I don't really see why Higgins has such a negative attitude. We both clearly missunderstood each other.
I acknowledged this and suggested we sorted it out as friends. I guess not.....
@ Sir Miles,
I really feel sorry, that you have entirely missed my point - even after I have elaborated.
I stand with everything that I have said there!
I know what your point was/is...but to bring Hillsborough into your ‘argument’ was an absolute disgrace...you should be throughly ashamed of yourself for doing so...I stand by that too...and it weakens your ‘point’ by doing so as it bears as much resemblance to Salisbury as a banana does to a kettle.
YNWA 97
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,841MI6 Agent
This always makes my blood boil. Glad to hear the pensioner is unharmed...
“A pensioner has been arrested after stabbing to death a suspected armed burglar he confronted in his home early today.
The 78-year-old was asleep with his wife in their south London house when he heard noises and woke to challenge two men in the middle of a suspected break-in.
The homeowner was confronted by one of the intruders who was armed with a screwdriver and forced to retreat into his kitchen.
Police said there was a struggle in the kitchen and the 37-year-old suspected burglar sustained a stab wound to his chest. The man was rushed to hospital but died at 3.37am.”
This always makes my blood boil. Glad to hear the pensioner is unharmed...
“A pensioner has been arrested after stabbing to death a suspected armed burglar he confronted in his home early today.
The 78-year-old was asleep with his wife in their south London house when he heard noises and woke to challenge two men in the middle of a suspected break-in.
The homeowner was confronted by one of the intruders who was armed with a screwdriver and forced to retreat into his kitchen.
Police said there was a struggle in the kitchen and the 37-year-old suspected burglar sustained a stab wound to his chest. The man was rushed to hospital but died at 3.37am.”
They've actually now re arrested the pensioner for murder!!?! I'm not sure how that works.
I'm just not sure how the cps could prosecute a murder charge? Yes if he'd stabbed the burglar multiple time's, but there is no premeditated act and just one wound. I can see a jury finding him innocent of murder and the cps wasting yet more money taking this to court. What ever happened to have a go heroes?
I have seen countless memes about Hitler favouring more gun control, especially memes like this one:
I have read several biographies about Hitler and I couldn't recall any mention of this, so I decided to do a little checking. This is what I found on Wikipedia about gun laws during the Third Reich: (Keep in mind that Hitler and NSDAP came to power in 1933.)
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, and the possession of ammunition.[8]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[9]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[9]
Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP (the National Socialist German Workers' Party) members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[8]
Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the proviso that such permits would no longer be issued to any company even partly owned by Jews; Jews could not manufacture or deal in firearms or ammunition.[8]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records about purchasers of guns, with serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
The 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, which came into force the day after Kristallnacht,[10][11] effectively deprived all Jews living under the Third Reich within the occupied Sudetenland and Austria of the right to possess any form of weapons, including truncheons, knives, firearms and ammunition. Exceptions were made for Jews and Poles who were foreign nationals under §3 of the act. [12][13] Before that, some police forces used the pre-existing "trustworthiness" clause to disarm Jews on the basis that "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy'"
So Hitler actually changed gun laws and made them less strict. The exeption were the jews (and I presume regime critics in general, even though it's not mentioned in the article). But this was in 1938. Hitler had total power in Gemany by then. Hitler didn't take away guns from people so he could take power away from them. He kept the old gun laws while he made Germany a dictatorship. When he had total power he made the gun laws more liberal (less state control) for a large majority of the people, exept for jews (and anti-regime activists) who already had lost all influence.
^ an interesting read number 24, and I'm relieved as to the content after seeing the meme, but why do we need to this information? Is there a modern relevance?
On a separate note I'd like to thank the mods for reopening this thread, it's been good natured up until recently and if nothing else helps keep politics out of the pub and other threads -{
It was either that.....or the priesthood
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,841MI6 Agent
This always makes my blood boil. Glad to hear the pensioner is unharmed...
“A pensioner has been arrested after stabbing to death a suspected armed burglar he confronted in his home early today.
The 78-year-old was asleep with his wife in their south London house when he heard noises and woke to challenge two men in the middle of a suspected break-in.
The homeowner was confronted by one of the intruders who was armed with a screwdriver and forced to retreat into his kitchen.
Police said there was a struggle in the kitchen and the 37-year-old suspected burglar sustained a stab wound to his chest. The man was rushed to hospital but died at 3.37am.”
They've actually now re arrested the pensioner for murder!!?! I'm not sure how that works.
The law is in this area comes down to "reasonable force" to defend yourself and your home. "Reasonable" is one of these commonly used legal terms that is of course rather hard to define. See also the "reasonable man" standard in English criminal law. So, as the law would view it it would be unreasonable to, say, shoot a burglar or intruder in the back if he was running away, especially if they were unarmed (see the famous Tony Martin case).
I'm not saying I particularly back the law in this area or that it's right, but it is what it is. One can't go about killing people either, I suppose, especially if it's not justified. Obviously, my complete sympathy is with the homeowner in all of these cases. However, under the law there has to be a line drawn somewhere. On the case above, I don't know enough of the details but the burglar was armed so I think the pensioner would have a better chance of getting off as he was presumably meeting force with force. Police always arrest in these circumstances, even at a traffic collision where someone is accidentally knocked down. It's a formality, and they probably have little choice in the matter to anything but arrest.
This always makes my blood boil. Glad to hear the pensioner is unharmed...
“A pensioner has been arrested after stabbing to death a suspected armed burglar he confronted in his home early today.
The 78-year-old was asleep with his wife in their south London house when he heard noises and woke to challenge two men in the middle of a suspected break-in.
The homeowner was confronted by one of the intruders who was armed with a screwdriver and forced to retreat into his kitchen.
Police said there was a struggle in the kitchen and the 37-year-old suspected burglar sustained a stab wound to his chest. The man was rushed to hospital but died at 3.37am.”
They've actually now re arrested the pensioner for murder!!?! I'm not sure how that works.
The law is in this area comes down to "reasonable force" to defend yourself and your home. "Reasonable" is one of these commonly used legal terms that is of course rather hard to define. See also the "reasonable man" standard in English criminal law. So, as the law would view it it would be unreasonable to, say, shoot a burglar or intruder in the back if he was running away, especially if they were unarmed (see the famous Tony Martin case).
I'm not saying I particularly back the law in this area or that it's right, but it is what it is. One can't go about killing people either, I suppose. On the case above, I don't know enough of the details but the burglar was armed so I think the pensioner would have a better chance of getting off as he was presumably meeting force with force. Police always arrest in these circumstances, even at a traffic collision where someone is accidentally knocked down. It's a formality, and they probably have little choice in the matter to anything but arrest.
I know the police have to arrest him, but to re arrest him for murder seems extreme if this is as it appears a man defending himself and his wife from armed intruders and assuming there is no history between the men. Had the pensioner stabbed the burglar multiple time's or while the burglar was obviously retreating or fleeing ie in the back or outside the property then there is a case for murder. I think anything other than death by misadventure is harsh and somewhat of a mockery.
It was either that.....or the priesthood
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,841MI6 Agent
They've actually now re arrested the pensioner for murder!!?! I'm not sure how that works.
The law is in this area comes down to "reasonable force" to defend yourself and your home. "Reasonable" is one of these commonly used legal terms that is of course rather hard to define. See also the "reasonable man" standard in English criminal law. So, as the law would view it it would be unreasonable to, say, shoot a burglar or intruder in the back if he was running away, especially if they were unarmed (see the famous Tony Martin case).
I'm not saying I particularly back the law in this area or that it's right, but it is what it is. One can't go about killing people either, I suppose. On the case above, I don't know enough of the details but the burglar was armed so I think the pensioner would have a better chance of getting off as he was presumably meeting force with force. Police always arrest in these circumstances, even at a traffic collision where someone is accidentally knocked down. It's a formality, and they probably have little choice in the matter to anything but arrest.
I know the police have to arrest him, but to re arrest him for murder seems extreme if this is as it appears a man defending himself and his wife from armed intruders and assuming there is no history between the men. Had the pensioner stabbed the burglar multiple time's or while the burglar was obviously retreating or fleeing ie in the back or outside the property then there is a case for murder. I think anything other than death by misadventure is harsh and somewhat of a mockery.
Well, yes, of course. I didn't realise he'd been charged with murder. As I say, I don't know all of the details but it doesn't appear on the facts to be a murder case to me. It was spur of the moment defence as opposed to being premeditated. I think it would be a real waste to take this case to a murder trial.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Hopefully if it goes to court he get 12 people like me.
I'd find him innocent on day one. This reasonable
Force crap is stupid. The middle of the night you find
A masked intruder you don't know if he's alone or with
Three or four of his mates In my opinion, in that case.
You're fighting for your life. He should get a medal, not
A court case.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
^ an interesting read number 24, and I'm relieved as to the content after seeing the meme, but why do we need to this information? Is there a modern relevance?
On a separate note I'd like to thank the mods for reopening this thread, it's been good natured up until recently and if nothing else helps keep politics out of the pub and other threads -{
The modern relevance is mentioned at the beginning of my post. Many pro-gun people claim that gun control is just what Hitler did to take power away from the people. The claim is often used as a reason against gun control, but it is based on a falsehood.
I wonder why you were relieved "as to the content after seeing the meme"? I assume you didn't think I would ever post anything positive about Adolf Hitler, since we know each other well enough to know none of us would do such a thing.
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,841MI6 Agent
The only positive thing about Hitler was that he killed himself. Many years too late, but still.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
I thought he moved to Argentina and died of old age.
That was the rumour. I recall my late father (he was in the Home Guard as a young man) telling me that there was a rumour after the war that he'd escaped by submarine to Peru!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Well, yes, of course. I didn't realise he'd been charged with murder. As I say, I don't know all of the details but it doesn't appear on the facts to be a murder case to me. It was spur of the moment defence as opposed to being premeditated. I think it would be a real waste to take this case to a murder trial.
He hasn't been charged with murder. He's been bailed pending further enquiries.
The law is such in this country that any death under these circumstances has to be investigated. The investigation is not necessarily about charging the pensioner with murder but it should also exonerate him of committing any crime. All evidence gathered will determine what happens next and they are also still looking for the second suspect and other weapons. If it is found he used reasonable force he will not be charged with anything.
It is procedure.
There is always outcry when this kind of case happens and emotions run high. Thankfully the law is there to determine reasonable behaviour in a dispassionate way. We also have to uphold these laws so as not to turn things into a violent free for all.
There are always cases that aren't so easy to determine. One case I always have mixed emotions about is this one ...
Nowadays I think you have to assume these scumbags are armed with knives or guns. Poor guys wife was in the house also with the press reporting she needs care and he looks after her. Sounded like he spent a night in the cells
Comments
I‘ll ignore you from now on
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I acknowledged this and suggested we sorted it out as friends. I guess not.....
That's an OK position you have there.
End well
Could help.
I know what your point was/is...but to bring Hillsborough into your ‘argument’ was an absolute disgrace...you should be throughly ashamed of yourself for doing so...I stand by that too...and it weakens your ‘point’ by doing so as it bears as much resemblance to Salisbury as a banana does to a kettle.
Yes, I think people need to take a breather for a little while in this thread. At least until passions have subsided somewhat.
It definitely would be best if people actually thought about their post content first.
It maybe time for this thread to close...
[Edit: Thread re-opened. Possibly temporarily, that's up to you guys.]
“A pensioner has been arrested after stabbing to death a suspected armed burglar he confronted in his home early today.
The 78-year-old was asleep with his wife in their south London house when he heard noises and woke to challenge two men in the middle of a suspected break-in.
The homeowner was confronted by one of the intruders who was armed with a screwdriver and forced to retreat into his kitchen.
Police said there was a struggle in the kitchen and the 37-year-old suspected burglar sustained a stab wound to his chest. The man was rushed to hospital but died at 3.37am.”
Is there to protect the criminals
I have read several biographies about Hitler and I couldn't recall any mention of this, so I decided to do a little checking. This is what I found on Wikipedia about gun laws during the Third Reich: (Keep in mind that Hitler and NSDAP came to power in 1933.)
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, and the possession of ammunition.[8]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[9]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[9]
Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP (the National Socialist German Workers' Party) members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[8]
Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the proviso that such permits would no longer be issued to any company even partly owned by Jews; Jews could not manufacture or deal in firearms or ammunition.[8]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records about purchasers of guns, with serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
The 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, which came into force the day after Kristallnacht,[10][11] effectively deprived all Jews living under the Third Reich within the occupied Sudetenland and Austria of the right to possess any form of weapons, including truncheons, knives, firearms and ammunition. Exceptions were made for Jews and Poles who were foreign nationals under §3 of the act. [12][13] Before that, some police forces used the pre-existing "trustworthiness" clause to disarm Jews on the basis that "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy'"
So Hitler actually changed gun laws and made them less strict. The exeption were the jews (and I presume regime critics in general, even though it's not mentioned in the article). But this was in 1938. Hitler had total power in Gemany by then. Hitler didn't take away guns from people so he could take power away from them. He kept the old gun laws while he made Germany a dictatorship. When he had total power he made the gun laws more liberal (less state control) for a large majority of the people, exept for jews (and anti-regime activists) who already had lost all influence.
On a separate note I'd like to thank the mods for reopening this thread, it's been good natured up until recently and if nothing else helps keep politics out of the pub and other threads -{
The law is in this area comes down to "reasonable force" to defend yourself and your home. "Reasonable" is one of these commonly used legal terms that is of course rather hard to define. See also the "reasonable man" standard in English criminal law. So, as the law would view it it would be unreasonable to, say, shoot a burglar or intruder in the back if he was running away, especially if they were unarmed (see the famous Tony Martin case).
I'm not saying I particularly back the law in this area or that it's right, but it is what it is. One can't go about killing people either, I suppose, especially if it's not justified. Obviously, my complete sympathy is with the homeowner in all of these cases. However, under the law there has to be a line drawn somewhere. On the case above, I don't know enough of the details but the burglar was armed so I think the pensioner would have a better chance of getting off as he was presumably meeting force with force. Police always arrest in these circumstances, even at a traffic collision where someone is accidentally knocked down. It's a formality, and they probably have little choice in the matter to anything but arrest.
There's more here:
https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders
Well, yes, of course. I didn't realise he'd been charged with murder. As I say, I don't know all of the details but it doesn't appear on the facts to be a murder case to me. It was spur of the moment defence as opposed to being premeditated. I think it would be a real waste to take this case to a murder trial.
I'd find him innocent on day one. This reasonable
Force crap is stupid. The middle of the night you find
A masked intruder you don't know if he's alone or with
Three or four of his mates In my opinion, in that case.
You're fighting for your life. He should get a medal, not
A court case.
The modern relevance is mentioned at the beginning of my post. Many pro-gun people claim that gun control is just what Hitler did to take power away from the people. The claim is often used as a reason against gun control, but it is based on a falsehood.
I wonder why you were relieved "as to the content after seeing the meme"? I assume you didn't think I would ever post anything positive about Adolf Hitler, since we know each other well enough to know none of us would do such a thing.
That was the rumour. I recall my late father (he was in the Home Guard as a young man) telling me that there was a rumour after the war that he'd escaped by submarine to Peru!
He hasn't been charged with murder. He's been bailed pending further enquiries.
The law is such in this country that any death under these circumstances has to be investigated. The investigation is not necessarily about charging the pensioner with murder but it should also exonerate him of committing any crime. All evidence gathered will determine what happens next and they are also still looking for the second suspect and other weapons. If it is found he used reasonable force he will not be charged with anything.
It is procedure.
There is always outcry when this kind of case happens and emotions run high. Thankfully the law is there to determine reasonable behaviour in a dispassionate way. We also have to uphold these laws so as not to turn things into a violent free for all.
There are always cases that aren't so easy to determine. One case I always have mixed emotions about is this one ...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat
Having seen what the family were subjected too, I'm not sure it is reasonable to expect someone to think 'Oh. they've run off now, that's ok'
Even Tony Martin had been tormented for a long period of time and just snapped.
Those kind of cases are the exception rather than the rule.
Nowadays I think you have to assume these scumbags are armed with knives or guns. Poor guys wife was in the house also with the press reporting she needs care and he looks after her. Sounded like he spent a night in the cells