Uk farmer who shot burglar freed

[Renagade 0]

http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin....+mugger

Heres another funny case

The link theres for a few articles and its interesting to note that it went from the diplomat going out to attack the mugger who robbed his son to the later story of the mugger attacking him and his son and getting his knife turned and stuck into him.

frisbee i think my post a few pages back gives answer to the issue u raised

[Tex -USMC- 0]

What's relevant is not what you think, but what your society thinks. What your society thinks is represented by your government that is (well, should be in theory at least) democratically elected.

So if you feel that carrying a gun and shooting criminals is right and the society does not agree, then you'll be the criminal and locked up.

This is not a matter of individualism, it's a question of a social agreement and it's the government that represents that social agreement.

Yeah, and my society more or less agrees with me on this. Yours might not, but mine does. You might think we're fucked up because we want the ability to protect ourselves in the event of society not being able to protect us, and that's okay. I've learned to differentiate between the valid and superfluous complaints against my country, and have begun to tune them out as appropriate.

Quote[/b] ]Each to its own. In your socio-economc class it's no different when you download that mp3.

Did I not just say this? You pick and choose what you want to quote me on, and it gets rather annoying as you've completely taken my arguments out of context.

Quote[/b] ]Lazy people are part of the society. As are stupid people, smart people, tall people, short people etc The society has to be organized that way that it can provide a safe structure and existance for all of them. Today some lazy people pick up a gun and rob 7-11. Other lazy spend 5 years at Yale drinking and partying because their daddy pays for it. And then they become the president.

No, there's a fundamental difference. A tall person is tall- he can't do anything about it. A truly stupid person can't help it either. However, a lazy person can get his ass off the couch and go find a job. Lazy is a reversible state, and due to its self-destructiveness, society shouldn't have to carry them. Now don't you try and manipulate that into some neo-fascist statement of intent, I'm simply stating that the relationship between the individual and the society should be a two-way street.

Quote[/b] ]

If you take away the social context, you'll see the same distribution of individuals in all socio-economic layers. The social context is defined by the society hence it's responsibility. It is responsible to provide the social context that even very lazy people don't become criminals.

Yeah, I said this. People are all more or less the same. But that's a human condition- all societies have had their criminals, no matter how liberal or enlightened. The point is that the temptation to break the law is simply within human nature. If it was a social problem, then only poor folks would break the laws. However, as you pointed out yourself (after I all ready pointed it out- I'm noticing that you chose to ignore a significant portion of my last post), criminals exist in all socio-economic levels. So is it society's fault that a person who has had every advantage in life still chooses to break the law? No. So why should society pick up the proverbial tab when a less economically fortunate individual chooses to do the same?

Quote[/b] ]Eh? Moral absolutism?  

No! No no no no no no no no no. I'm (almost) as much of a shades of grey guy as you are, but I find it much simpler and fulfilling to live within the framework provided by mine and other societies' traditions and cultures. It makes life a lot easier- imagine how well I'd do if I explained to a police officer that since I reject his archaic idea of moral law enforcement, I shouldn't be arrested for possessing a pound of pot .

Quote[/b] ]So where is that middle ground. From my point of view (and for the most part European, I dare to say) your distrust of your government's ability to protect you is extreme individualism. The need to have a gun at home to ensure your survival is IMO telling a lot about the safety in your country.

Well, from my point of view (and for most part of America, I'd say) your ivory tower approach to other people's problems and new found self-righteousness combine to make us wish y'all would just go back to fighting each other, as Europe was more productive and less obnoxious when you didn't have time for the Holier-than-thou routine.

Quote[/b] ]If the criminals are effectivly apperhended after the fact there will be very little reason for comitting crimes. If all the criminals are in jail or rehabilitation then there is very little to be afraid of. A burglar wants your stuff yes. Unless he is a psycho (very few are), he has no real interest in killing you. The only motivation that he has for that is that you might kill him first. So why take any chances. I know that if I was planning a robbery, I'd make sure to have enough fire power to survive. So because every yahoo in your country owns a gun, the burgler will play it safe. He might harm you so that you won't harm him. And you'll end up loosing your stuff, apart from being dead that is. And should you be succesful then you have defended your TV by spraying another human being's brains on your wall. Really a successful concept.

Wrong. A large portion of murders occur when a criminal gets himself into a position where someone has seen his face, and now he feels he has to dispose of that witness. And anyhow, you aren't a burglar, nor do you have the mindset of the burglar. You're a soldier, and from the start of your training you've been taught to bring superior force to bear in an engagement. A burglar has hundreds of targets he can choose from- why go through the bother getting a firearm just to break into Billy Bob Redneck's house when he can break into an easier house? Besides, guns and ammo go directly into a burglars profit margin, and criminals have never been interested in minimized profit.

Quote[/b] ]That's where you are wrong. It's the responsibility of the society to make sure that its members are provided a good-enough social context for them not to develop into heartless criminals that will have no second thoughts about killing a fellow human being for his stereo and TV. And as I said, that's intimately connected to poverty. More than a tenth of your citizens is poorer than the average citizen of Tanzania. That poverty is a spawning ground for criminals. And you ain't going to solve it by shooting them; they reproduce and adapt.

No, we've all ready established that criminals exist at all socio economic levels, they just engage in different types of crime. How can you justify only helping one level of society when it's clear that all levels have the same problem? You can't, because it isn't society's problem to begin with- criminals are a fundamental problem of humanity, society only gave them a name.

[Tamme 0]

As long as you use minimal violence catching the burglar you shouldn't end up in prison. Emphasis on the word shouldn't Someimes the judges are just being asses.

[FSPilot 0]

Why gun ?

Buy a dog.

If you saw my dog you wouldn't say that. He lies there all day, probably would thump his tail at the burglar and continue to lie there.

Good hunting dog!

[denoir 0]

@ Aug. 02 2003,18:49)]Yeah, and my society more or less agrees with me on this. Yours might not, but mine does. You might think we're fucked up because we want the ability to protect ourselves in the event of society not being able to protect us, and that's okay. I've learned to differentiate between the valid and superfluous complaints against my country, and have begun to tune them out as appropriate.

Yes, and I respect that. In the same way as I accept elements of other cultures that I strongly disagree with. It's your right to organize your society as you please. It occurs to me however that you are not really pleased with the violence associated with burglary. What I'm trying to point out is that it's a two way process. There is a reason why a burglar in USA brings a gun to work and in Sweden he does not. And don't dismiss it is a large country vs. small country issue. The same goes for Germany that has a population of 83 million.

Now, if you consider regular burglar/victim shootouts to be a valuable part of your culture then fine. If you don't then you better listen to other cultures that don't share the same problem.

Quote[/b] ]No, there's a fundamental difference. A tall person is tall- he can't do anything about it. A truly stupid person can't help it either. However, a lazy person can get his ass off the couch and go find a job. Lazy is a reversible state, and due to its self-destructiveness, society shouldn't have to carry them. Now don't you try and manipulate that into some neo-fascist statement of intent, I'm simply stating that the relationship between the individual and the society should be a two-way street.

Yes, the individual is responsible for his actions. The society is responsible for providing an environment where people don't become criminals. As you agreed to there is a difference in percentage criminals if you compare rich and poor people. That difference is considerable and that's the part that the society is responsible for.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, I said this. People are all more or less the same. But that's a human condition- all societies have had their criminals, no matter how liberal or enlightened. The point is that the temptation to break the law is simply within human nature. If it was a social problem, then only poor folks would break the laws. However, as you pointed out yourself (after I all ready pointed it out- I'm noticing that you chose to ignore a significant portion of my last post), criminals exist in all socio-economic levels. So is it society's fault that a person who has had every advantage in life still chooses to break the law? No. So why should society pick up the proverbial tab when a less economically fortunate individual chooses to do the same?

As we said there is a big difference between the probability of becoming a criminal if you are poor or if you are rich. That gap is the society's fault/responsibility. Also, as far as I can see no corporate frauds are being shot while comitting their crimes. I think it takes a much smaller step off the baseline to commit computer fraud than it takes to smash somebody's skull with a baseball bat. Violent crimes are much more problematic to individuals and society than economic crimes. Compare the number of poor criminals and number of rich criminals that are ready to kill another human being to accomplish their crime. I think that you will find an extreme gap.

Those people that would commit crimes regardless of their socio-economic situation are pathological criminals. Even if they are a negative influence to the society, they are a part of it. They're no less Americans than you are and the society has the same responsibility towards them as it has to you. It's not something that they earned, it's something they get by birth. Shooting them or locking them up forever is not an option (unless you advocate a fascist society). Social misfits will always exist and society has to find a way to deal with them so that they can't hurt others while they get a chance to lead a good life.

Quote[/b] ]Well, from my point of view (and for most part of America, I'd say) your ivory tower approach to other people's problems and new found self-righteousness combine to make us wish y'all would just go back to fighting each other, as Europe was more productive and less obnoxious when you didn't have time for the Holier-than-thou routine.

We have always imposed our views on others. You should know since your country started off as a buch of European colonies. Another difference is that we have 3000+ years of expereince of state building and society construction. We've made those mistakes already that you are doing now. And we have (hopefully) learned something from them.

Quote[/b] ]You can't, because it isn't society's problem to begin with- criminals are a fundamental problem of humanity, society only gave them a name.

And your society is designed for what, rabbits? If it is a general human problem then the society should aim to solve that problem, not to dismiss it. And I can't imagine that you would have such a defeatist attitude to think that nothing can be done. I can guarantee you that it can since it has been done elsewhere.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]Here in Belgium there's a case where some poor guy (minimum wage of +-500€) stole some tomatoes and carrots out of a garden.

The older (52) owner of the garden waited in ambush the next night,the poor guy came back,then the owner came up to him,yelled at him,and shot him with his longrifle as he ran.

One side : extreme violence at some poor,hapless guy,who only wanted some carrots to feed himself

quote : 'I didn't even know it was a crime'

Other side : How could my client have known he only wanted to steal carrots,that's a ridiculous excuse,he could have wanted to kill my client just as well

It's hard to decide,but in this case i think they're both equally responsible

The idiot garden owner knew the other guy was just there to steal food because thats what he had done the night before. The garden owner should be in jail for murder because he ambushed and killed someone who was only stealing vegetables.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes, the individual is responsible for his actions. The society is responsible for providing an environment where people don't become criminals. As you agreed to there is a difference in percentage criminals if you compare rich and poor people. That difference is considerable and that's the part that the society is responsible for.

The large majority of poor people don't resort to the criminal life. Society is responsible for that- that others continue to disregard the opportunities that our society provides to the poor is not society's problem. We've all ready gone down this road- the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual, not the society. So long as it provides and environment where the majority of any given social level are law-abiding citizens, then society is doing its job. The remainder who still choose to break the law have only one person to blame: themselves.

Quote[/b] ]As we said there is a big difference between the probability of becoming a criminal if you are poor or if you are rich. That gap is the society's fault/responsibility. Also, as far as I can see no corporate frauds are being shot while comitting their crimes. I think it takes a much smaller step off the baseline to commit computer fraud than it takes to smash somebody's skull with a baseball bat. Violent crimes are much more problematic to individuals and society than economic crimes. Compare the number of poor criminals and number of rich criminals that are ready to kill another human being to accomplish their crime. I think that you will find an extreme gap.

All of the crimes we're talking about are economic crimes. Violence is just a means to the end of relieving someone of their possessions, which is the same goal of one of your so-called economic crimes. The rich man uses fraud to steal from a large number of people, the poor man uses violence to steal from a small number of people. In my uneducated, humble view, they balance out.

Quote[/b] ]Those people that would commit crimes regardless of their socio-economic situation are pathological criminals. Even if they are a negative influence to the society, they are a part of it. They're no less Americans than you are and the society has the same responsibility towards them as it has to you. It's not something that they earned, it's something they get by birth. Shooting them or locking them up forever is not an option (unless you advocate a fascist society). Social misfits will always exist and society has to find a way to deal with them so that they can't hurt others while they get a chance to lead a good life.

Did I ever say anything like this? Besides, when did I ever advocate getting rid of our current law enforcement/ incarceration system? Never- the only thing I ever advocated was the ability to use violent force, if necessary, in the defense of your home and property. This entire argument is inconsequential, as you're trying to twist what I'm saying into something much worse than it actually is.

Quote[/b] ]We have always imposed our views on others. You should know since your country started off as a buch of European colonies. Another difference is that we have 3000+ years of expereince of state building and society construction. We've made those mistakes already that you are doing now. And we have (hopefully) learned something from them.

I'm going to have to slap a big 'ol "Wait and see" on that one. If you can behave yourselves for more than a century, then I'll start listeing.

Quote[/b] ]And your society is designed for what, rabbits? If it is a general human problem then the society should aim to solve that problem, not to dismiss it. And I can't imagine that you would have such a defeatist attitude to think that nothing can be done.

Come on, these are the same problems we've been dealing with for millennia! How can you simultaneously argue that human history is cyclical while at the same time maintain such an unwavering optimism about our ability to break the cycle? And anyhow, it's not defeatist as much as it is a form of stoicism. Humanity, for all its attempts at evolution, will be (at least in the short term) mostly static. We've recognized the current state of human affairs, and have adjusted our policies to deal with it. That's just how it is.

Quote[/b] ]I can guarantee you that it can since it has been done elsewhere.

Who? How? When?

[Koolkid101 0]

Hahaha to you all, I don't think anyones house has been robbed in Vermont. No one steals your car if you leave the door unlocked at the mall, no one comes in if you leave your door open.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Hahaha to you all, I don't think anyones house has been robbed in Vermont. No one steals your car if you leave the door unlocked at the mall, no one comes in if you leave your door open.

Vermont's... different.

[Placebo 29]

If they hadn't been there they wouldn't have got shot, they brought it onto themselves. End of discussion.

[Koolkid101 0]

@ Aug. 03 2003,03:28)]

Hahaha to you all, I don't think anyones house has been robbed in Vermont. No one steals your car if you leave the door unlocked at the mall, no one comes in if you leave your door open.

Vermont's... different.  

Yes, we also are the home to howard dean, and the first state to pass gay marriage.

[denoir 0]

Tex, I think that it's fairly obvious that we have different views on the role of the society. I'm thinking of a complete framework where everybody can find a place, regardless of how contributing or destructive they are to the society. Your approach is much more Darwinian with the basic premisis that it's up to the indivudual to take care of himself.

The question is where the limit is. I'm not a big fan of the "survival of the fittest" ideology that American society advocates. In today's soceity of mass production we have the means to support all the citizens. We could eliminate poverty today should we redistribute the resources slightly.

However, I also think that Swedish society has embraced the "protect the weaker" a bit too well. Humans need motivation to work. There has to be a clear connection between hard honest work and payoffs.

As we are talking about crime, I'll give you an example of where I think things have gone a bit too far in Sweden: our "jails". I use quotation marks since they are jails in the term's broadest sense.

The prisoners have large individual rooms (size of a small appartment). In their rooms they have TV, bathroom & toilet, stereo. They can leave the rooms any time they wish to a large common area where they have all sorts of things: computers, internet access, pool table etc etc. They get good food. They can recieve visitors more or less any time.

The only obligation that they have is to have regular talks with psychologists.

You think that's absurd? Wait there's more! They get leaves of absence from jail on a regular basis. Yes, you heard me. They let them out of jail, on their own. Not surprisingly from time to time they commit further crimes during their leave of absence.

So I think that our system is taking it a smidge too far.

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]The prisoners have large individual rooms (size of a small appartment). In their rooms they have TV, bathroom & toilet, stereo. They can leave the rooms any time they wish to a large common area where they have all sorts of things: computers, internet access, pool table etc etc. They get good food. They can recieve visitors more or less any time.

The only obligation that they have is to have regular talks with psychologists.

Is that all prisons, and all inmates get to do that? Or is that how they do it in minimum security prisons?

[Renagade 0]

Quote[/b] ]As we are talking about crime, I'll give you an example of where I think things have gone a bit too far in Sweden: our "jails". I use quotation marks since they are jails in the term's broadest sense.

The prisoners have large individual rooms (size of a small appartment). In their rooms they have TV, bathroom & toilet, stereo. They can leave the rooms any time they wish to a large common area where they have all sorts of things: computers, internet access, pool table etc etc. They get good food. They can recieve visitors more or less any time.

The only obligation that they have is to have regular talks with psychologists.

You think that's absurd? Wait there's more! They get leaves of absence from jail on a regular basis. Yes, you heard me. They let them out of jail, on their own. Not surprisingly from time to time they commit further crimes during their leave of absence.

u got to be shittin me

from what i`ve seen and heard over here lifers get little rooms and some time for tv and maybe a day or 2 leave under escorts every once in a while.

The others get locked in small cells,usually 2 guys in there, most of the time with maybe an hour or 2 for exercise and pool and stuff.

I always wonder if they make out that jails are to soft on criminals to push harsher laws around because

U always hear the news making out that they get all an easy life but the documentries etc show it to be different

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Is that all prisons, and all inmates get to do that? Or is that how they do it in minimum security prisons?

It's standard. I think that they have to be ok:ed by a psychologist before they get a leave of absence. It's happened more than once that criminals on leave have been involved in bank robberies. They always get caught in the end. I guess that's why so few actually abuse their leave.

One problem with this system is that a significant number of people from the baltic states come to Sweden to commit a crime and to get caught. The living condition in Swedish prisons are better rhan what they are used to having free, at home.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Tex, I think that it's fairly obvious that we have different views on the role of the society. I'm thinking of a complete framework where everybody can find a place, regardless of how contributing or destructive they are to the society. Your approach is much more Darwinian with the basic premisis that it's up to the indivudual to take care of himself.

Yes, that's almost exactly it. I think that if everyone will take responsibility for themselves, they will have to think more carefully about their actions, and ultimately we'll see more humans who display the qualities we look for in a 'good' person: compassion, empathy, consideration, etc. But taking responsibility has to be the first step, and often it is a very difficult one.

Quote[/b] ]The question is where the limit is. I'm not a big fan of the "survival of the fittest" ideology that American society advocates. In today's soceity of mass production we have the means to support all the citizens. We could eliminate poverty today should we redistribute the resources slightly.

If you'll indulge me for a moment I'm going to take a trip to planet Tangent

Natural selection is a theory that has always held a certain fascination for me. The idea that through trial and error we can improve ourselves as a species is, in a word, cool. This process, though often cruel by our modern standards, paves the way for future survival and success. Our modern society, in many ways, has curtailed this process, and allowed humans to more or less go soft, both physically and mentally. Natural selection more or less trumped itself when humans came along. By developing an animal that can adapt at will, an animal has developed that can protect itself from the Darwinian process. For example, I have bad eyesight- I wear contacts for myopia, and am more or less useless without them. Without the developments of our modern society, I'd have an extremely difficult time surviving, much less excelling. And this occurs on all levels- the appendix, which more or less acted as a biological short-circuit, has been bypassed by modern medicine. Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to revert to some primitve state; that's just stupid. Rather, to make up for this reprieve that we've gotten from natural selection, I submit that we start valuing personal responsibility for ourselves to make up for any shortfalls we suffer from the lack of a strict regime of survival (or at least success) of the fittest. We have to consciously pick up the slack in this area if we want to continue excelling at the rate that humanity always has. And for me, at least, that means holding all humans to standard, and if they don't measure up, then that's that.

All humans should have the opportunity to succeed, and most people in America do have opportunity in some form. Some are intelligent, others are athletic, others are gifted in the arts. However, it is their responsibility that they capitalize on their advantages and succeed on their own terms. For society to prop unsuccessful people up is to ensure that eventually the society will collapse on itself. Now, I have no problem with things like social welfare, they have their place. They're there to ensure opportunity, not to guarantee success. Success is the individual's look-out.

Anyhow, I've rambled on a bit too long, and no doubt I sounded extremely callous and cold-hearted at some point or another. Honestly that isn't me. I'm the kind of guy who stops and helps someone with car trouble, or gives a beggar a few dollars. I do it because that's what a 'good person' is supposed to do, and my goal is to be a 'good person'. But ultimately an individual has to rely on himself, not charity, either from individuals or society. I guess if one thing can sum it up is this: opportunity for all- success for those who take advantage of that opportunity.

Quote[/b] ]

However, I also think that Swedish society has embraced the "protect the weaker" a bit too well. Humans need motivation to work. There has to be a clear connection between hard honest work and payoffs.

As we are talking about crime, I'll give you an example of where I think things have gone a bit too far in Sweden: our "jails". I use quotation marks since they are jails in the term's broadest sense.

The prisoners have large individual rooms (size of a small appartment). In their rooms they have TV, bathroom & toilet, stereo. They can leave the rooms any time they wish to a large common area where they have all sorts of things: computers, internet access, pool table etc etc. They get good food. They can recieve visitors more or less any time.

The only obligation that they have is to have regular talks with psychologists.

You think that's absurd? Wait there's more! They get leaves of absence from jail on a regular basis. Yes, you heard me. They let them out of jail, on their own. Not surprisingly from time to time they commit further crimes during their leave of absence.

I don't suppose you have any statistics on repeat offenders in Sweden, do you? You know, how many people are released from prison and end up right back in 6 months later.

[theavonlady 2]

So I think that our system is taking it a smidge too far.

My husband and I are now thinking of visiting Sweden with all the kids and perpetrating a family bank robbery.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I don't suppose you have any statistics on repeat offenders in Sweden, do you? You know, how many people are released from prison and end up right back in 6 months later.

I'm on a train right now and the 320x150 resolution on my Ipaq is less than ideal for extensive browsing. I'll look up that info once I get home.

I think that the number of repeat offenders is relatively small as they get training and a job after prison (part of the rehabilitation).

But I'll look up the actual numbers later.

[Koolkid101 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I don't suppose you have any statistics on  repeat offenders in Sweden, do you? You know, how many people are released from prison and end up right back in 6 months later.

I'm on a train right now and the 320x150 resolution on my Ipaq is less than ideal for extensive browsing. I'll look up that info once  I get home.

I think that the number of repeat offenders is relatively small as they get training and a job after prison (part of the rehabilitation).

But I'll look up the actual numbers later.

You can use the internet on the train?

[Renagade 0]

ditto

As for natural selection it is more dependant on wealth and society as much as what u got personally.

[Gollum1 0]

You can use the internet on the train?

Oh, these primitive Americans...

No, but seriously, your cellphone and internet network technology is waay behind, say, Finland (I often laugh when I look at new Hollywood movies...the phones are 2-3 years behind)...I wonder how that can be? Just curious.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

You can use the internet on the train?

Oh, these primitive Americans...  

No, but seriously, your cellphone and internet network technology is waay behind, say, Finland (I often laugh when I look at new Hollywood movies...the phones are 2-3 years behind)...I wonder how that can be? Just curious.

What can i say? We're heathens

[Renagade 0]

and we in the Uk are even further back

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Seriously though, I'd imagine there are a few reasons behind it. One is that your countries are much smaller and the populations are more centralized. Therefore, getting the infrastructure in place is much simpler and cheaper. I'd imagine that Sweden is the most wired country in the world in Internet terms- a little less than 9 million people in the entire country, and over 6 million Internet users. Whoa. Not to mention, with that kind of built-in user base, expanding into new technologies is hardly a risk for ISPs. And to think that all you use it for is to make Abba tribute websites

[ran 0]

France : 5 people for 15 square meters , you gotta pay for TV , 1 toilet bowl per cell , leaves are exceptionnal and under tight surveillance

prison is hell here

the percent of recidivists in France is quite low