British father "MOWS DOWN CAR VANDAL TEENS"

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:32:30 -0700, Infidel
> > wrote:
>
> >The British are now going to ban people from driving vans. All vans will
> >have to be turned it at the kitchen knife confiscation stations.
>
> It's not the fault of the van, you hatefilled maggot. The problem is
> all these crazies who fall in love with their vehicle and go berzerk
> if anyone looks cross-eyed at it.

Got nothing to do with the vehicle, you blithering idiot. It's the
wilful damage to someone else's personal property, just the same as if
they'd busted the windows in his house, blown up his mailbox, or spray
painted obscenities on his siding. It's only because you have an
irrational hatred for motor vehicles that you can't see the issue
clearly.

nate

wrote:
> I am glad he ran them over.
> It is sad he must go to jail.

So you want mob rule? What happens when someone decides you are
committing a crime and decides to kill you?

In one case in the UK, a mob believed a man was a sex offender and they
tried to kill him. The information was wrong - the source was a
newspaper article.

>
> A man with a family being told to live in fear in his own home.
> He is told to call the police, who will of course do nothing.
> No one even pretends the police will do anything.
> They just come back another night.
> Maybe kill him.
> Maybe kill his children.
>
> Wander the streets like animals with weapons, and someone kills you,
> GOOD.
>
> Victims were minding their own business.
> Goons wandering the streets with weapons are not victims.

Mike T. wrote:
> >>Cool. Maybe they'll think twice before vandalizing another car. -Dave
> >>
> >
> > They deserve to be punished; that's for sure. But this nutter had no
> > business trying to MURDER them.
>
> Why not??? In Texas, that would be perfectly legal, in fact. To murder the
> vandals, that is. -Dave
In some countries even expressing a view is a criminal offence, and
some countries drinking beer is a serious crime. I saw Bush drink beer.
Does that he can be jailed - it would be legal in some countries. It
would also be legal to jail you for expressing a view in some countries
- so should you be jailed?

Mike T. wrote:
> "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/t...name_page.html
> >
> > 25 June 2006 By Charlotte Burnell
> >
> > DAD 'MOWS DOWN CAR VANDAL TEENS'
> >
> > FATHER-of-five accused of mowing down a group of yobs after his tyres
> > were slashed and car attacked with baseball bats was last night being
> > held for attempted murder.
> >
> > Neighbours said the man was so furious he got into a van, chased the
> > four-strong gang of vandals down the road... and ploughed into them.
>
> Cool. Maybe they'll think twice before vandalizing another car. -Dave

To say that is inciting unlawful violence - you can be jailed for that.
Have you experienced jail?

> In some countries even expressing a view is a criminal offence, and
> some countries drinking beer is a serious crime. I saw Bush drink beer.
> Does that he can be jailed - it would be legal in some countries. It
> would also be legal to jail you for expressing a view in some countries
> - so should you be jailed?
>

If I broke the law of the country I was in? Yeah, that's only fair. -Dave

>> Cool. Maybe they'll think twice before vandalizing another car. -Dave
>
> To say that is inciting unlawful violence

No, it's not.

- you can be jailed for that.

Irrelevant

> Have you experienced jail?

Also irrelevant. But no. -Dave

In article .com>, Logician wrote:
>
> wrote:
>> I am glad he ran them over.
>> It is sad he must go to jail.

> So you want mob rule?

This isn't mob rule. This is an individual protecting himself and his
property from other individuals.

> What happens when someone decides you are
> committing a crime and decides to kill you?

We aren't discussing some obscure might-have-done-it situation. We are
discussing caught in the act destruction of private property.

> In one case in the UK, a mob believed a man was a sex offender and they
> tried to kill him. The information was wrong - the source was a
> newspaper article.

Big difference between 'in the act of smashing one's car with a baseball
bat' and 'believed from a newspaper article'. My guess is you know this
and are intentionally trying to confuse the two.

Would you have a victim of a home invasion defend himself or wait around
for the police to determine if there was an actual crime being commited?

N8N wrote:
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:32:30 -0700, Infidel
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The British are now going to ban people from driving vans. All vans will
>>> have to be turned it at the kitchen knife confiscation stations.
>> It's not the fault of the van, you hatefilled maggot. The problem is
>> all these crazies who fall in love with their vehicle and go berzerk
>> if anyone looks cross-eyed at it.
>
> Got nothing to do with the vehicle, you blithering idiot. It's the
> wilful damage to someone else's personal property, just the same as if
> they'd busted the windows in his house, blown up his mailbox, or spray
> painted obscenities on his siding. It's only because you have an
> irrational hatred for motor vehicles that you can't see the issue
> clearly.

There is a more general problem in the UK in that many people believe
that the police don't respond to crimes against property. It's made
worse by the IMO very lenient sentences that the courts hand out against
repeat offenders. Their sentences will often be ordered to run
concurrently rather than consecutively. For example

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/4272041.stm>

where the burglar had 13 previous convictions and was on bail when he
committed his latest (detected) crime, all by the age of 19.

Or in my home town, Manchester, after a series of raids on businesses,
the local police have been saying that it is the victims' fault for not
installing extra security.

<http://www.southmanchesterreporter.co.uk/news/s/214/214654_youre_asking_for_it.html>

When faced with such apparent lack of justice, it is understandable why
people believe that they have to take the law into their own hands.

> nate

Alan

In article >, Alan Williams wrote:
> N8N wrote:

> There is a more general problem in the UK in that many people believe
> that the police don't respond to crimes against property. It's made
> worse by the IMO very lenient sentences that the courts hand out against
> repeat offenders.
<...>
> Or in my home town, Manchester, after a series of raids on businesses,
> the local police have been saying that it is the victims' fault for not
> installing extra security.

Security to do what? record the crime on to video tape with a camera?
These are armed robberies and the only security that works against
armed robberies is armed 'victims'. However, the UK has made it
illegal for people to defend themselves against criminals.

Sometimes I think the purpose of governments taking firearms and other
weapons away from law abiding citizens is so that criminals can run
amuck and then governments can respond with greater controls over the
population.

Peacenik wrote:
> "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
> http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/t...name_page.html
>> 25 June 2006 By Charlotte Burnell
>>
>> DAD 'MOWS DOWN CAR VANDAL TEENS'
>>
>> FATHER-of-five accused of mowing down a group of yobs after his tyres
>> were slashed and car attacked with baseball bats was last night being
>> held for attempted murder.
>
> Baseball bats? Who the hell plays baseball in England??

They don't buy the baseball bats to play baseball :-(

Alan