convicted they would not get the car back.

Once he did that his liberal leanings were exposed. At least to me.

Originally posted by: MinchendenStrangely enough, though, in NY & NJ there have been 3 attempts (all unsuccessful) at mugging me.

As for Guiliani, he really didn't do much except clean up Times Square and hold lots of pro police TV interviews. The guy is about as straight as an English country lane and as trustworthy as a $7 note.

I agree with you completely. On both counts. How long has New York been under liberal control? Sixty years. Seventy?

Unfortunately, even in more moderate areas liberal judges give criminals too much leniency. Doing so does increase crime simply because "crime pays" under those conditions.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Why does anyone bother to reply to this idiot?

Why don't the moderators here enforce the rules on personal attacks and thread crapping?

That would be a more appropriate question.

Lucky for you they don't, otherwise, you'd be looking for a new forum to waste bandwidth on.

I think they do in general... but probably don't in your case. That's because you're a stump. An ugly stump, and no one cares if you're treated poorly. You're like a celebrity, who, having achieved wealth and fame, has to now give up certain rights to privacy. Except you're not celebrated. You just have to give up the rights, because you're Riprorin, the stump.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Of course, this will turn into a leftist gang tackle.

This is AT P&N so I wouldn't expect any outrage over innocent people who are minding their own business getting smashed in the face.

Please tell me what in the hell this topic had to do with Liberals? At all. Even a little bit.

As to this article, is it possible that this is being blown out of proportion? Idiots doing stupid things with cameras has been around for a long time, making the cameras smaller simply makes it easier for the idiots. I seriously doubt that this is some kind of epidemic. And even if it is, do we need to get on P&N and express our outrage over everything that happens in the world? Is that really going to help? Of course I'm not in favor of it, just like I'm not a real big fan of any violent crimes.

Which reminds me of a news item I read last year, about a "craze" in England called "toothing". Supposedly, young people were meeting up through the Bluetooth messaging on their phones. They would message random people in their vicinity (Bluetooth has a limited range), usually on a train, and meet up for casual sex.

But after that news item I have found no updates on the "craze". Then a little while ago I saw an article on Slashdot, entitled "What happened to 'toothing'" or something similar, which hypothesized that it never really happened, at least not to the extent that the initial reports portrayed.

Basically, reporters are constantly looking for fodder material to fill up the pages and their otherwise pointless existances, and so they latch onto even the slightest inkling of a serious issue. And then they blow it out of proportion, in order to be entertaining enough to fit into their section and their resume.

 

[dahunan]

Come On.. Your Idol Rush Limbaugh would just excuse the behavior as kids blowing off some steam


I mean.. he downplayed ANAL TORTURE like it was just a high school prank.. so why are you disturbed by this minor nonsense..

 

[impeachbush]

I sure don't want anyone mugging me, and taking pictures! I don't want law enforcement, a judge, or jury to see such embarasing photos!

:roll:

 

[StageLeft]

It's upsetting to read that jerks do this kind of thing, but I also agree that the six people accosted number is just fantasy. I have tons of family in England, and believe me we wouldn't be going back there this summer if I thought I had a high change of being accosted when we go to London

I sure don't want anyone mugging me, and taking pictures! I don't want law enforcement, a judge, or jury to see such embarasing photos!

Are you a moron in real life, or just here? It's the people doing the attacking who are filming it, so that they can send it as a trophy to friends.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: conjur
There's a difference between banning guns (which is stupid, imo) and limiting their use. This new law will allow people to shoot someone they don't like and claim they felt threatened for their life. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Besides, the US is NOT the UK.

Self defense is not a criminal act.

It is a relatively new concept that people have somehow given up their right to defend their person and property.

People should not be required to retreat in the face of violent crime. They should be lawfully enabled to provide the assailant with an acute case of lead poising.

Never said self-defense was a criminal act. This, however, is going to open the door a helluva lot of gray area.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: RiprorinAre the London Police (Bobbies) still unarmed???

Not completely. Once guns were taken away from the honest citizens the violence began to rise. Some, but not all, Bobbies now carry guns.

It is illegal for Britons to own a gun???

 

[StageLeft]

It's not illegal. There is legal hunting, but i imagine it's like Canada, where it's a real pain in the ass to own one, or at least own anything like a pistol and have the right to carry it around.

Guns are not the entire reason Britain's crime rates are high. Look to Canada, where few have guns, and I'm sure you'll see lower crime rates.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: conjur
There's a difference between banning guns (which is stupid, imo) and limiting their use. This new law will allow people to shoot someone they don't like and claim they felt threatened for their life. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Besides, the US is NOT the UK.

Self defense is not a criminal act.

It is a relatively new concept that people have somehow given up their right to defend their person and property.

People should not be required to retreat in the face of violent crime. They should be lawfully enabled to provide the assailant with an acute case of lead poising.

Never said self-defense was a criminal act. This, however, is going to open the door a helluva lot of gray area.

I see it as sending a message to violent criminals that their prey might every well elect to blow their head off instead of submit or run away.

Granted, there is the possibility of abuse but there hasn?t been a rash of such cases in other concealed carry or open carry states.

 

[MisterCornell]

Society in the UK has devolved a lot more than in the U.S. Things are pretty bad there now.

 

[imported_alp]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Society in the UK has devolved a lot more than in the U.S. Things are pretty bad there now.

what do you mean by that?

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Society in the UK has devolved a lot more than in the U.S. Things are pretty bad there now.

Examples? Links?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's not illegal. There is legal hunting, but i imagine it's like Canada, where it's a real pain in the ass to own one, or at least own anything like a pistol and have the right to carry it around.

Guns are not the entire reason Britain's crime rates are high. Look to Canada, where few have guns, and I'm sure you'll see lower crime rates.

OK thanks.

Then why is Britain's crime so high??? Isn't their Economy Booming like the U.S.???

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Society in the UK has devolved a lot more than in the U.S. Things are pretty bad there now.

Examples? Links?

The existence of a Queen within a society is more than enough proof that a society has devolved into a 15th century nature