Taking the law into your own hands
Discussion
Digby said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Digby said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Digby said:
So in the example I gave above, you would go hunting for a guard or simply stand for the entire journey?
Yeh, that's an absolutely cram-full train. Not a single empty seat on it.
I'm genuinely curious to know what you and those who think like you would do.
But - if you really want an answer, then - no, I would not physically assault a child, and I'd be ensuring that anybody who I did see physically assault a child was reported to the police for it at the first opportunity. No matter how loathsome the child.
Well done.
InitialDave said:
"Sir, the private believes any answer he gives will be wrong and the Senior Drill Instructor will only beat him harder if he reverses himself."
Because I am hard, you will not like me. But the more you hate me, the more you will learn.How lovely to know there are people on here who would report their own Father for trying to move some cocky t
ts legs off a chair. 
La Liga said:
And stopped the abuse" conveniently skips over the assaulting a child part as you make up a fictional scenario to make you 'right'.
The "assault" (hard to say without laughing) would probably be less painful than me being dragged from my seat and made to apologise should my parents have happened upon me being arm locked by this old guy.The world got soft and is paying the price.
Digby said:
Because I am hard, you will not like me. But the more you hate me, the more you will learn.
So you would stand by and watch an adult physically assault a child, reported as being between 8-11yo or 8/9yo, would you? Perhaps you'd have got in there first? I mean, you're clearly a violent man and proud of it.A punch and an armlock are perfectly acceptable in that circumstance?
At what stage would you say it ceased to be acceptable? Several punches? Punch to the head? Putting the boot in?
Would it be different if the child was female?
Would it be different if you suddenly recognised the child? Maybe a friend's child, or a member of your extended family?
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Tuesday 26th July 18:13
Digby said:
That's a quote from Full Metal Jacket by the way.
That's nice, dear.Digby said:
Every situation will be different. I would evaluate and react accordingly to any given situation.
So, by refusing to say you condemn any of those situations - are you're saying that there may be times when it's perfectly appropriate for a grown adult to punch a small child repeatedly, or in the head, or put the boot in?Digby said:
I wouldn't report my Father to the police for doing what this guy did.
What if it was some other adult?I see, you need examples?
If said child were about to shoot my child, friend, relative or random person, you could blow their head off or set them on fire for all I care.
If said child were the child in this story, I wouldn't report my own Father for doing what this guy did. You admit you would and as sad as that is to me, it's obviously up to you.
Other than that, as I said, I would evaluate and react accordingly to any given situation.
Here's another example: If you see a group of teenagers about to set fire to an animal, you could call the police and wait for them to arrive and put out its smouldering corpse, or you could swing a bike chain at them to fend them off and save the animal.
Obviously, if it were your dog or cat etc, I would expect the police to take me away..
..and was in response to the FMJ quote used before mine. Even nicer.
If said child were about to shoot my child, friend, relative or random person, you could blow their head off or set them on fire for all I care.
If said child were the child in this story, I wouldn't report my own Father for doing what this guy did. You admit you would and as sad as that is to me, it's obviously up to you.
Other than that, as I said, I would evaluate and react accordingly to any given situation.
Here's another example: If you see a group of teenagers about to set fire to an animal, you could call the police and wait for them to arrive and put out its smouldering corpse, or you could swing a bike chain at them to fend them off and save the animal.
Obviously, if it were your dog or cat etc, I would expect the police to take me away..
TooMany2cvs said:
Digby said:
That's a quote from Full Metal Jacket by the way.
That's nice, dear.Edited by Digby on Tuesday 26th July 18:38
Digby said:
..and was in response to the FMJ quote used before mine. Even nicer.
I was having a bit of a rib because I genuinely think there's no answer he could've given that wouldn't have resulted in some form of high-horse response, sorry.TooMany2cvs said:
Blimey! Two seconds ago, the child just had its feet on the seat and was being cheeky. Now it's a sodding armed mass-murderer...
That's what happens if you don't nip the small, feet-on-the-seats stuff in the bud, clearly.TooMany2cvs said:
Blimey! Two seconds ago, the child just had its feet on the seat and was being cheeky. Now it's a sodding armed mass-murderer...
Said child could obviously do whatever they like if they happen to be sitting with people like yourself.Imagine if you were on a family outing and all your relatives dived in to stop the shootings. You would need dozens of pens for all those reports.
pim said:
He should have reacted a lot quicker to the bullying.I don't like it when you mention a proper kicking that is the act of a coward.One kick to head could be fatal don't teach him that.
Just for absolute clarity he's had the following drummed into him from a young age:- Avoid violence if at all possible.
- If you are going to hit someone in self defence, make sure they don't get up again, do it properly
- Once they are down, walk away.
TooMany2cvs said:
Step away from the Daily Mail.
Sorry if it came across that way, but I wouldn't read that rag even if you paid me!!!I vaguely remember the government trying to get rid of some 'cleric' recently, & got foiled at every turn by the Human Rights act. Not saying its right or wrong, just that there seem to be many unforeseen consequences resulting from well intentioned ideas.....
Biker 1 said:
I vaguely remember the government trying to get rid of some 'cleric' recently, & got foiled at every turn by the Human Rights act.
That's the way it was pitched by the press. The HRA wasn't even remotely relevant, since it was the European Court of Human Rights which ultimately blocked the extradition, not a UK court (although they had previously blocked it).The reality was that the UK government were trying to extradite Abu Qatada without actually getting any assurances that he'd get a fair trail, without the use of evidence obtained by torture.
Strangely, once those assurance were given by the Jordanian government, he was extradited without problem, tried and cleared of all charges. At that stage, he'd spent TWELVE YEARS in UK prisons without being charged with anything, let alone tried and found guilty. Back in the late 90s, he'd been found guilty of terrorism charges in Jordan - but UK courts found that those convictions had been based on evidence gained by torture.
Now, I dunno about you, but I don't think that relying on torture to have any hope of anything resembling a conviction is particularly laudable...
rxe said:
Just for absolute clarity he's had the following drummed into him from a young age:
- Avoid violence if at all possible.
- If you are going to hit someone in self defence, make sure they don't get up again, do it properly
- Once they are down, walk away.
Sounds like you're doing a decent job with how you're raising him, carry on.- Avoid violence if at all possible.
- If you are going to hit someone in self defence, make sure they don't get up again, do it properly
- Once they are down, walk away.
It always amazes me that people don't understand that you can never tell who you're getting into a fight with, and so you should always do whatever you can to avoid such a confrontation - but if it's not avoidable, and you're complerely sure of that, you can't afford to piss about.
Plus the previously mentioned issue that little chavvy s
ts have nothing to fear from getting into trouble, when it can really fk things up for anyone vaguely respectable.mph1977 said:
and you take this to mean it supports vigilantism ?
Don't presume- you don't have the intelligence. I take this to mean that if you can't back up ideals with actions then the ideals don't matter.I don't believe kids should be immune from the consequences of their actions but this also applies to adults attempting to chastise them.
mph1977 said:
i suspect you also support the 2nd amendment mis-readers in the US as well ?
Suspect whatever you like. You don't know what I think and I can't be bothered to inform you.InitialDave said:
mph1977 said:
i suspect you also support the 2nd amendment mis-readers in the US as well ?
Against my better judgement, I'll bite: Who are you referring to, and what are they mis-reading?and the mis reading is the existence of the well regulated militia ( i.e. the Sheriffs dept / local police and any reserve 'sheriff's posse' and the National guard )
Digby said:
La Liga said:
And stopped the abuse" conveniently skips over the assaulting a child part as you make up a fictional scenario to make you 'right'.
The "assault" (hard to say without laughing) would probably be less painful than me being dragged from my seat and made to apologise should my parents have happened upon me being arm locked by this old guy.The world got soft and is paying the price.
mph1977 said:
Mr Roving of the family Hawk
and the mis reading is the existence of the well regulated militia ( i.e. the Sheriffs dept / local police and any reserve 'sheriff's posse' and the National guard )
I don't know who that is.and the mis reading is the existence of the well regulated militia ( i.e. the Sheriffs dept / local police and any reserve 'sheriff's posse' and the National guard )
But luckily, if it comes up again, the US Supreme Court have covered it a few times, so anyone saying the 2nd amendment only allows the ownership of firearms as part of aforementioned militia is categorically wrong:
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
US Supreme Court said:
In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff