StarGateWars Forums

Cole wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:@jim, yep...live bullets= real ammunition.


@Lith, i have a question...have people become so spineless-so incapable of governing themselves that they need Govt to do everything for them?
Before you answer that, keep this in mind...the power of arrest comes from common law and was the right of every person on the land. police forces were created (correct if wrong) to organise citizens whose job it was to keep the peace. to do that they needed powers of arrest and those powers were granted to the newly created police force by the citizens who lived in common law. that power has been usurped by Govt. try to arrest a burglar (or looter) and see what happens to you.

People being able to arrest others? Lol I could see this overly abused (skirmish between neighboors, one arrests the other because he broke a minor rule, or even worst, they arrest each others lol).

Rely on the "people" and many will use it for personal reasons. Even though the yungthugs taking opportunity here aren't the brightest kind, don't expect 'more respectable" citizens to be flawless if such a way of policing was to be brought back...

If I saw someone committing a crime, I could issue a citizen's arrest of that person. Depending on the crime, I could even use force, upto and including deadly. The streets of Texas are not red. People are not routinely false imprisoned by their neighbors.

Lithium wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:@jim, yep...live bullets= real ammunition.


@Lith, i have a question...have people become so spineless-so incapable of governing themselves that they need Govt to do everything for them?
Before you answer that, keep this in mind...the power of arrest comes from common law and was the right of every person on the land. police forces were created (correct if wrong) to organise citizens whose job it was to keep the peace. to do that they needed powers of arrest and those powers were granted to the newly created police force by the citizens who lived in common law. that power has been usurped by Govt. try to arrest a burglar (or looter) and see what happens to you.

man my question was very simple , anyway im answering u: yes a lot of peaple have become that because the power that gov has , police and other structures has been abused in different levels, starting from personal gain to controlling the population.

Sometimes simple questions require more complex answers for full understanding.

All the power Govt has is based on the peoples consent-or better known as the consent of the governed. Govt itself has ZERO power. in short, the power is granted to the Govt by the people.

Cole wrote:People being able to arrest others?

have you never heard of citizens arrest?

Cole wrote:Lol I could see this overly abused (skirmish between neighboors, one arrests the other because he broke a minor rule, or even worst, they arrest each others lol).

Rely on the "people" and many will use it for personal reasons. Even though the yungthugs taking opportunity here aren't the brightest kind, don't expect 'more respectable" citizens to be flawless if such a way of policing was to be brought back...

Brought back?! the people never lost that right. people still have the right because it is common law the right of arrest belongs to the people and not Govt...see my reply to Lith.

You may have the right to arrest someone - in theory. But practically, it is infinitely more complex, especially if force is required.

Take an example: a man with a knife breaks into your house. You come downstairs with a baseball bat. He drops his puny knife and turns to run. You jump him from behind, knock him down and he breaks his leg. You were being perfectly responsible (ie: didn't take a swing at him with the bat), but equally you broke the guy's leg and sat on him till the police came. The law would not support your actions - it was not self defence for there was no immediate danger to you - he was unarmed and running away. You would likely be prosecuted for some form of assault, potentially aggravated.

Camoron declared that riots have as objective looting and etc and are not against the GOV.
compensation will be given to ppl.

issue solved , crime infected the protest that were aiming the system and so far with some damages the gov saved the face.

[BoT] Jack wrote:

Cole wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:@jim, yep...live bullets= real ammunition.


@Lith, i have a question...have people become so spineless-so incapable of governing themselves that they need Govt to do everything for them?
Before you answer that, keep this in mind...the power of arrest comes from common law and was the right of every person on the land. police forces were created (correct if wrong) to organise citizens whose job it was to keep the peace. to do that they needed powers of arrest and those powers were granted to the newly created police force by the citizens who lived in common law. that power has been usurped by Govt. try to arrest a burglar (or looter) and see what happens to you.

People being able to arrest others? Lol I could see this overly abused (skirmish between neighboors, one arrests the other because he broke a minor rule, or even worst, they arrest each others lol).

Rely on the "people" and many will use it for personal reasons. Even though the yungthugs taking opportunity here aren't the brightest kind, don't expect 'more respectable" citizens to be flawless if such a way of policing was to be brought back...

If I saw someone committing a crime, I could issue a citizen's arrest of that person. Depending on the crime, I could even use force, upto and including deadly. The streets of Texas are not red. People are not routinely false imprisoned by their neighbors.

While the citizen's arrest is a good notion by itself, implementing it in a chaotic situation where there is distrust and hatred seething between many people is asking for trouble. It would have been a good idea, had it been implemented at a time there was less tension.

RepliMagni wrote:You may have the right to arrest someone - in theory. But practically, it is infinitely more complex, especially if force is required.

Take an example: a man with a knife breaks into your house. You come downstairs with a baseball bat. He drops his puny knife and turns to run. You jump him from behind, knock him down and he breaks his leg. You were being perfectly responsible (ie: didn't take a swing at him with the bat), but equally you broke the guy's leg and sat on him till the police came. The law would not support your actions - it was not self defence for there was no immediate danger to you - he was unarmed and running away. You would likely be prosecuted for some form of assault, potentially aggravated.

So, what you own is in fact not your property because you have no right to defend it or else you can be prosecuted for whatever reason? Looks to me similar to how some world armies are invading other countries for whatever reasons (i.e. searching for wmds) and those countries should not interfere to defend their territory or else they are tagged to support terrorism???

RepliMagni wrote:You may have the right to arrest someone - in theory. But practically, it is infinitely more complex, especially if force is required.

Take an example: a man with a knife breaks into your house. You come downstairs with a baseball bat. He drops his puny knife and turns to run. You jump him from behind, knock him down and he breaks his leg. You were being perfectly responsible (ie: didn't take a swing at him with the bat), but equally you broke the guy's leg and sat on him till the police came. The law would not support your actions - it was not self defence for there was no immediate danger to you - he was unarmed and running away. You would likely be prosecuted for some form of assault, potentially aggravated.

Oh, don't get me wrong, i wasn't trying to say a citizens arrest would be easy, lord knows how difficult it can be a copper sometimes.
Nonetheless, a group (or even an individual) of determined citizens willing to risk injury or worse can-if needs be execute an arrest should the need arise, and said individuals are capable enough.

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:So, what you own is in fact not your property because you have no right to defend it or else you can be prosecuted for whatever reason?

My understanding is that you can only use "reasonable force" - if the person in that example had continued to approach you with said knife, they you'd be well within you rights to break his leg (potentially even kill him if he takes a swipe at you). However, if his back is turned and he is leaving (even if he trashed your place) you have no right to injure him. Perform a citizen's arrest? Perhaps. But tell me how you do that without causing injury - cos then you're technically attacking him.

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:So, what you own is in fact not your property because you have no right to defend it or else you can be prosecuted for whatever reason? Looks to me similar to how some world armies are invading other countries for whatever reasons (i.e. searching for wmds) and those countries should not interfere to defend their territory or else they are tagged to support terrorism???

It is exactly that. Law of the strongest and all.

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:

RepliMagni wrote:You may have the right to arrest someone - in theory. But practically, it is infinitely more complex, especially if force is required.

Take an example: a man with a knife breaks into your house. You come downstairs with a baseball bat. He drops his puny knife and turns to run. You jump him from behind, knock him down and he breaks his leg. You were being perfectly responsible (ie: didn't take a swing at him with the bat), but equally you broke the guy's leg and sat on him till the police came. The law would not support your actions - it was not self defence for there was no immediate danger to you - he was unarmed and running away. You would likely be prosecuted for some form of assault, potentially aggravated.

So, what you own is in fact not your property because you have no right to defend it or else you can be prosecuted for whatever reason? Looks to me similar to how some world armies are invading other countries for whatever reasons (i.e. searching for wmds) and those countries should not interfere to defend their territory or else they are tagged to support terrorism???

It's *not* the same. What you used as example would be similar to a detective getting into your house to find clues about your guiltyness for whatever kind of affair he's investigating. Problem would be, does he have a mandate etc...*NOT* comparable to a robber getting into your house to steal your TV or whatever he wants to steal! But I would agree it's still getting into your house without your consent.

Removed

RepliMagni wrote:

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:So, what you own is in fact not your property because you have no right to defend it or else you can be prosecuted for whatever reason?

My understanding is that you can only use "reasonable force" - if the person in that example had continued to approach you with said knife, they you'd be well within you rights to break his leg (potentially even kill him if he takes a swipe at you). However, if his back is turned and he is leaving (even if he trashed your place) you have no right to injure him. Perform a citizen's arrest? Perhaps. But tell me how you do that without causing injury - cos then you're technically attacking him.

The law is changing : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ution.html

They will now be allowed to use reasonable force if they perceive a threat to their property. Previously they could act only when they feared for their lives.

If the intruder drops the knife and tries to run they are still on the private property and still a threat. Even if it is obvious they are running for the door you still can't say for sure that they are running out, they could easily run upstairs and if you have children up there then you are well within rights to use force even if they are unarmed.

Also you give examples about knives, but what about unarmed burglars, they are on the property but they are still a threat.

If they attempt to burgle you then they deserve EVERYTHING you throw at them.

Also if they did drop the knife and try and run and you grabbed them, beat them and held them down until the police arrive.... who knows the true story besides yourself and the robber? Who will believe a piece of scum over the homeowner. Sometimes these can be worked out by forensics and crime scene investigators, but with a knife on the floor you can easily claim you knocked it out of their hand and beat them to defend yourself.

Me personally, i don't give a **Filtered** what the law says, anyone breaks into my home better kill me first before they do what they come to do, because if i catch them first i will bury them under my shed and the law can go to hell!

bunch of peasents rioting because Tories have to sort out the place after the free ride Labour gave everyone. Just arrest everyone with a hood or foreign accent and then use summary execution as a means to keep the prisons care free.
"But I only stole a tv!"
"Yeah but if you're not happy with the exceptionally good life you have you ungrateful simpleton then you don't need it do you?"

As for the young man that was shot... I have no sympathy at all. In fact... i'd even say great! Idiot shouldn't have possesed a weapon and shot at the police should he? I don't see why there is any debate or even grounds for a peaceful protest.

Semper wrote:bunch of peasents rioting because Tories have to sort out the place after the free ride Labour gave everyone. Just arrest everyone with a hood or foreign accent and then use summary execution as a means to keep the prisons care free.
"But I only stole a tv!"
"Yeah but if you're not happy with the exceptionally good life you have you ungrateful simpleton then you don't need it do you?"

Errm that would be a mistake, because as far as I've read, it wasn't every minority that involved themselves into it. Infact, some of the minorities were targets of the robbing as well...
Also, there were some "britons" involved in the riots as well from what I heard..