OT: Defend yourself in the UK, get a fine!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2008072.ece

Shopkeeper fined £250 for hitting back against thieves
Simon de Bruxelles

A shopkeeper has been fined £250 and given a criminal record because he
fought back when he was attacked by shoplifters.

Jacob Smyth chased three youths out of his hardware shop in Penzance,
Cornwall, when he was set upon. When he was kicked in the groin by one of
the hooded youths who had stolen cans of spray paint Mr Smyth hit back.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

Will Brink wrote:

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2008072.ece
>
> Shopkeeper fined £250 for hitting back against thieves

Brink, you crybaby!

> Simon de Bruxelles
>
> A shopkeeper has been fined £250 and given a criminal record because he
> fought back when he was attacked by shoplifters.
>
> Jacob Smyth chased three youths out of his hardware shop in Penzance,
> Cornwall, when he was set upon. When he was kicked in the groin by one of
> the hooded youths who had stolen cans of spray paint Mr Smyth hit back.

That's right, Brink, he hit back. And he paid his £250 (which is about
$500US, btw) and then he called his credit union, got a loan, and hit
back about three more times. And, if you ask Jake, I bet he'd say it
was WORTH IT!

Seriously, he left the store. That's like getting out of your car. So,
Brink, some lady gives you the finger for your lousy driving skills,
are you going to get out of the car at the next red light? Are you
going to tell the cops, "Hey, she gave me the finger!" when they
ticket you? After she's done kicking you in the groin, of course.

Would you call it unreasonable for the officer to ticket you for your
behavior, for your actions wrt the jerk lady in the Sentra who beat
you down?

And don't let it happen in Virginia either, Will.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...ncreases+fines

Uh, any UKers or UKphiles know what would have happened if Jacob Smyth
had simply mugged the hoodlums INSIDE his shop? To issue a fine
*inside* the shop, well that's wrong, but Jake made a mistake by
exiting the building.

Like Freides often says, "Just my opinion."

--
Curt

What an amazing steaming load of crap! Your trolling is getting REAL close
to that fine line again, Curt. Is there ANYTHING Brink could post that would
not get an asinine response from you? Does it not bother you that you are so
controlled by others...that all Brink or Williams have to do is post and you
are driven to respond? Do the puppet strings get in the way when you play
ball?

David

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, David Cohen wrote:

> What an amazing steaming load of crap!

No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.

tom

--
Well we know where we're going, but we don't know where we've been

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, David Cohen wrote:
>
>> What an amazing steaming load of crap!
>
> No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
> you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
> General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.

You should be embarassed. Law abiding citizen gets robbed, he chases the
scumbags, they turn on him and attack, and the VICTIM is convicted of
assault.

How incredibly far the greatest empire on earth has fallen. The Germans are
thinking, "damn, how come you weren't such fucking sheep 70 years ago?"

David

Cohen wrote:

re

| Will Brink wrote:
| > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2008072.ece
|
| > Shopkeeper fined £250 for hitting back against thieves
|
| Brink, you crybaby!
|
| > Simon de Bruxelles
|
| > A shopkeeper has been fined £250 and given a criminal record
because he
| > fought back when he was attacked by shoplifters.
|
| > Jacob Smyth chased three youths out of his hardware shop in
Penzance,
| > Cornwall, when he was set upon. When he was kicked in the groin by
one of
| > the hooded youths who had stolen cans of spray paint Mr Smyth hit
back.
|
| That's right, Brink, he hit back. And he paid his £250 (which is
about
| $500US, btw) and then he called his credit union, got a loan, and
hit
| back about three more times. And, if you ask Jake, I bet he'd say it
| was WORTH IT!
|
| Seriously, he left the store. That's like getting out of your car.
So,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which would indicate that the whole credit union and loan scenario was
absurdist humor. Or an attempt.

But, seriously, he left the store. That's a mistake.

| Brink, some lady gives you the finger for your lousy driving skills,
| are you going to get out of the car at the next red light? Are you

Care to answer that, David? Or would you prefer to make more
exclamations regarding a fictional fine line?

| going to tell the cops, "Hey, she gave me the finger!" when they
| ticket you? After she's done kicking you in the groin, of course.
|
| Would you call it unreasonable for the officer to ticket you for
your
| behavior, for your actions wrt the jerk lady in the Sentra who beat
| you down?

Smyth took company as well. Another guy along to chase after the boys.
Nice. I guess they were along to act as witness. Certainly not as
protection.

Jacob: "Oy, get 'im off me! Chriii..."

Would you expect the officer to pat you on the back, David? But those
questions are perhaps relative to my imaginary scenario. Let's stick
to the shopkeeper. Do you think the store's owner should receive a
commendation for chasing after the bad guys?

He's lucky he didn't get worse than a kick in the groin. I mean, come
on, David, how many cans of spray paint do you think the boys stole?
The shopkeeper doesn't know them? After all, he felt comfortable
chasing them down. He may have been wiser to set the police after them
or to call their parents. If he actually *didn't* know them then he's
truly a fool. They don't have guns in Cornwall? Or bricks? Three on
one (Smyth's so-called pal or colleague was obviously a non-factor).
Even boys.

Yes, "and a colleague" is noted in the article. A piece of
sensationalistic man-bites-dog tripe, btw. Regardless of the newspaper
trying to sell their wares, Smyth and a friend ran after teenagers
over a couple of cans of spraypaint. That's stupid.

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Julian Herbert, prosecuting, said the
"aggravating
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; factor" of the case was shop staff "taking
the law
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; into their own hands". Fining Mr Smyth
£250 and
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ordering him to pay £43 costs, Angy
Haslam,
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; chairman of the magistrates, said: "The
act was
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; aggravated by the fact you kicked the
victim on
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the ground. We feel it has been mitigated
because
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; you acted in self defence."

Hmmm.

Taking the law into their own hands. You admire vigilantes? I do. But
I don't especially have any sympathy for them if they get kicked in
the junk. Ymmv. Live by the, etc., etc.

| And don't let it happen in Virginia either, Will.
|
| http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...ncreases+fines
|
| Uh, any UKers or UKphiles know what would have happened if Jacob
Smyth
| had simply mugged the hoodlums INSIDE his shop? To issue a fine

Would the shopkeeper have been viewed as taking the law into his own
hands had he wrestled with the boys in the shop?

"Well, officer, these young thugs set upon me. I was only trying to
defend myself."

In that scenario, perhaps the officers would have had more opportunity
to offer leniency. Seeing as how the officers were faced with the
participants *on the street*, there's little room for looking the
other way, is there?

| *inside* the shop, well that's wrong, but Jake made a mistake by
| exiting the building.
|
| Like Freides often says, "Just my opinion."

> What an amazing steaming load of crap!

How do you figure? Brink, if he didn't have me kill filed and if he,
unlike you, could see past the obvious poke-in-the-eye nonsense, would
appreciate the event analysis gist.

The shopkeeper made a mistake by exiting his shop. Why pursue? Now
you're the aggressor and, apparently, your rights as a citizen shift.
The instigators have the upper hand and become the victim in this
case. Sad.

Plus, I'm inclined to think the shopkeeper is not only sad, but
stupid. He said shoplifting happens again and again. Duh. Put the
spraypaint BEHIND the counter or in a locked cabinet. Maybe more
staff.

He said the police do nothing. Maybe he needs to do something about
that. Harrisburg cops have given me a ride to work in the past when my
car left me stranded. I guess if I was a jerk, they could've given me
a ticket instead. Or said, "Hey, pal, good luck with that."

> Your trolling is getting REAL close to that fine line again, Curt.

Whoopie.

> Is there ANYTHING Brink could post that would
> not get an asinine response from you?

Sure.

A guess, but probably so.

> Does it not bother you that you are so controlled by
> others...that all Brink or Williams have to do is post
> and you are driven to respond?

Driven versus choice is up to interpretation. Enjoy yours.

> Do the puppet strings get in the way when you play
> ball?

Whatever.

In the future I'll try to be as absolutely serious and somber as you.

--
Curt

I scribbled:

-=snip=-


> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Julian Herbert, prosecuting, said the
> "aggravating
> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; factor" of the case was shop staff "taking
> the law
> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; into their own hands". Fining Mr Smyth
> £250 and
> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ordering him to pay £43 costs, Angy
> Haslam,
> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; chairman of the magistrates, said: "The
> act was
> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; aggravated by the fact you kicked the
> victim on
> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the ground. We feel it has been mitigated
> because
> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; you acted in self defence."
>
> Hmmm.

See, the "Hmmm" was for that possibility. Dammit.

EITNER! HOW DO YOU MAKE IT INDENT LIKE THAT?

--
Curt

Tom Anderson wrote:
> David Cohen wrote:
> > What an amazing steaming load of crap!
>
> No, he's right.

Anderson, will you never learn? Curt =/= right

>From the perspective of "giving Brink shit too much" then Cohen's
right. Maybe.

> It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when you're defending
> yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all General Belgrano
> on him, it's just assault.

Agreed.

And who called the cops? The shopkeeper said the police don't do
anything when HE calls, so I'm guessing Smyth has issues besides a
fresh vasectomy recently kicked by a young ruffian. Fwiw, I suspect
his pride is hurt more than his sack.

Recommendation to the shopkeeper: TAKE MORE "COLLEAGUES" ALONG NEXT
TIME!

--
Curt

Cohen wrote:
> "Tom Anderson" wrote
> > David Cohen wrote:
>
> >> What an amazing steaming load of crap!
>
> > No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
> > you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
> > General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.
>
> You should be embarassed. Law abiding citizen gets robbed, he

And his apparently worthless and non-fighting ass "colleague".

> chases the scumbags,

Who, obviously, are younger, stronger (if, unfortunately, not faster)
than the shopkeeper and his, uh, scribe (sure not "muscle").

> they turn on him and attack,

Duh. Someone's chasing me. I can't outrun them. Let's see, how's it
go... FLIGHT OR FIGHT! Hmm. The shopkeeper eliminated option number
one by running them down so what's that leave the thugs with? Option
number TWO.

> and the VICTIM

Who should have remained all cozy in his shop minus £3 in spraypaint.

> is convicted of assault.

Because the law allows such an event. Gee, I wonder how crime compares
in the UK to the US. (Serious question, btw.)

> How incredibly far the greatest empire on earth has fallen.

Are they getting chewed up in Iraq and Afghanistan? They spending nine
BILLION bucks over the next four months to blow shit up and then
rebuild it for what return? Yup. Glad I'm Amercian. (And I am, but,
boy does George gotta go.)

> The Germans are thinking, "damn, how come you weren't such fucking sheep 70 years ago?"

And the shopkeeper ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2008072.ece
) is perhaps thinking, "damn, how come I didn't take along my 'attack
fucking sheep'?"

Because his colleague certainly didn't save him an ass whoopin' (or
nut crunchin' as the case stands... or reclines in a fetal position).

--
Curt

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707021930260.13405@urchin.earth.li >, Tom
Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, David Cohen wrote:
>
> > What an amazing steaming load of crap!
>
> No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
> you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
> General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.

When making a joke or being sarcastic, one should put the :-) or one might
be mistaken for an idiot.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

In article <OKbii.3196$zA4.2657@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>, "David
Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, David Cohen wrote:
> >
> >> What an amazing steaming load of crap!
> >
> > No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
> > you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
> > General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.
>
> You should be embarassed.

I'm embarassed for him if he's not.

>Law abiding citizen gets robbed, he chases the
> scumbags, they turn on him and attack, and the VICTIM is convicted of
> assault.

Fined no less and told he will do jail time if he does not plead guilty.
He should get an award not a fine.

>
> How incredibly far the greatest empire on earth has fallen. The Germans are
> thinking, "damn, how come you weren't such fucking sheep 70 years ago?"

Churchill is rolling in his grave.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote
> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, David Cohen wrote:
>>
>> > What an amazing steaming load of crap!
>>
>> No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
>> you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
>> General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.
>
> When making a joke or being sarcastic, one should put the :-) or one might
> be mistaken for an idiot.

He's not an idiot. He's quite intelligent. That's what's so sad, and scary.
The British have gone down the Nanny State Sheep Herd road, and most of the
otherwise intelligent Brits have gone "BAA BAAA BAAAA".

David

Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> writes:

> I scribbled:
>
> -=snip=-
>
>
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Julian Herbert, prosecuting, said the
>> "aggravating
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; factor" of the case was shop staff "taking
>> the law
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; into their own hands". Fining Mr Smyth
>> £250 and
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ordering him to pay £43 costs, Angy
>> Haslam,
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; chairman of the magistrates, said: "The
>> act was
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; aggravated by the fact you kicked the
>> victim on
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the ground. We feel it has been mitigated
>> because
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; you acted in self defence."
>>
>> Hmmm.
>
> See, the "Hmmm" was for that possibility. Dammit.
>
> EITNER! HOW DO YOU MAKE IT INDENT LIKE THAT?

With the right tools indenting paragraphs is easy as pie.
The problem is that you don't have the right tools. I would
even go so far as to say that you are using precisely the
*wrong* tool.

1. I happen to think that lists should get indented like this. With
the number in a space all by itself on the left hand side. With
the right tools this is not difficult.

2. Most people wouldn't know the right tool if it bit them on the hind
end.

a. Or anywhere else for that matter.

b. This is a nice way to make nifty little outlines.
Unfortunately, most people have no idea how to accomplish
something like this.

,----[ Here's another cool example ]
| If you really want to get fancy there are tools that will use neat
| boxes to set your quotes apart from the rest of the post. I
| personally think that this is a bit over the top, but some people
| really like this sort of thing.
`----
,----[ My eyes! ]
| And of course, you can also indent your boxed quotes, for
| the ultimate in standoutishness.
`----

.. o O ( Or perhaps you would like it to look like you are thinking. )
( Let's see what this does. Supposedly this looks like the )
( balloons that you see in comic strips when the main )
( character is thinking. I don't know if buy it, but it is )
( sort of cool. )


Here's a bit of a strange one. Not many people care about full
justification these days, especially with plain text. However with
the right tools you can full justify plain text paragraphs for the
ultimate in old school typography. Notice how the right margin isn't
ragged. Pretty cool huh?

Here's a slightly different
variation for when you want a
single narrow column of text.
Notice that I can justify this
as well. If that is my goal.

Or I can leave the column
unjustified for a slightly less
formal look.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to play around with my
newsreader. I really appreciate it.

Jason

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

>What an amazing steaming load of crap! Your trolling is getting REAL close
>to that fine line again, Curt. Is there ANYTHING Brink could post that would
>not get an asinine response from you? Does it not bother you that you are so
>controlled by others...that all Brink or Williams have to do is post and you
>are driven to respond? Do the puppet strings get in the way when you play
>ball?

He's an attention whore with vendettas. What do you expect?

You're not Eitner.

But you've got a kettlebell, so you get a pass.

On Jul 2, 7:57 pm, Jason Earl <j...@xmission.com> wrote:
> Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I scribbled:
>
> > -=snip=-
>
> >> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Julian Herbert, prosecuting, said the
> >> "aggravating
> >> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; factor" of the case was shop staff "taking
> >> the law
> >> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; into their own hands". Fining Mr Smyth
> >> £250 and
> >> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ordering him to pay £43 costs, Angy
> >> Haslam,
> >> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; chairman of the magistrates, said: "The
> >> act was
> >> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; aggravated by the fact you kicked the
> >> victim on
> >> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the ground. We feel it has been mitigated
> >> because
> >> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; you acted in self defence."
>
> >> Hmmm.
>
> > See, the "Hmmm" was for that possibility. Dammit.
>
> > EITNER! HOW DO YOU MAKE IT INDENT LIKE THAT?
>
> With the right tools indenting paragraphs is easy as pie.
> The problem is that you don't have the right tools. I would
> even go so far as to say that you are using precisely the
> *wrong* tool.
>
> 1. I happen to think that lists should get indented like this. With
> the number in a space all by itself on the left hand side. With
> the right tools this is not difficult.
>
> 2. Most people wouldn't know the right tool if it bit them on the hind
> end.
>
> a. Or anywhere else for that matter.
>
> b. This is a nice way to make nifty little outlines.
> Unfortunately, most people have no idea how to accomplish
> something like this.
>
> ,----[ Here's another cool example ]
> | If you really want to get fancy there are tools that will use neat
> | boxes to set your quotes apart from the rest of the post. I
> | personally think that this is a bit over the top, but some people
> | really like this sort of thing.
> `----
> ,----[ My eyes! ]
> | And of course, you can also indent your boxed quotes, for
> | the ultimate in standoutishness.
> `----
>
> . o O ( Or perhaps you would like it to look like you are thinking. )
> ( Let's see what this does. Supposedly this looks like the )
> ( balloons that you see in comic strips when the main )
> ( character is thinking. I don't know if buy it, but it is )
> ( sort of cool. )
>
> Here's a bit of a strange one. Not many people care about full
> justification these days, especially with plain text. However with
> the right tools you can full justify plain text paragraphs for the
> ultimate in old school typography. Notice how the right margin isn't
> ragged. Pretty cool huh?
>
> Here's a slightly different
> variation for when you want a
> single narrow column of text.
> Notice that I can justify this
> as well. If that is my goal.
>
> Or I can leave the column
> unjustified for a slightly less
> formal look.
>
> Thanks for giving me the opportunity to play around with my
> newsreader. I really appreciate it.
>
> Jason

--

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:45:57 GMT, "David Cohen"
<sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote
>> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, David Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>> > What an amazing steaming load of crap!
>>>
>>> No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
>>> you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
>>> General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.
>>
>> When making a joke or being sarcastic, one should put the :-) or one might
>> be mistaken for an idiot.
>
>He's not an idiot. He's quite intelligent. That's what's so sad, and scary.
>The British have gone down the Nanny State Sheep Herd road, and most of the
>otherwise intelligent Brits have gone "BAA BAAA BAAAA".

A "trolling" we will go,
A "trolling" we will go,
Eee, aye addy oh,
A "trolling" we will go!

"Charles" <jrh@msn.com> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote
>>> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, David Cohen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > What an amazing steaming load of crap!
>>>>
>>>> No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
>>>> you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
>>>> General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.
>>>
>>> When making a joke or being sarcastic, one should put the :-) or one
>>> might
>>> be mistaken for an idiot.
>>
>>He's not an idiot. He's quite intelligent. That's what's so sad, and
>>scary.
>>The British have gone down the Nanny State Sheep Herd road, and most of
>>the
>>otherwise intelligent Brits have gone "BAA BAAA BAAAA".
>
> A "trolling" we will go,
> A "trolling" we will go,
> Eee, aye addy oh,
> A "trolling" we will go!

Exactly.

The intelligent Brits go "BAA BAAA BAAAA".

The others go "A trolling we will go, A trolling we will go, Eee, aye addy
oh, A trolling we will go!"

~

David

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:42:46 GMT, "David Cohen"
<sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"Charles" <jrh@msn.com> wrote
>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, David Cohen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > What an amazing steaming load of crap!
>>>>>
>>>>> No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
>>>>> you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
>>>>> General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.
>>>>
>>>> When making a joke or being sarcastic, one should put the :-) or one
>>>> might
>>>> be mistaken for an idiot.
>>>
>>>He's not an idiot. He's quite intelligent. That's what's so sad, and
>>>scary.
>>>The British have gone down the Nanny State Sheep Herd road, and most of
>>>the
>>>otherwise intelligent Brits have gone "BAA BAAA BAAAA".
>>
>> A "trolling" we will go,
>> A "trolling" we will go,
>> Eee, aye addy oh,
>> A "trolling" we will go!
>
>Exactly.
>
>The intelligent Brits go "BAA BAAA BAAAA".

That may make us "Brits" feel somewhat sheepish, but then ewe would
say that in an attempt to ram home your point, and pull the wool over
our eyes.

I suggest that in the interests of harmony you mutton say things like
that, or you may get lambasted (how about that one?) or invite a good
fleecing.

I'll see your "BAA BAAA BAAAA" and raise you two hefty bollocks!

>
>The others go "A trolling we will go, A trolling we will go, Eee, aye addy
>oh, A trolling we will go!"

I gather you have another 4 days off with nothing better to do? Any
more of this musical "trolling" Moshe and I may have to seriously
consider allegedly "killfiling" you.

>~

;o)

>
>David

Jonty (aka Charles)

In article <V6gii.3053$Od7.1664@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink. net>, "David
Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote
> > Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, David Cohen wrote:
> >>
> >> > What an amazing steaming load of crap!
> >>
> >> No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
> >> you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
> >> General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.
> >
> > When making a joke or being sarcastic, one should put the :-) or one might
> > be mistaken for an idiot.
>
> He's not an idiot. He's quite intelligent.

That has been my experience with him also, so rather than call him an
idiot, I hoped he was being sarcastic.

> That's what's so sad, and scary.
> The British have gone down the Nanny State Sheep Herd road, and most of the
> otherwise intelligent Brits have gone "BAA BAAA BAAAA".

Stunning, sad, and true :-(

>
> David

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

In article <willbrink-0207071920360001@192.168.2.156>,
willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707021930260.13405@urchin.earth.li >, Tom
> Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, David Cohen wrote:
> >
> > > What an amazing steaming load of crap!
> >
> > No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
> > you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
> > General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.
>
> When making a joke or being sarcastic, one should put the :-) or one might
> be mistaken for an idiot.

He is actually correct...

If I point a gun at someone that is trying to mug me, and they RUN, I
can NOT shoot them in the back.

Sux but it then becomes armed assault on my part.

I am not a police officer.
I cannot pursue.

Once I am no longer officially in danger, I lose the right to use deadly
force.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <omp_omelet-0429B8.08304503072007@news.giganews.com>, Omelet
<omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <willbrink-0207071920360001@192.168.2.156>,
> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707021930260.13405@urchin.earth.li >, Tom
> > Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, David Cohen wrote:
> > >
> > > > What an amazing steaming load of crap!
> > >
> > > No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
> > > you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
> > > General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.
> >
> > When making a joke or being sarcastic, one should put the :-) or one might
> > be mistaken for an idiot.
>
> He is actually correct...
>
> If I point a gun at someone that is trying to mug me, and they RUN, I
> can NOT shoot them in the back.

Very poor example. The two are not the same at all.

You may want to re think that one.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

In article <willbrink-0307071105500001@192.168.2.156>,
willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:

> In article <omp_omelet-0429B8.08304503072007@news.giganews.com>, Omelet
> <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <willbrink-0207071920360001@192.168.2.156>,
> > willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707021930260.13405@urchin.earth.li >, Tom
> > > Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, David Cohen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What an amazing steaming load of crap!
> > > >
> > > > No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
> > > > you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
> > > > General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.
> > >
> > > When making a joke or being sarcastic, one should put the :-) or one might
> > > be mistaken for an idiot.
> >
> > He is actually correct...
> >
> > If I point a gun at someone that is trying to mug me, and they RUN, I
> > can NOT shoot them in the back.
>
> Very poor example. The two are not the same at all.
>
> You may want to re think that one.

In that case, I'm missing something...
What was the original example please?
I think part of the thread did not come thru on my server.

tia.

In the case of the self-defense thing in Britain, we already know that
some of their zero tolerance laws are a bit over the top.

Just like our newer zero tolerance school rules that will expel two kids
for fighting, even if one was attacked and defended himself. We have to
allow ourselves to get beat up nowadays instead?
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <1183478801.822781.109800@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups .com>,
Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

> Om wrote:
> > Will Brink wrote:
> > > Tom Anderson wrote:
> > > > David Cohen wrote:
> >
> > > > > What an amazing steaming load of crap!
> >
> > > > No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
> > > > you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
> > > > General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.
> >
> > > When making a joke or being sarcastic, one should put the :-) or one might
> > > be mistaken for an idiot.
> >
> > He is actually correct...
> >
> > If I point a gun at someone that is trying to mug me, and they RUN, I
> > can NOT shoot them in the back.
>
> But a vigilante could.
>
> > Sux but it then becomes armed assault on my part.
>
> A vigilante wouldn't care.
>
> > I am not a police officer.
> > I cannot pursue.
>
> Yeah, but a vigilante could.
>
> > Once I am no longer officially in danger, I lose the right to use deadly
> > force.
>
> But a vigilante would be proactive.
>

And a Vigilante would go to jail...

Carrying a self-defense weapon does not make everyone that does it a
"vigilante".

If you wish to depend on 911 "dial a prayer" be my guest.
A helluva lot can happen in the 15 to 60 minutes it can take for the
cops to show up.

It takes less than 5 seconds to die.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Om wrote:
> Will Brink wrote:
> > Tom Anderson wrote:
> > > David Cohen wrote:
>
> > > > What an amazing steaming load of crap!
>
> > > No, he's right. It's like the Tony Martin case - self-defence is when
> > > you're defending yourself; if the guy is running away and you get all
> > > General Belgrano on him, it's just assault.
>
> > When making a joke or being sarcastic, one should put the :-) or one might
> > be mistaken for an idiot.
>
> He is actually correct...
>
> If I point a gun at someone that is trying to mug me, and they RUN, I
> can NOT shoot them in the back.

But a vigilante could.

> Sux but it then becomes armed assault on my part.

A vigilante wouldn't care.

> I am not a police officer.
> I cannot pursue.

Yeah, but a vigilante could.

> Once I am no longer officially in danger, I lose the right to use deadly
> force.

But a vigilante would be proactive.

"Hey, I might be 'officially in danger' in the future, so why not
blast him now?"

Of course, I suspect, for the vigilante to dial 911 in the event that
things went wrong - say the now-fleeing bad guy has a vest on and also
a TEC-9 in his jacket and reacts to being shot in the back with,
something like, "Awwww HELL no!" with a follow-up, um, volley (spray?
whazza good Donald Goines-esque word there?) of bullets at the
aforementioned and suddenly unfortunate vigilante - it would be
somewhat akin to a drug dealer dialing 911 if someone stole their
marijuana.

"I want justice! I want results! I want my pot back, officers! Get to
investigating! In fact, I've got a list of suspects right here. What?
What do you mean? Get those cuffs off of me! Well, isn't this an
amazing steaming load of crap?! Your trolling is getting REAL close to
that fine line again, officers. Is there ANYTHING I could dial 911
about that would
not get an asinine response from you? Does it not bother you that you
are so controlled by the laws currently on the book...that all the
average citizen or, hey, what I like to call the herbal entrepreneur
have to do is break the law and you are driven to respond? Do the
puppet strings get in the way when you play policemen's ball? No,
officer, I don't know what that means. Right, I understand you don't
play policeman's ball. Yes. No sir. Okay. Would it be okay if I
purchase a ticket to the next ball? The Police Athletic League then?
No. Hey, I can duck my head on my own. Is this really necessary?"

--
Curt

In article <1183478801.822781.109800@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups .com>,
Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

> "I want justice! I want results! I want my pot back, officers!

So are you picking on me now just because I don't like Rap music Curt?

That's kinda petty. :-(
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Om wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > Om wrote:
[...]

> > > Sux but it then becomes armed assault on my part.
>
> > A vigilante wouldn't care.
>
> > > I am not a police officer.
> > > I cannot pursue.
>
> > Yeah, but a vigilante could.
>
> > > Once I am no longer officially in danger, I lose the right to use deadly
> > > force.
>
> > But a vigilante would be proactive.
>
> And a Vigilante would go to jail...

If caught.

> Carrying a self-defense weapon does not make everyone that does it a
> "vigilante".

Agreed. But those carrying a self-defense weapon must meet certain
rule of engagement, yes? Trust me, I'm on the side of common sense on
this one. (But I realize that what can be defined as common sense
varies tremendously depending on a person's judgment and/or job
requirements.)

> If you wish to depend on 911 "dial a prayer" be my guest.

The shopkeeper at the end of Brink's link chose not to depend on the
UK version of 911. He apparently was met with frustration over police
inaction during previous thefts.

> A helluva lot can happen in the 15 to 60 minutes it can take for the
> cops to show up.

True.

> It takes less than 5 seconds to die.

Instantaneous at times, I'm guessing.

--
Curt

Om rote:
> Curt wrote:
> > "I want justice! I want results! I want my pot back, officers!
>
> So are you picking on me

No. Explanation to follow.

> now

Not ever, afaik. At least not seriously or mean-spiritedly (is that a
word? Terriblist!).

> just because I don't like Rap music Curt?

WHAT? How can you not?!

> That's kinda petty. :-(

Hey, I was a petty officer. I guess it goes with the territory. ;o)

Seriously, Om, I wasn't picking on you at all.

I was, more or less, picking on Cohen. Using a variation of slight
substitution of his words in a fictional exchange between a lawbreaker
and the police.

Brink posted his link and I replied. Part jest, part serious,
apparently all offensive to David.

My post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....2d544329a61500
aka http://tinyurl.com/2nfr7w

David's response:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....91eca1c65b5d50
aka http://tinyurl.com/3a5yad

And so on, and so on...

I agree with you (and Brink, for that matter) that a person should
have the right to defend himself. I obviously differ with Brink and
Cohen (and others, I'm certain) on how far that right should extend.

Regardless, EVERYONE ~*BETTER*~ LIKE RAP!

(i keed!)

--
Curt

In article <1183479955.226504.262930@k79g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

> Om wrote:
> > Curt wrote:
> > > Om wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > > Sux but it then becomes armed assault on my part.
> >
> > > A vigilante wouldn't care.
> >
> > > > I am not a police officer.
> > > > I cannot pursue.
> >
> > > Yeah, but a vigilante could.
> >
> > > > Once I am no longer officially in danger, I lose the right to use deadly
> > > > force.
> >
> > > But a vigilante would be proactive.
> >
> > And a Vigilante would go to jail...
>
> If caught.

The odds are pretty good. ;-)

>
> > Carrying a self-defense weapon does not make everyone that does it a
> > "vigilante".
>
> Agreed. But those carrying a self-defense weapon must meet certain
> rule of engagement, yes? Trust me, I'm on the side of common sense on
> this one. (But I realize that what can be defined as common sense
> varies tremendously depending on a person's judgment and/or job
> requirements.)

Believe me, the "rules of engagement" are well set out.
You have to take a class and pass 2 federal background checks before
being issued a license.

They don't just issue them to anyone you know.
In fact, that's why cops often like us so much. They know we are law
abiding citizens and willing to take some personal responsibility.

Before being issued a license, you are expected to know the laws AND
prove you are able to actually handle a weapon.

Here is a good section that I keep handy for law discussions on tx.guns:

<http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes...e.002.00.00000
9.00.htm>


>
> > If you wish to depend on 911 "dial a prayer" be my guest.
>
> The shopkeeper at the end of Brink's link chose not to depend on the
> UK version of 911. He apparently was met with frustration over police
> inaction during previous thefts.

Do you blame him?
According to Texas Law I can actually use deadly force to stop someone
from running off with purloined property.

Would I? Probably not, unless he robbed me of weapons as that would make
him dangerous to others. Running off with my TV or DVD player? No.

That's what home owners insurance is for.

I'm not going to take a human life over "stuff".
I have a bit more respect for life than that, even scumbag life...
Property ID for pawning is my responsibility.

I could also always sick Ebony and Ferocious on him. ;-)
Might make him drop it at the very least.


>
> > A helluva lot can happen in the 15 to 60 minutes it can take for the
> > cops to show up.
>
> True.
>
> > It takes less than 5 seconds to die.
>
> Instantaneous at times, I'm guessing.

Indeed. :-(

>
> --
> Curt
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <1183480551.477925.203060@57g2000hsv.googlegroups. com>,
Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

> Om rote:
> > Curt wrote:
> > > "I want justice! I want results! I want my pot back, officers!
> >
> > So are you picking on me
>
> No. Explanation to follow.
>
> > now
>
> Not ever, afaik. At least not seriously or mean-spiritedly (is that a
> word? Terriblist!).
>
> > just because I don't like Rap music Curt?
>
> WHAT? How can you not?!
>
> > That's kinda petty. :-(
>
> Hey, I was a petty officer. I guess it goes with the territory. ;o)
>
> Seriously, Om, I wasn't picking on you at all.
>
> I was, more or less, picking on Cohen. Using a variation of slight
> substitution of his words in a fictional exchange between a lawbreaker
> and the police.
>
> Brink posted his link and I replied. Part jest, part serious,
> apparently all offensive to David.
>
> My post:
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc....2d544329a61500
> aka http://tinyurl.com/2nfr7w
>
> David's response:
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc....91eca1c65b5d50
> aka http://tinyurl.com/3a5yad
>
> And so on, and so on...
>
> I agree with you (and Brink, for that matter) that a person should
> have the right to defend himself. I obviously differ with Brink and
> Cohen (and others, I'm certain) on how far that right should extend.

Ok, but you were responding to MY post! ;-o
And without proper attribution! <sniffles>

>
> Regardless, EVERYONE ~*BETTER*~ LIKE RAP!
>
> (i keed!)

I know. ;-)
Everybody is entitled to varying tastes in "music", just like with
foodstuffs...

Rap makes me feel angry.
I don't like that.


>
> --
> Curt
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson