Package thief caught by bad ass neighbor Along with a Benny Hill Theme

looney2ns

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Messages
15,521
Reaction score
22,657
Location
Evansville, In. USA
The media is all about the money, reporting honestly went out the door with Walter.

How's them acid attacks working out for you UK?

Australia is learning the same lesson the hard way.
 

J Sigmo

Known around here
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
997
Reaction score
1,333
I hope you won't feel like we're all piling on and attacking you personally. It's just your wording in your first post above that indicates some false perceptions and beliefs that got a lot of us going here.

You can't be blamed for believing that the US is like something out of a wild-west movie because that's what your media has worked so hard to convince you of. Of course to us, it sounds like an offensive, unfounded stereotype.

Our own media, in large part, is guilty of the same distortions to fit their agenda of trying to disarm our public as well. The gun-grabbers make gradual inroads in their quest to see us disarmed here, too. So those of us who do not want to see what has happened to Europe and Australia happen to the US tend to be quite vigilant, and quick to point out the inaccuracies when we see them.

The CDC (centers for disease control) has reliable statistics about causes of death and injury here. It is worthwhile to study them.

It is disturbing to speculate as to why it is that the media does not devote air-time proportional to the actual risks we face. What is the real reason for the obvious imbalance in their coverage of so-called "gun violence"? Who benefits from this wild distortion of the statistics?

Further, I really liked your post because your point about creating a situation where thieves do not feel empowered to steal at will is highly relevant here, and everywhere.

I think the companies who run the stores set policies to restrict what their employees can do about thieves because they are driven by fears of potential liability for both the employees and other customers (and sadly, for the thieves too!). I can't blame them for feeling this way.

But it really does rub most of us the wrong way to just watch thieves be allowed to go about their "business" unmolested, and thus, be emboldened to go further and further with no fear of consequences.

I'm not sure what the answers are. I'm sure the corporate lawyers and accountants have made the decision that losses from theft are preferable to high settlements they may have to pay out in case of lawsuits arising from injuries, etc., if things go bad when confronting a thief.

Wal Mart here, makes it a firing offense for an employee to confront a thief. I'm sure that is to discourage employees from doing what is likely instinctive. Again, a tough call, but they wouldn't have this policy of it didn't save the corporation money in the long run.







Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

J Sigmo

Known around here
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
997
Reaction score
1,333
Let me toss out a hypothetical scenario;

A porch pirate swipes a package, and the victim or a neighbor gives chase. The thief runs out into the street and is struck by a car, or they simply trip and twist their ankle.

In today's society, a crafty lawyer could most likely convince a jury that the thief, just a victim of our evil capitalistic system, wasn't doing anything all that bad. After all, he was only trying to get money for himself the only way he could. And he certainly didn't deserve to be injured. That's a cruel punishment, far exceeding the crime he committed.

So the person who caused the injuries needs to be punished, or at least held accountable for this victim's pain, suffering, and actual medical expenses plus a hefty punitive award to teach him and society a lesson.

Thus, regardless of whether or not anyone was armed, or even violent, the pursuer is guilty, and liable, perhaps even a worse criminal, and must pay!
 

CCTVCam

Known around here
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
2,660
Reaction score
3,480
Might want to look at the latest report, not the one you linked to from 2016
Crime in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

"The police recorded 41,884 offences involving a knife or sharp instrument in the year ending June 2018..."

The point is that while the UK may indeed have fewer gun crimes, KNIFE crimes are off the charts. Which gets us back to my point, Bad Guys will always find a weapon. Outlawing guns for most in Britain did NOTHING to slow down the violent crime or homicides. The bad guys just changed tactics.
I agree knife crime is an issue, although it's mainly teenagers and gangs once more. Probably more teenagers than anything. Then again, knives are more accessible than guns.

As I said above, don't take my comments above as an attack on US gun ownership. There is a much bigger issue with guns in the US than UK. Personally I put down to vetting and security more than ownership per se. The difference between US and UK ownership, is the vetting is very very thorough and typically takes 3-6 months (!) involving MI5, your doctor as well as the police, plus multiple friends / neighbours have to countersign to say they know of no reason why shouldn't own one, and security requires all guns to be secured in safes when not in use with ammo secured in a separate lockable compartment. The safes themselves have very tough security requirements to prevent breach or theft of the safe from the premises. Very different to US requirements.

I shoot myself so I'm certainly not anti-gun.
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
1,090
Reaction score
852
Location
Colorado
Anyway seems one of the new trends is "car attacks", so probably moot discussion really, unless we won't be allowed guns, knives, cars, acid/strong cleaners or laundry pods. Everyone just be safe and get it on VIDEO !
 

bigredfish

Known around here
Joined
Sep 5, 2016
Messages
17,025
Reaction score
47,496
Location
Floriduh
I agree knife crime is an issue, although it's mainly teenagers and gangs once more. Probably more teenagers than anything. Then again, knives are more accessible than guns.

As I said above, don't take my comments above as an attack on US gun ownership. There is a much bigger issue with guns in the US than UK. Personally I put down to vetting and security more than ownership per se. The difference between US and UK ownership, is the vetting is very very thorough and typically takes 3-6 months (!) involving MI5, your doctor as well as the police, plus multiple friends / neighbours have to countersign to say they know of no reason why shouldn't own one, and security requires all guns to be secured in safes when not in use with ammo secured in a separate lockable compartment. The safes themselves have very tough security requirements to prevent breach or theft of the safe from the premises. Very different to US requirements.

I shoot myself so I'm certainly not anti-gun.

Nope not just teenagers and gangs.
Knife attacker armed with long blade stabs at least three people at Manchester's Victoria Station | Daily Mail Online

I think thats the most concerning thing, when the population so badly wants to believe the politicians and laws that take away their rights or freedoms under the guise of "protecting" them, actually start to believe the lie.
 

CCTVCam

Known around here
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
2,660
Reaction score
3,480
Nope not just teenagers and gangs.
Knife attacker armed with long blade stabs at least three people at Manchester's Victoria Station | Daily Mail Online

I think thats the most concerning thing, when the population so badly wants to believe the politicians and laws that take away their rights or freedoms under the guise of "protecting" them, actually start to believe the lie.
It was a terrorist attack. Had guns been available to all, most ,likely he'd have had a gun. Like I said, I shoot. I'm not anti gun and would like to see ownership for self defence. However, all within the framework of UK background checks and security requirements as it works very well in the UK at keeping them out of the wrong hands.
 

looney2ns

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Messages
15,521
Reaction score
22,657
Location
Evansville, In. USA
Nope not just teenagers and gangs.
Knife attacker armed with long blade stabs at least three people at Manchester's Victoria Station | Daily Mail Online

I think thats the most concerning thing, when the population so badly wants to believe the politicians and laws that take away their rights or freedoms under the guise of "protecting" them, actually start to believe the lie.
It just gives me the all warm and fuzzies, when politicians make statements such as "We'll have to wait until we pass it, to see what's in it."
 

Xeddog

Getting comfortable
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Messages
330
Reaction score
547
Guns will be outlawed, knives will be outlawed, then what? I can see a steep rise in the use of Molotov cocktails. You'll get a pass for burning people to a cinder, but you will spend life in prison for polluting the atmosphere.
 

J Sigmo

Known around here
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
997
Reaction score
1,333
It was a terrorist attack. Had guns been available to all, most ,likely he'd have had a gun. Like I said, I shoot. I'm not anti gun and would like to see ownership for self defence. However, all within the framework of UK background checks and security requirements as it works very well in the UK at keeping them out of the wrong hands.
"Had guns been available to all..."

While nowhere near as thorough as the vetting you folks in GB must go through, the fact is that guns are not available to all here.

But it is true that the sheer number of guns in circulation here makes them easier to obtain. Still, it must be recognized that determined criminals and terrorists will obtain their guns illegally, regardless of any laws and restrictions placed on the law-abiding.

Look at the terrorist attacks, using fully automatic (AK-47) rifles, in France not that long ago. Guns are extremely difficult for the law-abiding population to obtain in France. Yet what did the terrorists use?

Fully automatic guns are highly regulated here in the US. They're almost impossible to obtain. Yet the media here consistently, and incorrectly, refers to all semi-automatic rifles as "assault rifles". That wording fits their agenda, of course. So casual viewers tend to believe that the US is awash in "assault weapons", when the opposite is true. I don't know anyone who owns a fully automatic gun.

I'm sure the laws GB has in place do make it more difficult for casual criminals to get their hands on guns.

But the law-abiding pay a high price for this that people here have so-far been unwilling to pay.

That price is the fact that the law-abiding population is also discouraged from owning, practicing with, and effectively carrying and having ready access to a gun.

And the registration and strict monitoring, by the government, of the whereabouts of all guns will make it a simple task for the government to round up all guns if and when they decide to implement complete disarmament of the population.

The strict vetting of potential gun owners is also a slippery slope, allowing the government to deny access to guns to pretty much anyone if they don't like their politics, etc.

In the end, terrorists and criminals can simply get a gun illegally, or choose a different weapon, and the extreme restrictions on carrying, even in your own homes, assures that terrorists and criminals will not come face to face with anyone else who is effectively armed when carrying out their misdeeds.

What good does a gun do you if it is locked in a safe with its ammo locked in a separate safe? For all intents and purposes, you are disarmed even though you've jumped through all of the hoops necessary to legally "possess" your gun.

I understand the reasoning behind these requirements. But when it comes down to it, you're making the decision to effectively disarm the general public with the idea that this will make you all safer.

But in the end, again, you cannot be protected against nut cases, criminals, and terrorists by any of these measures. And the price paid for this false security is extremely high. At least, that's the way many people here feel about it.
 

CCTVCam

Known around here
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
2,660
Reaction score
3,480
indeed, when they're done with this they'll start asking for the remaining cutlery from your dining set....

Surrender your knife | Save a life
I agree ridiculous. You can't buy a knife in the UK by mail order. In shops there are 18 age restrictions (probably sensible this one). Carrying a knife outside of a trade or in your car tool kit is all but outlawed. Yet knife crime persists....Then again knives are easily obtainable by other means - people are now stealing them in burglaries - one of the reasons why the UK has such strict security laws on guns.

"Had guns been available to all..."

While nowhere near as thorough as the vetting you folks in GB must go through, the fact is that guns are not available to all here.

But it is true that the sheer number of guns in circulation here makes them easier to obtain. Still, it must be recognized that determined criminals and terrorists will obtain their guns illegally, regardless of any laws and restrictions placed on the law-abiding.
I don't disagree. I predicted the terror attacks privately using cars a good 5 yrs before they 1st happened, as it was the logical step where weapons couldn't be obtained.

Look at the terrorist attacks, using fully automatic (AK-47) rifles, in France not that long ago. Guns are extremely difficult for the law-abiding population to obtain in France. Yet what did the terrorists use?
Actually EU guns laws are much weaker than the UK's. Plus having physical borders with other countries, many of which aren't checked due to EU free movement laws, as opposed to the UK which is an island, makes them easier to smuggle. The uk banned all semi-auto weapons a long time ago, except for .22 rimfire. All CF are bolt action only.

Fully automatic guns are highly regulated here in the US. They're almost impossible to obtain. Yet the media here consistently, and incorrectly, refers to all semi-automatic rifles as "assault rifles". That wording fits their agenda, of course. So casual viewers tend to believe that the US is awash in "assault weapons", when the opposite is true. I don't know anyone who owns a fully automatic gun.
I wouldn't know. There are a lot of videos on YouTube of persons with automatic weapons, but I understand, correctly or otherwise, it varies according to state.

I'm sure the laws GB has in place do make it more difficult for casual criminals to get their hands on guns.
That's pretty much what our security laws do, make it much harder to steal, plus it also keeps them out of the hands of bullied teenagers etc thus preventing the school tragedies you have.

That price is the fact that the law-abiding population is also discouraged from owning, practicing with, and effectively carrying and having ready access to a gun.
Again I agree. But the population here are brainwashed. Every US shooting gets big coverage with a huge media play on how stupid US laws are and how it's hard to comprehend the US's love of guns. eg.

US gun control will not psycho committing a massacre - but it will certainly save lives

Most parents in the UK won't even allow their children to have toy guns or watch cowboy or war films anymore. That's how anti-gun the UK has become. People who shoot daren't have anything in their car that indicates their hobby for fear of it being vandalised or them attacked. I agree with Uk checks and security. I believe the ideal position for security vs safety lies between the UK and US positions.

And the registration and strict monitoring, by the government, of the whereabouts of all guns will make it a simple task for the government to round up all guns if and when they decide to implement complete disarmament of the population.
That's what's already happened here. The least bit of a shooting and legal ownership laws are tightened ever more. But the UK population as a vast majority don't want anyone owning guns. Then again the UK has never been through a civil war for hundreds of years or suffered oppressive government so the UK population has no fear of it's government, so unlike the US, possessing guns to prevent oppression is a ridiculous idea to most UK citizens.

In the end, terrorists and criminals can simply get a gun illegally, or choose a different weapon, and the extreme restrictions on carrying, even in your own homes, assures that terrorists and criminals will not come face to face with anyone else who is effectively armed when carrying out their misdeeds.
I agree. Anyone determined enough will get one, or use alternative means such as a car. The answer to my mind lies between the US and UK positions.

What good does a gun do you if it is locked in a safe with its ammo locked in a separate safe? For all intents and purposes, you are disarmed even though you've jumped through all of the hoops necessary to legally "possess" your gun.

I understand the reasoning behind these requirements. But when it comes down to it, you're making the decision to effectively disarm the general public with the idea that this will make you all safer.
The possession of weapons in the UK isn't lawful for self defence. Although there is in theory a right of self defence with weapons held for other purposes, the UK does not look favourably on citizens taking the law into their own hands and will often jail people for excessive force:

This is a very famous case, although it was aggravated by the fact he held the weapon illegally:

Tony Martin (farmer) - Wikipedia

Worth noting that in an earlier case, he had his licence revoked for shooting the boot of the car of a thief.

Other self defence cases where the homeowner was persecuted:

Five years in prison for acting in self-defence

Pensioner, 78, arrested for murder after 'stabbing burglar to death in his home'
 

J Sigmo

Known around here
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
997
Reaction score
1,333
I agree ridiculous. You can't buy a knife in the UK by mail order. In shops there are 18 age restrictions (probably sensible this one). Carrying a knife outside of a trade or in your car tool kit is all but outlawed. Yet knife crime persists....Then again knives are easily obtainable by other means - people are now stealing them in burglaries - one of the reasons why the UK has such strict security laws on guns.
Again, I understand the argument in favor of keeping anything dangerous locked up to reduce the chances of whatever it is being stolen and used by criminals. And if it's completely illegal to use a weapon in self-defense, then my argument that keeping your guns and ammo locked up becomes moot, of course. I don't like the idea that ordinary citizens are not allowed to defend themselves with a weapon. Basically, that says that if you're physically small, or old, or disabled, you're fair game for anyone larger, stronger, etc. Guns are often referred to as "the great equalizer" in this context. It really is a shame that the British have allowed this to become the law of the land.

I don't disagree. I predicted the terror attacks privately using cars a good 5 yrs before they 1st happened, as it was the logical step where weapons couldn't be obtained.
Yeah, me too. It was only a matter of time until people started using cars, trucks, etc. as weapons. The odd thing is: I never hear the US media or liberal politicians calling for bans on cars, trucks, etc. They're only outraged when its a gun that's used in an attack. It really does appear that their agenda is NOT the safety of the citizens, but disarmament of the population. And that is a scary thing.

Actually EU guns laws are much weaker than the UK's. Plus having physical borders with other countries, many of which aren't checked due to EU free movement laws, as opposed to the UK which is an island, makes them easier to smuggle. The uk banned all semi-auto weapons a long time ago, except for .22 rimfire. All CF are bolt action only.
I can see how that works better for the UK in keeping guns out of the hands of many crooks and casual terrorists. But, of course, I'd say that the price paid for this little bit of extra security is too high. A judgement call, of course.

Here, semi-auto guns are, for the most part, legal to own. And I'm very glad that hasn't been taken away from us... yet.

I wouldn't know. There are a lot of videos on YouTube of persons with automatic weapons, but I understand, correctly or otherwise, it varies according to state.
See this:

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

This does not vary from state to state.

Private ownership of machine guns made after 1986 is entirely banned by federal law. All pre-1986 automatic weapons must be registered with the ATF and require extensive background checks before private citizens may own them. And you can expect to pay upwards of $50,000 to purchase one of them!

Again, I don't know anyone who owns a machine gun. And I know a lot of gun owners. The US media is largely very liberal. They will say anything they want, true or not, to further their anti-gun agenda, it seems. So don't go by what you see. And as far as YouTube videos: I see some of those, and am jealous! ;)

An annual "machine gun shoot" is held near here every summer. For some fee, you can fire one of the machine guns they bring in, but you also pay for the ammo, of course! They fly radio controlled airplanes and the like around downrange for everyone to shoot at, so it's supposed to be a fun event. I've never attended, but may well do so one of these times. I suspect a lot of the videos you see of folks firing fully-automatic guns are at shooting ranges that rent these guns, at special events, or are made by the people who are lucky enough and wealthy enough to afford one. But machine guns are extremely rare. And as far as I know, no crime has been committed with one in the US in the last 50 years or more.

That's pretty much what our security laws do, make it much harder to steal, plus it also keeps them out of the hands of bullied teenagers etc thus preventing the school tragedies you have.
This is a difficult thing to argue against on an emotional level. It always seems like "if it saves just one child" arguments are very persuasive. But again, the statistics show that the actual chances of anyone other than a gang member or other criminal being shot in the US is remote in the extreme. The media seizes upon any examples and airs coverage endlessly, of course, because it fits their ulterior motives and is sensational, so it sells advertising. They also cover airplane crashes extensively because they're sensational and keep people tuned in. It doesn't matter if they have nothing further to add to the story, the round-the-clock "breaking news" coverage of such disasters is unceasing. News channels are, of course, businesses. And they make their money selling advertising. "If it bleeds, it leads."

But this disproportionate coverage of spectacular events gives the public a distorted perception of relative dangers. I don't avoid air travel even though I've seen countless fiery jet crashes covered endlessly over the years because I know that the statistics show air travel to be very safe. And knowing the true statistics on so-called "gun violence", I also don't shun guns or want to see them banned, etc. But the general public here, too, is fed endless propaganda about the dangers of guns. Never mind the actual statistics, this is all emotion-based and it's easy to whip the population up into a frenzy over these rare events, even though our kids are far more likely to die from medical malpractice, obesity, smoking, car crashes from texting and driving, etc., etc. Those things just aren't nearly as fun to watch on TV, and don't play into the agendas of those who want to see us all disarmed and pacified.

Again I agree. But the population here are brainwashed. Every US shooting gets big coverage with a huge media play on how stupid US laws are and how it's hard to comprehend the US's love of guns. eg.

US gun control will not psycho committing a massacre - but it will certainly save lives

Most parents in the UK won't even allow their children to have toy guns or watch cowboy or war films anymore. That's how anti-gun the UK has become. People who shoot daren't have anything in their car that indicates their hobby for fear of it being vandalised or them attacked. I agree with Uk checks and security. I believe the ideal position for security vs safety lies between the UK and US positions.
We see this here, too. There's an endless assault on basic freedoms and especially gun ownership. Many parents won't let their kids play "cops and robbers" or the like. And kids have been expelled from school for, as an example, biting their toaster pastry into the rough outline shape of a gun! It's ridiculous.

Pop-Tart gun suspension upheld by Maryland judge

That's what's already happened here. The least bit of a shooting and legal ownership laws are tightened ever more. But the UK population as a vast majority don't want anyone owning guns. Then again the UK has never been through a civil war for hundreds of years or suffered oppressive government so the UK population has no fear of it's government, so unlike the US, possessing guns to prevent oppression is a ridiculous idea to most UK citizens.
I can understand that. And it only takes a generation or so for most of the population to forget that people fought and died to preserve their basic freedoms. In the US, the education system is extremely liberal. So kids are force-fed an extremely lopsided world view and are bullied by students, parents, and teachers alike if they show any degree of conservatism. It's shameful.

I agree. Anyone determined enough will get one, or use alternative means such as a car. The answer to my mind lies between the US and UK positions.
That may be true, but again, it's a slippery slope, and believe me, there is a constant hard-fought struggle here to keep things from ending up being at least as restrictive as what exists in the UK, Australia, etc.

The possession of weapons in the UK isn't lawful for self defence. Although there is in theory a right of self defence with weapons held for other purposes, the UK does not look favourably on citizens taking the law into their own hands and will often jail people for excessive force:

This is a very famous case, although it was aggravated by the fact he held the weapon illegally:

Tony Martin (farmer) - Wikipedia

Worth noting that in an earlier case, he had his licence revoked for shooting the boot of the car of a thief.

Other self defence cases where the homeowner was persecuted:

Five years in prison for acting in self-defence

Pensioner, 78, arrested for murder after 'stabbing burglar to death in his home'
This is somewhat true here, too. Even though you may posses a gun legally, in many places, using that gun in self defense will likely result in your being prosecuted. Some states have laws designed to protect the "defender" from prosecution and civil liability, but in general, you must be extremely careful using any force at all, and especially if it's just to defend property. In a concealed carry class recently, I was told that even drawing your gun would very likely cost you at least $50,000 to defend yourself in court regardless of the verdict.

It's all too easy to say: "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.", but you really do need to think very carefully before using any sort of force, much less a weapon, in self defense here, too.

It's like I was saying about the video at the top of this thread. It really is questionable whether you should give chase to someone you catch red-handed stealing from you. If someone gets hurt, you could very likely be held liable for the injuries even though you were chasing a thief.

A guy I know was held up by a gun-carrying robber as he left a convenience store in Colorado a number of years back. He's a big guy, and he whacked the would-be robber upside the head with a gallon of milk. Knocked him out cold, and the gallon jug exploded on impact. Nonetheless, the robber sued him for damages! Yep. A guy who was robbing my friend at gunpoint sued for damages after my friend smacked him with a gallon jug of milk! In this case, the judge dismissed the suit almost immediately, but who knows what would have happened if this had occurred today, not ten years ago. Colorado has turned very liberal these days. It's scary!
 
Last edited:

bigredfish

Known around here
Joined
Sep 5, 2016
Messages
17,025
Reaction score
47,496
Location
Floriduh
Well articulated @J Sigmo

@CCTVCam I think your head is in the right place, and respect your views, I just think you're stuck in a culture that is increasingly willing to give up their freedoms and basic rights for the false promise of protection.

As to liability when using or threatening to use deadly force, it is very much a state to state thing. Fortunately here in Floriduh, the laws are generally on the side of the defender. Many other states have the same or are following suit..... then of course we have the polar opposite in countries like California and New Jersey....

Texas is one of the few states that allow use of lethal force for protecting property, with conditions. We advise all of our students that its generally just not worth the legal or moral risk to use lethal force to defend "stuff".

For example here we have Presumption (which is huge) with the Enhanced Castle Doctrine and the so called SYG law. These favor the law abiding citizen's use or threat of use of lethal force when and only when one is "in fear of death or great bodily harm". Presumption basically says that the State "presumes" on your behalf, that if a BG enters your home or vehicle unlawfully and forcefully, he meant you death or great bodily harm. FL law also prevents civil lawsuits if you are found innocent.
Fl Statutes 776.012 and 776.013 and 776.032

These laws are the foundation of our self defense rights. They say that as long as you:
1)uphold the mantle of innocence,
2)are in a place you have a right to be,
3)that the threat is imminent, and
4)believe that the assailant means to cause you or a loved one death or great bodily harm, you are within your rights to defend yourself in any manner necessary. No duty to retreat, no penalty for using lethal force.

Seems like common sense to many of us, unfortunately there are those, and its a growing number, that feel we should have restrictions on our ability to defend ourselves. We see it in Europe and louder here in the US each year. Those singing the virtues of disarming us, typically live behind gated walls and have armed security.

I have yet to talk to anyone, no matter how previously brainwashed, that has been involved in or close to a violent encounter, that thinks we need to restrict the ability to defend ones self.
 
Top