Soldato
If you believe someone may do that, is it "bad" to kill him to prevent harm to yourself and others ?
James Bulger killer back in prison
- Thread starter the shadow
- Start date
- Status
If you believe someone may do that, is it "bad" to kill him to prevent harm to yourself and others ?
Britain really doesn't have a decent self defense law. If you kill a guy who breaks into your house and endangers your family, you will be put in prison. End of. Anything that is against the law is deemed "bad". So yes it is bad.
Soldato
Some trolls are funny, some trolls make you wonder what colour the sky is on their planet, this troll however, just makes me wonder if too much masturbation can shrink your brain.
Associate
So umm, what are your credentials then? Why should any of us believe what you are saying is either accurate or correct, in both technical and moral terms?
Just because you know how to argue to the point of pendantry doesn't make you smarter than everyone else. Majority opinion is that you're an idiot, please stop trying to justify your ridiculous statements and go troll somewhere else.
Depends on the situation and the evidence backing up your belief.
A) you see a man in the street he looks at you funny you believe his will do this. -No.
B) you go down stairs at night investigating a noise and see well armed man downstairs -yeah I'd say take him by surprise with a fatal attack would be ok.
Soldato
Can i just assume he is well armed, even though i am not certain?
(we are not talking about the law here fyi, just what you personally think is ok)
No you won't.
Britain has a pretty robust self defence law.
If someone breaks in and you attack them with reasonable force it's ok.
if at the time you deem it reasonable and necessary to kill him (he has a gun so you whack him in the back of the head once and he dies).
Continue to beat a disabled threat to death (ie on floor unable to move/act) - yes you'll get arrested.
Chase a man from your hosue call your brothers and beat him half to death in the street with a cricket bat = yeah you're probbaly going to prison.
What you see in the news papers is that people are charged/arrested following lawful use of self defence.
Which is only reasonable that they be arrested and investigated, other wise you are taking them solely at their word.
If the charges are dropped it will never appear in the news papers again, if they are pressed then you will.
If i didn't see a weapon I'd personally assume he had at least a knife and treat it as such.
I'd probably whack him in the back of the head tbh.
Once he's down see how it goes really.
But if the one hit put him out I wouldn't keep smashing his head in till he was dead (even if he was armed)
Soldato
Lock this thread and ban XGaffer already, for **** sake people this thread was about the murderer of a toddler and you've let this pathetic excuse for a human being side track into petty arguments about self defense laws.
Associate
Not all of science is fact, in fact I heard there's a lot of religious people around that choose not to believe science but their own faith?
You seem to think you're above the law, no-one is above the law. Whether you like it or not, the law is the law, and if you break it you will be punished accordingly. Anyway, we are discussing the law on Murder, which hasn't changed since the Homicide Act of 1957 (Oh yeah, I got that from my fake A Level by the way...)
Your thinking is completely rubbish. The Government would never pass a law like that, why? Because you can't enforce it maybe? Because it's pointless maybe? The Law is there for our own protection, whether you like it or not, and the basic laws of offences against the person, such as Murder, Manslaughter, Assault, GBH, ABH etc etc all haven't changed for a substantial amount of years.
Your thinking is beyond me.
EDIT: You're letting your politics conflict with the English Legal System. That's where you're wrong, well, that among others...
back to your original point.
Is a person who tortures a 3 year old a bad person? (lets assume the child did not die)
Are they above or below a solider who kills an enemy in combat on your moral scale?
Associate
There was no original point, Gaff is clearly here to just stir things up. Some people just seem to get a kick out of it. Diverting the attention of such topics away from the original focus and onto... themself!
Tefal: A soldier that kills an enemy combatant is worse than torturing a child because you have taken someones life (which you have no right to) and you only live once. At least the child survived and got to live the rest of his life (let's assume said child goes on to die of natural causes)
Soldato
Please just ban this guy.
Soldato
If it was a choice between your life and someone else's what would you do?
Associate
I am going to apologise for arguing so much, and letting the thread go off course.
Right, back to the OP.
Is it just me that finds that video still really really chilling, after knowing what happened a few minutes after that was taken...
The interesting thing about the case (if I remember rightly, I may be wrong) is that when the two boys were questioned when in Police custody, they were obviously only both JUST of Criminal Responsibility age(10 in UK), and when asked if they knew what they were doing, they both said yes, and that's why they were prosecuted.
Just so shocking how boys of that age were aware of what they were doing, and found nothing wrong with it Horrible case.
Right, back to the OP.
Is it just me that finds that video still really really chilling, after knowing what happened a few minutes after that was taken...
The interesting thing about the case (if I remember rightly, I may be wrong) is that when the two boys were questioned when in Police custody, they were obviously only both JUST of Criminal Responsibility age(10 in UK), and when asked if they knew what they were doing, they both said yes, and that's why they were prosecuted.
Just so shocking how boys of that age were aware of what they were doing, and found nothing wrong with it
Horrible case.Show where i have broken any rules first? Just because you're getting offended doesn't warrant a ban.
Tank: I'd run. Fast. That way i'd avoid both outcomes.
Associate
From the FAQ/rules:
Those who post for the sole purpose of causing trouble are not welcome here and will be dealt with accordingly.
None of my posts were intended to cause trouble. Everything i have said was my true honest opinion and had no intent to cause trouble. They may have been controversial yes, but i wasn't "trolling".
- Status