Air America breaking news: "USA to fingerprint ALL visitors !!!"

Peter Kemp wrote in
news
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 02:01:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:

Peter Kemp wrote in
m:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby
wrote:

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at the
wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done
since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered? Or the other one (and
I can't recall any violent convicitons for him either) whose is
admittedly a miserable git?

Why are you so concerned about criminals shot while committing a
crime,and not for the poor guy who suffered repeated burglaries?

Two reasons, because in the UK burglarly doesn't carry a death penalty

Does the UK have the death penalty for any crime?


without trial, especially when there was no risk to life or limb, and
I have not a huge amount of sympathy for someone who shot a teenager
in the back using an illegal weapon he obtained for that express
purpose. I have sympathy for his previous burglaries, but consider
that human life is somewhat more valuable than property. I suspect we
disagree.

I don't consider ALL human life as being more valuable than -my-
property.Some people aren't worth the air they breathe.



Shooting the crims was a public service.

Nice to see you approve of the death sentance for petty criminals.

Shooting a person is not always a death sentence,often the criminals are
merely wounded,and apprehended while seeking medical treatment for gunshot
wounds.But it's their choice,their risk.


One has to draw the line somewhere;the guy should not have to suffer
repeated burglaries,and he HAD tried the police with no effect.I don't
believe in "career criminals" either;there should be some point at which
the "career criminal" loses their life,rather than have them continue their
life of crime,or live comfortably in prison,at the citizen's expense.If you
don't want to get shot,don't commit burglaries.Let the criminals bear the
risks,not the ordinary decent citizens.Your way just protects the criminals
in the commission of their crimes,in essence enabling them.When such
burglaries becomes too risky,burglaries decrease,a public
service.Burglaries cost everyone money.

What next, drive-by shootings for speeding?

Kind of hard to hit the target from a moving platform,and stray rounds
would negatively impact others.And 'speeding' is a relative
term,anyways.IMO,not always a crime.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Peter Kemp wrote in
news
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 02:01:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:



Shooting the crims was a public service.

Nice to see you approve of the death sentance for petty criminals.
What next, drive-by shootings for speeding?

You obviously don't know the difference between a civil traffic violation
and a felony crime.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

Oh, and defending your home is not illegal, the emphasis in the UK is
defending your *life*, and to use reasonable force (where reasonable
force does *not*include waiting for burglars with an illegally held
shorgun, then shooting one of them in the back).

...in the dark, in the wee hours of the morning, in a remote area, when
the police wouldn't do much of anything...

Which is a policing problem, not a legal one.

So your claim is that people can't police their own homes, but the
police don't have to, either? No wonder the crime rate's going up so
fast over there.

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at the
wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered?

"Murdered" suggests some sort of innocence. If he didn't want to risk
his life, he shouldn't have committed the crime. Ranks right up there
with idiots who get killed doing other stupid things, like walking on
railroad tracks. I can't believe you're defending a criminal who died
while committing a potentially-violent crime.

Or the other one (and I can't recall any violent convicitons for him
either) whose is admittedly a miserable git?

Well, aside from being a drug dealer who *did* have a bad history,
there's no particular reason to want that sort of asshole running
around. Or do you really think these two saints would have left the old
guy alone if he *hadn't* been armed?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 02:17:41 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

Oh, and defending your home is not illegal, the emphasis in the UK is
defending your *life*, and to use reasonable force (where reasonable
force does *not*include waiting for burglars with an illegally held
shorgun, then shooting one of them in the back).

...in the dark, in the wee hours of the morning, in a remote area, when
the police wouldn't do much of anything...

Which is a policing problem, not a legal one.

So your claim is that people can't police their own homes, but the
police don't have to, either? No wonder the crime rate's going up so
fast over there.

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at the
wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered?

"Murdered" suggests some sort of innocence. If he didn't want to risk
his life, he shouldn't have committed the crime. Ranks right up there
with idiots who get killed doing other stupid things, like walking on
railroad tracks. I can't believe you're defending a criminal who died
while committing a potentially-violent crime.

Or the other one (and I can't recall any violent convicitons for him
either) whose is admittedly a miserable git?

Well, aside from being a drug dealer who *did* have a bad history,
there's no particular reason to want that sort of asshole running
around. Or do you really think these two saints would have left the old
guy alone if he *hadn't* been armed?

Exactly. If you enter my home without my permission or other legal authorization
(Police, Fire Dept) you WILL be shot. And I am not stupid enough to "shoot to
wound". You will get a "double tap" at your center of mass, and I will "repeat as
necessary".

Al Minyard

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 15:00:29 -0500, Alan Minyard
wrote:

Exactly. If you enter my home without my permission or other legal authorization
(Police, Fire Dept) you WILL be shot. And I am not stupid enough to "shoot to
wound". You will get a "double tap" at your center of mass, and I will "repeat as
necessary".

Remind me not to visit you at home Al :-)

Personally, I own 3 pistols, and yet my home defence plan is a
baseball bat, with which I shall smash the bedroom window and leg it.
I don;t know if a burglar is armed, so why the hell should I take the
risk that he's a better shot than me? Call me a coward, but I don't
like guns pointed in my direction.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 20:39:44 -0400, Peter Kemp wrote:

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 15:00:29 -0500, Alan Minyard
wrote:

Exactly. If you enter my home without my permission or other legal authorization
(Police, Fire Dept) you WILL be shot. And I am not stupid enough to "shoot to
wound". You will get a "double tap" at your center of mass, and I will "repeat as
necessary".

Remind me not to visit you at home Al :-)

Personally, I own 3 pistols, and yet my home defence plan is a
baseball bat, with which I shall smash the bedroom window and leg it.
I don;t know if a burglar is armed, so why the hell should I take the
risk that he's a better shot than me? Call me a coward, but I don't
like guns pointed in my direction.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

Well, I have shot all of my life, and competed in the US Practical
Shooting Association, so my aim is at least fair :-).

Al Minyard

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 02:17:41 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

...in the dark, in the wee hours of the morning, in a remote area, when
the police wouldn't do much of anything...

Which is a policing problem, not a legal one.

So your claim is that people can't police their own homes, but the
police don't have to, either? No wonder the crime rate's going up so
fast over there.

No, I never claimed the police are not responsible for policing.

For the last time - in the UK you are entitled to use *reasonable
force* to defend *your life*, not your property, and if you have the
chance to run, then you should.

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at the
wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered?

"Murdered" suggests some sort of innocence.

Not really. If I walk up to a drug dealer and shoot him, it;s still
murder if it's premeditated and not self defence. The fact he's a git
has nothing to do with it.

In this case it was * very* premeditated (obtaining an illegal shotgun
for the purpose), and it's hard to claim self defence when you shoot
someone who didn't threaten you and whom is running away.

If he didn't want to risk
his life, he shouldn't have committed the crime. Ranks right up there
with idiots who get killed doing other stupid things, like walking on
railroad tracks. I can't believe you're defending a criminal who died
while committing a potentially-violent crime.

I'm not, I'm criticising the bugger who shot him. There is a
difference.

Or the other one (and I can't recall any violent convicitons for him
either) whose is admittedly a miserable git?

Well, aside from being a drug dealer who *did* have a bad history,
there's no particular reason to want that sort of asshole running
around. Or do you really think these two saints would have left the old
guy alone if he *hadn't* been armed?

No, they would have burgled the house and no one would have been hurt.
I tend to believe that human life is more valuabel than mere
possesions. Certainly nothing I own is worth more than my life. That's
what is insurance is for.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

Peter Kemp wrote in
:

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 02:17:41 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

...in the dark, in the wee hours of the morning, in a remote area,
when the police wouldn't do much of anything...

Which is a policing problem, not a legal one.

So your claim is that people can't police their own homes, but the
police don't have to, either? No wonder the crime rate's going up so
fast over there.

No, I never claimed the police are not responsible for policing.

For the last time - in the UK you are entitled to use *reasonable
force* to defend *your life*, not your property, and if you have the
chance to run, then you should.

No,you should not have to flee a criminal,regardless of whether it's a
property theft or a act of violence.That's simply protecting crimminals
more than ODCs.

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at
the wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done
since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered?

"Murdered" suggests some sort of innocence.

Not really. If I walk up to a drug dealer and shoot him, it;s still
murder if it's premeditated and not self defence. The fact he's a git
has nothing to do with it.

How about if he's shooting up one of your kids? There is such a thing as
justifiable homicide.


In this case it was * very* premeditated (obtaining an illegal shotgun
for the purpose), and it's hard to claim self defence when you shoot
someone who didn't threaten you and whom is running away.

If he didn't want to risk
his life, he shouldn't have committed the crime. Ranks right up there
with idiots who get killed doing other stupid things, like walking on
railroad tracks. I can't believe you're defending a criminal who died
while committing a potentially-violent crime.

I'm not, I'm criticising the bugger who shot him. There is a
difference.

Or the other one (and I can't recall any violent convicitons for him
either) whose is admittedly a miserable git?

Well, aside from being a drug dealer who *did* have a bad history,
there's no particular reason to want that sort of asshole running
around. Or do you really think these two saints would have left the
old guy alone if he *hadn't* been armed?

No, they would have burgled the house and no one would have been hurt.

And just how does one be certain of that? Until after the burglary is over
and no one is harmed,it's solely up to the criminal.Things can change very
rapidly.Why should a ODC have to take such risks? To protect a lousy
criminal? No.Let the criminal bear the risks.


I tend to believe that human life is more valuabel than mere
possesions.

Not all human life.The right to own property is a basic human freedom.
Having to allow others to take that property without due process is anti-
freedom.It's also cowardly.

Certainly nothing I own is worth more than my life.
Except your life -is- at risk during a burglary.There IS a threat implied
by the burglar;leave me to take your possessions or suffer physical
harm.The burglar could decide to not leave any witnesses,could take a
liking to your pretty daughter or wife,or maybe want the ring that will not
come off your wife's finger,and he's willing to hack it off with a knife.

That's
what is insurance is for.

Insurance costs everyone.
IOW,you're willing to spread the costs of your tolerance for crime to
everyone else.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net