Tweaker bites the dust.
Tweaker bites the dust.
Very good post, and I agree with your analysis and conclusions about this incident.
-
pantsonfire321@aol.com
- Posts: 2920
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:26 am
Tweaker bites the dust.
How duz the law stand in the USA on using reasonable force in protecting one`s property here in the UK its still a grey area i believe a persons home is his castle -so he/she should have the right to defend one`s self or property but time and time again we see scumbags getting away scot- free :-5 :-5 :-5 and pressing charges on the person they have assaulted/ robbed what do you think ? SJXX
Can go from 0 - to bitch in 3.0 seconds .
Smile people :yh_bigsmi
yep, this bitch bites back .
Smile people :yh_bigsmi
yep, this bitch bites back .
Tweaker bites the dust.
I think it's kind of an equal force thing. You can't use more force than they are, but since both parties were engaged in hand-to-hand, I suspect there won't be a fuss about it. I mean, the guy was biting the car owner and was very strong while on Meth.
That reminds me to teach the kids again why they shouldn't resort to violence. A person can be killed much more easily than anyone suspects. Just ask the "Hockey Dad" who's doing life for belting an official at his son's hockey game and killing the guy.
That reminds me to teach the kids again why they shouldn't resort to violence. A person can be killed much more easily than anyone suspects. Just ask the "Hockey Dad" who's doing life for belting an official at his son's hockey game and killing the guy.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Tweaker bites the dust.
pantsonfire321@aol.com wrote: How duz the law stand in the USA on using reasonable force in protecting one`s property here in the UK its still a grey area i believe a persons home is his castle -so he/she should have the right to defend one`s self or property but time and time again we see scumbags getting away scot- free :-5 :-5 :-5 and pressing charges on the person they have assaulted/ robbed what do you think ? SJXX
In the UK, your home is not your castle. if someone breaks into your home, and you use lethal force to protect yourself, you'll go to prison. there have been numerous incidents ever since the UK banned all possession of firearms where people have been prosecuted for using lethal force to defend themselves.
in the US, your home is your castle. if someone breaks into your home, and you use lethal force to protect yourself, you won't go to prison. there will often be a trial, but a jury of 12 of your peers will virtually always agree that you have a right to defend yourself in your home against someone who has no legal right to be there.
In the UK, your home is not your castle. if someone breaks into your home, and you use lethal force to protect yourself, you'll go to prison. there have been numerous incidents ever since the UK banned all possession of firearms where people have been prosecuted for using lethal force to defend themselves.
in the US, your home is your castle. if someone breaks into your home, and you use lethal force to protect yourself, you won't go to prison. there will often be a trial, but a jury of 12 of your peers will virtually always agree that you have a right to defend yourself in your home against someone who has no legal right to be there.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
pantsonfire321@aol.com
- Posts: 2920
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:26 am
Tweaker bites the dust.
Here in the UK we are not even allowed to fly the union jack flag out side our home`s in case it offends another culture -political correctness has gone completey mad .sarah janexx
Can go from 0 - to bitch in 3.0 seconds .
Smile people :yh_bigsmi
yep, this bitch bites back .
Smile people :yh_bigsmi
yep, this bitch bites back .
Tweaker bites the dust.
my state, florida, has just passed legislation that now you can use deadly force outside your home, in the street or supermarket, if you feel in imminent danger. there is no duty to retreat. so if you're at the 7=11 and the nitwit in front of you pulls a gun to avoid paying for his beer you can blow him away. i can see it now, i'm buying my lottery ticket and suddenly it's the gunfight at OK corral.
Tweaker bites the dust.
Here, you have to feel your life was in danger. So, if someone broke into my house to steal my things, or rape me or hurt my daughter, I have to call the police. However, if I feel my life was in danger, I can pull out my glock and take care of business. Since the gray area is knowing when "your life is in danger", I will probably put a screwdriver in his hand, just in case, while the cops are on the way.
All hypothetical of course....worse case scenario.
All hypothetical of course....worse case scenario.
I probably posted that in an ambien trance-soryy
Tweaker bites the dust.
posted by anastrophe
In the UK, your home is not your castle. if someone breaks into your home, and you use lethal force to protect yourself, you'll go to prison. there have been numerous incidents ever since the UK banned all possession of firearms where people have been prosecuted for using lethal force to defend themselves.
Not this hoary old chestnut again. It's media hype.
there have been numerous incidents ever since the UK banned all possession of firearms where people have been prosecuted for using lethal force to defend
Source? How many have been prosecuted?
In the last fifteen years in England and Wales eleven people have been prosecuted of whom five were convicted BY A JURY OF THEIR PEERS. This is not some judge sitting in an ivory tower deciding somebody is guilty.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section13/c ... Toc3085034
The basic principles of self-defence are set out in Palmer v R, [1971] A.C 814; see also .
"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."
The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v R and other authorities is also relevant to the application of Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 , which provides that;
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:
* was the use of force justified in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? and
* was the force used excessive in the circumstances?
The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr. App R 276, R v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367 and ).
To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.
Note THE JURY MUST decide, not the judge, not the police but the jury decide whether the force used was excessive or not. Who do you think it is deciding these people used excessive force?
What happens in the states? Do you not have jury trials for criminal cases?
Currently in Scotland (where incidentally there is a different legal system) there is public demand for the sale of air rifles to under 18's to be banned. Carrying a knife is a criminal offence here and there are calls for stiffer sentences for being in possession of an offensive weapon like a knife. i.e. send the little buggers to jail.
posted by pantsonfire
Here in the UK we are not even allowed to fly the union jack flag out side our home`s in case it offends another culture -political correctness has gone completey mad .sarah janexx
Cobblers
In the UK, your home is not your castle. if someone breaks into your home, and you use lethal force to protect yourself, you'll go to prison. there have been numerous incidents ever since the UK banned all possession of firearms where people have been prosecuted for using lethal force to defend themselves.
Not this hoary old chestnut again. It's media hype.
there have been numerous incidents ever since the UK banned all possession of firearms where people have been prosecuted for using lethal force to defend
Source? How many have been prosecuted?
In the last fifteen years in England and Wales eleven people have been prosecuted of whom five were convicted BY A JURY OF THEIR PEERS. This is not some judge sitting in an ivory tower deciding somebody is guilty.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section13/c ... Toc3085034
The basic principles of self-defence are set out in Palmer v R, [1971] A.C 814; see also .
"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."
The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v R and other authorities is also relevant to the application of Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 , which provides that;
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:
* was the use of force justified in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? and
* was the force used excessive in the circumstances?
The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr. App R 276, R v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367 and ).
To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.
Note THE JURY MUST decide, not the judge, not the police but the jury decide whether the force used was excessive or not. Who do you think it is deciding these people used excessive force?
What happens in the states? Do you not have jury trials for criminal cases?
Currently in Scotland (where incidentally there is a different legal system) there is public demand for the sale of air rifles to under 18's to be banned. Carrying a knife is a criminal offence here and there are calls for stiffer sentences for being in possession of an offensive weapon like a knife. i.e. send the little buggers to jail.
posted by pantsonfire
Here in the UK we are not even allowed to fly the union jack flag out side our home`s in case it offends another culture -political correctness has gone completey mad .sarah janexx
Cobblers
Tweaker bites the dust.
A little more on the story:
http://www.komotv.com/news/mnewsaction.asp?ID=36778
But Detective Ed Troyer with the Pierce County sheriff's department says Zanassi has only one small abrasion and it appears he was not beaten after all.
Troyer says he's had to sort through a lot of misinformation, perhaps because the incident happened during the dark early morning hours and neighbors heard raised voices yelling and saw three men rolling around on the grass.
Troyer says it does appear that Zanassi bit the finger of the owner of the Camaro. The owner's friend then grabbed the suspect around the neck until he let go of the finger. The friend then released Zanassi, who dropped to the grass.
Both men said he appeared to be snoring and they thought he was asleep.
Troyer says they will be investigating whether Zanassi might have been on drugs, and whether a combination of drugs with the fight and chokehold all led to his injuries, or if it was just the chokehold.
Troyer added that Zanassi is well-known to police as he's a suspect in five identity theft cases and a recent car theft, in addition to drug charges.
Investigators also believe the Zanassi did not act alone. There was a newer black Acura seen speeding away from the scene that they believe was a getaway car.
Another stolen Ford Taurus was also found dumped down the road. Detectives towed it away as evidence.
http://www.komotv.com/news/mnewsaction.asp?ID=36778
But Detective Ed Troyer with the Pierce County sheriff's department says Zanassi has only one small abrasion and it appears he was not beaten after all.
Troyer says he's had to sort through a lot of misinformation, perhaps because the incident happened during the dark early morning hours and neighbors heard raised voices yelling and saw three men rolling around on the grass.
Troyer says it does appear that Zanassi bit the finger of the owner of the Camaro. The owner's friend then grabbed the suspect around the neck until he let go of the finger. The friend then released Zanassi, who dropped to the grass.
Both men said he appeared to be snoring and they thought he was asleep.
Troyer says they will be investigating whether Zanassi might have been on drugs, and whether a combination of drugs with the fight and chokehold all led to his injuries, or if it was just the chokehold.
Troyer added that Zanassi is well-known to police as he's a suspect in five identity theft cases and a recent car theft, in addition to drug charges.
Investigators also believe the Zanassi did not act alone. There was a newer black Acura seen speeding away from the scene that they believe was a getaway car.
Another stolen Ford Taurus was also found dumped down the road. Detectives towed it away as evidence.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Tweaker bites the dust.
devist8me wrote: Here, you have to feel your life was in danger. So, if someone broke into my house to steal my things, or rape me or hurt my daughter, I have to call the police.
not true. if someone breaks into your house, do they announce "i'm here to rape your daughter" or "i'm here to steal the TV"? nope. are you obliged, upon hearing someone break into your home, to ask "are you here to rape my daughter?" or "are you here to steal the TV?" nope.
a reasonable person does not break into other people's homes. period. what they are there for is immaterial to the potential for harm they pose. Now, a reasonable person, upon hearing someone break in, might call out "I have a gun and i'll use it!" or better yet, if they own a pump action shotgun, just cycle the action. the latter is nearly guaranteed to make the offender flee, possibly leaving behind only a puddle of urine.
but the reality is, if someone is in your home who has no business there, you may use lethal force against them. period. someone who is there 'just to steal the TV' might decide they'd rather kill you than have you call the cops. you can't base your self-protection on second-guessing what a criminal is going to do.
now, i've gotten the argument from some of the brits here that 'if someone's there just to steal the VCR, it's crazy to kill them, so you're better off not having a gun, heck they could take it from you and use it against you!' (heck, a meteor could fall from the sky and kill you while they're taking the VCR! anything's possible!). this mentality assumes that the criminal is interested merely an a commercial transaction. "hello, i've broken through the window to steal your tele. simply stand aside and all will be well. be seeing you!". well, sorry, but that assumption is based on the notion that someone *breaking into your home* is interested in acting rationally and reasonably. and the fact is, that's bizarro world. a reasonable person does not steal things from other's homes. a reasonable person knocks on the door. assigning reasonable motives to a person committing unreasonable acts is folly, and only emboldens the criminally minded.
However, if I feel my life was in danger, I can pull out my glock and take care of business.
and if you feel your daughter's life is in danger, you can do the same. if i found someone in my home in the middle of the night, and it wasn't my wife, my dog, or my cat, i could only assume they were not there to discuss global warming, and on that basis, i *can* assume they are there with criminal intent, which includes harm to innocent persons - me or my family. they either leave via the threat of lethal force, or they leave in a body bag. it's their choice.
Since the gray area is knowing when "your life is in danger", I will probably put a screwdriver in his hand, just in case, while the cops are on the way.bad idea. let the facts do the talking. the inside of your home is for *you and your family, only*. anyone inside who was not invited inside by you presents a threat to your - and your family's - safety. you are justified in any lethal force.
i'll probably get an argument from someone like 'so you're having a party, and a friend brings a friend you don't know. so you're going to blow them away since you didn't invite them in?'. i've heard 'em all. making nonsensical arguments to suggest that the reasonable action is unreasonable. oh well!
not true. if someone breaks into your house, do they announce "i'm here to rape your daughter" or "i'm here to steal the TV"? nope. are you obliged, upon hearing someone break into your home, to ask "are you here to rape my daughter?" or "are you here to steal the TV?" nope.
a reasonable person does not break into other people's homes. period. what they are there for is immaterial to the potential for harm they pose. Now, a reasonable person, upon hearing someone break in, might call out "I have a gun and i'll use it!" or better yet, if they own a pump action shotgun, just cycle the action. the latter is nearly guaranteed to make the offender flee, possibly leaving behind only a puddle of urine.
but the reality is, if someone is in your home who has no business there, you may use lethal force against them. period. someone who is there 'just to steal the TV' might decide they'd rather kill you than have you call the cops. you can't base your self-protection on second-guessing what a criminal is going to do.
now, i've gotten the argument from some of the brits here that 'if someone's there just to steal the VCR, it's crazy to kill them, so you're better off not having a gun, heck they could take it from you and use it against you!' (heck, a meteor could fall from the sky and kill you while they're taking the VCR! anything's possible!). this mentality assumes that the criminal is interested merely an a commercial transaction. "hello, i've broken through the window to steal your tele. simply stand aside and all will be well. be seeing you!". well, sorry, but that assumption is based on the notion that someone *breaking into your home* is interested in acting rationally and reasonably. and the fact is, that's bizarro world. a reasonable person does not steal things from other's homes. a reasonable person knocks on the door. assigning reasonable motives to a person committing unreasonable acts is folly, and only emboldens the criminally minded.
However, if I feel my life was in danger, I can pull out my glock and take care of business.
and if you feel your daughter's life is in danger, you can do the same. if i found someone in my home in the middle of the night, and it wasn't my wife, my dog, or my cat, i could only assume they were not there to discuss global warming, and on that basis, i *can* assume they are there with criminal intent, which includes harm to innocent persons - me or my family. they either leave via the threat of lethal force, or they leave in a body bag. it's their choice.
Since the gray area is knowing when "your life is in danger", I will probably put a screwdriver in his hand, just in case, while the cops are on the way.bad idea. let the facts do the talking. the inside of your home is for *you and your family, only*. anyone inside who was not invited inside by you presents a threat to your - and your family's - safety. you are justified in any lethal force.
i'll probably get an argument from someone like 'so you're having a party, and a friend brings a friend you don't know. so you're going to blow them away since you didn't invite them in?'. i've heard 'em all. making nonsensical arguments to suggest that the reasonable action is unreasonable. oh well!
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Tweaker bites the dust.
gmc wrote: In the last fifteen years in England and Wales eleven people have been prosecuted of whom five were convicted BY A JURY OF THEIR PEERS. This is not some judge sitting in an ivory tower deciding somebody is guilty.
thanks for the info. i stand corrected.
thanks for the info. i stand corrected.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Tweaker bites the dust.
I am so disillusioned....our eloquent, well-spoken anastrophe has used the term "bizzarro world." *sigh* :yh_rotfl
OK, so gmc posts the law stating that a person can do, but ONLY do what is reasonably necessary. Juries are made up of people, with widely varying opinions of what is reasonable and what is not. Seems to me there would be very little consistency from case to case.
Which is why I find our way of dealing with these things more appealing. When a person here defends themselves, in their home, with a gun, it's not very often they have to face a trial. Which, IMO, is the way it should be.
And also, gmc, when you say "Cobblers" does that mean flying the union jack IS allowed, or you think it's a ridiculous law? (Sorry, I don't know Scottish lingo.)
OK, so gmc posts the law stating that a person can do, but ONLY do what is reasonably necessary. Juries are made up of people, with widely varying opinions of what is reasonable and what is not. Seems to me there would be very little consistency from case to case.
Which is why I find our way of dealing with these things more appealing. When a person here defends themselves, in their home, with a gun, it's not very often they have to face a trial. Which, IMO, is the way it should be.
And also, gmc, when you say "Cobblers" does that mean flying the union jack IS allowed, or you think it's a ridiculous law? (Sorry, I don't know Scottish lingo.)
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
Tweaker bites the dust.
posted by babyrider
OK, so gmc posts the law stating that a person can do, but ONLY do what is reasonably necessary. Juries are made up of people, with widely varying opinions of what is reasonable and what is not. Seems to me there would be very little consistency from case to case.
That is the whole point about having a jury of peers decide, they up the evidence and decide whether the action was excessive or not. It's still the fairest way to decide guilt or innocence for all its flaws, it's a fundamental part of a free society, the evidence is presented and guilt or innocence is decided by a panel of peers i.e a person who, or thing which, is equal in ability, standing, age, rank, or value, to use the dictionary definition.
I'm sorry but trial before a tribunal or a panel of judges smacks of totalitarianism. Jury trials were brought in to curb the power of the king or now the government. That's one of the reasons I object strongly to the home secretary trying to get the power to detain people without trial. Thankfully the lords (ironic isn't it, our freedom defended a bunch of unelected peers (of the realm that is. not to be confused with pier as in seafront pier or in peer as in person of equal standing). You don't give any government that kind of authority ,except in extremis dire and even then you don't trust the B*&^^%&S to have it for long.
In somethimg like this you need to weigh up the actions of each individual and decide if the action taken was reasonable, it needs a jury, you can't have a checklist or objective assessment of what happened in those circumstances it has to be subjective. That's why you have manslaughter as opposed to murder, the motive is taken in to account.
We have problems with our justice system and policing system but the basics are OK, some of the sentencing is a bit naff.
posted by babyrider
Which is why I find our way of dealing with these things more appealing. When a person here defends themselves, in their home, with a gun, it's not very often they have to face a trial. Which, IMO, is the way it should be.
It's the same here except the prescence of a gun is unlikely. Our society is just as violent as yours except most of the time guns are not involved and we go about looking for solutions in a different way. It would be a big mistake to assume we are all frightened to take action in self defence. If someone breaks in I will sent my wife out to deal with them (well she frightens me)
posted by babyrider
And also, gmc, when you say "Cobblers" does that mean flying the union jack IS allowed, or you think it's a ridiculous law? (Sorry, I don't know Scottish lingo.)
It's slang for nonsense. middle english as it happens rather than scots but I have always had an eclectic approach to life.
OK, so gmc posts the law stating that a person can do, but ONLY do what is reasonably necessary. Juries are made up of people, with widely varying opinions of what is reasonable and what is not. Seems to me there would be very little consistency from case to case.
That is the whole point about having a jury of peers decide, they up the evidence and decide whether the action was excessive or not. It's still the fairest way to decide guilt or innocence for all its flaws, it's a fundamental part of a free society, the evidence is presented and guilt or innocence is decided by a panel of peers i.e a person who, or thing which, is equal in ability, standing, age, rank, or value, to use the dictionary definition.
I'm sorry but trial before a tribunal or a panel of judges smacks of totalitarianism. Jury trials were brought in to curb the power of the king or now the government. That's one of the reasons I object strongly to the home secretary trying to get the power to detain people without trial. Thankfully the lords (ironic isn't it, our freedom defended a bunch of unelected peers (of the realm that is. not to be confused with pier as in seafront pier or in peer as in person of equal standing). You don't give any government that kind of authority ,except in extremis dire and even then you don't trust the B*&^^%&S to have it for long.
In somethimg like this you need to weigh up the actions of each individual and decide if the action taken was reasonable, it needs a jury, you can't have a checklist or objective assessment of what happened in those circumstances it has to be subjective. That's why you have manslaughter as opposed to murder, the motive is taken in to account.
We have problems with our justice system and policing system but the basics are OK, some of the sentencing is a bit naff.
posted by babyrider
Which is why I find our way of dealing with these things more appealing. When a person here defends themselves, in their home, with a gun, it's not very often they have to face a trial. Which, IMO, is the way it should be.
It's the same here except the prescence of a gun is unlikely. Our society is just as violent as yours except most of the time guns are not involved and we go about looking for solutions in a different way. It would be a big mistake to assume we are all frightened to take action in self defence. If someone breaks in I will sent my wife out to deal with them (well she frightens me)
posted by babyrider
And also, gmc, when you say "Cobblers" does that mean flying the union jack IS allowed, or you think it's a ridiculous law? (Sorry, I don't know Scottish lingo.)
It's slang for nonsense. middle english as it happens rather than scots but I have always had an eclectic approach to life.
Tweaker bites the dust.
I'd be the last one to say our system has no flaws. Each of ours are different, for sure, but being run by people, they are inherently flawed. As soon as I come up with a perfect one, I'll be sure to pass it along! :yh_bigsmi
Thanks for the clarification on "cobbler."
So, it is also rare for a person who has defended themselves to be tried, with or without the presence of a gun? (Sorry if I'm having you repeat yourself, just want to be sure I'm understanding you.)
Thanks for the clarification on "cobbler."
So, it is also rare for a person who has defended themselves to be tried, with or without the presence of a gun? (Sorry if I'm having you repeat yourself, just want to be sure I'm understanding you.)
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
Tweaker bites the dust.
Attempting to steal a car is a good reason to kill someone? I happen to think that these guys were justified in trying to stop him, and that he probably died because of the drugs and the men should not be held accountable for his death. BUT. To say he deserved to die because he tried to steal, is beyond heinous. Not a real contributor to human society, sure, but to say it's ok he died is wrong. Not to mention that whether the 2 men feel responsible or not, this will impact them for the rest of their lives.
Would you feel no remorse if you accidentally killed someone trying to steal your car, Scrat?
Would you feel no remorse if you accidentally killed someone trying to steal your car, Scrat?
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
Tweaker bites the dust.
Scrat wrote:
No more regret than I feel when I run scabby bikers off the highway. :yh_rotflThat is a mistake you could make exactly once.
No more regret than I feel when I run scabby bikers off the highway. :yh_rotflThat is a mistake you could make exactly once.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
Tweaker bites the dust.
posted by babyrider
So, it is also rare for a person who has defended themselves to be tried, with or without the presence of a gun? (Sorry if I'm having you repeat yourself, just want to be sure I'm understanding you.)
It is very rare, the press hype it up because it makes good headlines, in England and Wales eleven cases in the last fifteen years, six were convicted by a jury.
posted by scrat
I did run someone off the road just yesterday, I reacted to a moron teenager yapping on the cellphone that spun around in an intersection. He was to my right and I didn't see him because he was in my blindspot. I ran him off the road and into a small swamp. No one was hurt and I helped get his bike back on the road. He looked like "Swamp Thing".
Let me get this straight, he was on a bike using a cellphone passing you on the drivers side?
So, it is also rare for a person who has defended themselves to be tried, with or without the presence of a gun? (Sorry if I'm having you repeat yourself, just want to be sure I'm understanding you.)
It is very rare, the press hype it up because it makes good headlines, in England and Wales eleven cases in the last fifteen years, six were convicted by a jury.
posted by scrat
I did run someone off the road just yesterday, I reacted to a moron teenager yapping on the cellphone that spun around in an intersection. He was to my right and I didn't see him because he was in my blindspot. I ran him off the road and into a small swamp. No one was hurt and I helped get his bike back on the road. He looked like "Swamp Thing".
Let me get this straight, he was on a bike using a cellphone passing you on the drivers side?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Tweaker bites the dust.
gmc wrote: Let me get this straight, he was on a bike using a cellphone passing you on the drivers side?
driver's side on this side of the pond is the left side. we're all backwards over here.
driver's side on this side of the pond is the left side. we're all backwards over here.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Tweaker bites the dust.
Scrat wrote: LC There have been instances here of suspects apprehended by police dying in struggles because they are on some drug. Have you heard of any?it's a large national issue actually, usually involving people having been tasered. we have had a few fatalities. and usually those people have been found at autopsy to contain more drugs than the local pharmacy. meth makes them superhuman. crack makes some of them vicious also. in this instance i suspect a defensive tactic called LVNR was used. lateral vascular neck restraint. it is much more than a simple chokehold. some sheriff's depts. forbid its use as it is deadly when done 'right". we have special training in it and are allowed to utilize it up through the use of force continuum. every time we have to get qualified on it some of our people go right out cold even though we don't use 100% force on each other. it involves cutting off the blood supply via the jugular and carotid arteries. and then use of hand positions/leverage to crank the level of restraint/pressure.
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
Tweaker bites the dust.
Justified?? The (vintage) car never moved from parked postion. The car was parked across the street from the residence in front of a vacant house. The car owner woke up to the engine turning over ?? Neighbors didn't wake up until they heard loud voices.?
The 2 individuals have a story - exactly what that is a story.. Unless you have the Police Report- Facts, then you can't mouth off... The car owner still has that precious vintage car - you know a 67 Camaro with a sun roof - Vintage. He was so protective of that vintage car that he parked it across the street from his residence - Possum - but he'd kill for that '67.. Eddie was there to sell the tweakers their stuff and they were more interested in Eddie's wallet.. When Police asked why the 2 individuals had Eddie's wallet - they stated they needed it to call 911.. Sure . 2 guys story against a dead young man - odds are against Eddie unfortunely.. Patsy Warnick
The 2 individuals have a story - exactly what that is a story.. Unless you have the Police Report- Facts, then you can't mouth off... The car owner still has that precious vintage car - you know a 67 Camaro with a sun roof - Vintage. He was so protective of that vintage car that he parked it across the street from his residence - Possum - but he'd kill for that '67.. Eddie was there to sell the tweakers their stuff and they were more interested in Eddie's wallet.. When Police asked why the 2 individuals had Eddie's wallet - they stated they needed it to call 911.. Sure . 2 guys story against a dead young man - odds are against Eddie unfortunely.. Patsy Warnick
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
Tweaker bites the dust.
What are the effects of someone on meth ? Does meth make them extra strong? Combative? Invincible? The reason I ask is everyone concentrates on the meth use. When authorities asked the car owner and friend under oath - if Eddie (tweaker) hit you? They answered NO. NO - so, they strangled Eddie to death, then continued to beat a unconscious man.
That's not Justifiable Homicide - nor should the 2 individuals be allowed to hide behind that Law.
That's not Justifiable Homicide - nor should the 2 individuals be allowed to hide behind that Law.
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
Tweaker bites the dust.
That's a vigilante attitude
The law also reads 2 wrongs don't make a right.
The law also reads 2 wrongs don't make a right.
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
Tweaker bites the dust.
That's one way to protect your nuts.
Alcatraz is available - Take the other 2 vigilante's with you.
Alcatraz is available - Take the other 2 vigilante's with you.
Tweaker bites the dust.
Scrat wrote: This happened about 30 miles from where I live. I know how it went down. A habitual criminal was trying to steal someones car and got taken out.
Tough. Don't cry for me Argentina.
Now all you have to do is prove it, and everyone would happen to agree.
Tough. Don't cry for me Argentina.
Now all you have to do is prove it, and everyone would happen to agree.
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
Tweaker bites the dust.
There was no fight - no struggle. Under oath the 3 not 2 but 3 individuals were asked if Eddie Zanassi struck you - hit you ?? They said NO..
If Eddie wasn't combative as they stated in their version of the story - then why did they strangle him? Like I stated their story is a lie..
This Homicide & I have changed the Washington State Law for "Justifiable Homicide", goes into affect January 2007.
Merry Christmas Eddie
Patsy
If Eddie wasn't combative as they stated in their version of the story - then why did they strangle him? Like I stated their story is a lie..
This Homicide & I have changed the Washington State Law for "Justifiable Homicide", goes into affect January 2007.
Merry Christmas Eddie
Patsy
Tweaker bites the dust.
is a tweaker like a fluffer?
Tweaker bites the dust.
Scrat;483260 wrote: My spelling was wrong. A "tweeker" is someone who is addicted to methamphetamines, crack whatever.
They got the name because they run around twitching spasmodically and basically acting hyper and zoned out.
What's a fluffer?
Here in Seattle they finance their habits by all sorts of crimes but predominantly car theft. If you find your car it is usually impounded and you have to pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to get it back.
a fluffer is a person who .... ahem..... prepares male "actors" for their scenes.
They got the name because they run around twitching spasmodically and basically acting hyper and zoned out.
What's a fluffer?
Here in Seattle they finance their habits by all sorts of crimes but predominantly car theft. If you find your car it is usually impounded and you have to pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to get it back.
a fluffer is a person who .... ahem..... prepares male "actors" for their scenes.