faith in the police? not round here please.

[CB..]

yes they really do need to seperate the attacker from the victim--if by defending your self you can be in law labelled as the attacker then this illustrates the insane flaw in the laws (and in some ways society it self) interpretation of violence--and is precisely why the attacker is so often able to manipulate the ordinary person into becoming a "victim" simply by using the knowledge that if he/she defends him/herself then they them selves become the criminal--there-by making any possible morality impossible--

society acts very much as if it were schizophrenic and confused about violence-- as if it can't quite make up it's mind wether it likes it or not--
it's an unspoken vibe that often pervails that we would rather not have any more victims--rather than that we would rather not have any more violence---

no body likes victims---but we all kinda want to be Bruce Willis--

time for some joined up thinking--violence is still "cool" there are obvious reasons why this is--right back to the roots of mankind--the biggest most violent ape got to be boss--not that much has changed maybe it's about time it did?:hmm:
to the kids on the street this is the basic twist--we assume folks are intelligent enough to see past this--but they are allso intelligent to realise that violence or the threat of violence often gets them where they want to go--

and they quite rightly find the fact that the victim can be prosecuted for the very crime that is being perpertrated against them-
like Christmas and their birthday rolled into one---it's a bully mentality---and the law plays right along with it--and that is not a co-incidence IMO

it is as if the crime is to be attacked--and even then it is only a crime if the victim chooses to press charges---

so by that logic being attacked is only a crime if you are a "p*ssy"---that's the grass roots message this sends out loud and clear--
it feeds off those whose desire is to abide by the law-- it makes you a victim for attempting to abide by the law--it gives you no other option--

only when violence is considered a crime without question (within the confines of available evidence) will attitudes change--
if for example a person is witnessed being attacked on lets say CCTV cameras--then after some basic investigation the person seen attacking the other would be prosecuted as having commited a crime---full stop--the victim doesn't enter into it--either it is a crime to physically assault another person or it isn't--

when you are given a speeding ticket for exceeding the speed limit on a motorway--(having been caught on a speed camera)
no one asks the rest of the drivers on that stretch of road wether they minded you exceeding the speed limit--asking them if they as law abiding drivers want to press charges--

same thing should be done with violent incidents--the victim should not even have to appear in court
it should be a arbitary as a parking ticket--you hit some one -you broke the law--it can get more complicated than this--but only if we want to fudge the issues--if the violence is the crime--then this gives the victim back their self respect

then the victim can know on whose side the law really is--and they cease to be victims
it's societyand the law that makes ordinary law abiding citizens into victims--one minute they are walking their dog--the next they're a victim--what happenned?
a bit fuddled perhaps?

precisely

[STEED]

Once again for the U.K the stinking corrupt E.U. has given us the human right's act, which Tony Blair put his signature too. And is now regretting it, I here old David cameron leader of the Conservative party, said he would scrap it, just two problems first the conservatives must get elected at the next general election, the second point I would like to see how the hell can he scrap it, while we are in the E.U. good luck David cameron.

[CB..]

i kinda think the problem goes a bit deeper than just which party happens to be in power---

i reckon the police, lawyers and all concerned partys in authority should be made to sit down and try to write a leaflet describing in detail and exactly what a member of the public should be expected to do when confronted with a violent assault--(not some idiotic victim support wishy washy sticky plaster for after the event --but what you are supposed to do whilst the attack is actually happening )
i think once the waste paper bin is crammed to the full with rejected drafts they will finally start to see the size of the problem-

[STEED]

If a intruder entered my home, I know the law will back the intruder, so if I am going down I am going to take the son of a bitch with me.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Same in Germany. My father is is sports gunner and for some years was member of the police sports club in Berlin, which was public - you could get access to it's training facilcities even if you were no policeman (my father is classical musician, no policeman). He became friends with a Kriminalkommissar who once told him in secret that if he ever would confront a robber, a thief or whomever in his appartment and cannot make him freezing by simply threatening him with his firearms, so that he needed to shoot at him, he should make sure that he a.) kill him for sure and b.) makes sure he doe not kill him with the first bullet, which would be suspicious to be an intended kill and thus could be followed by an examination for murder and c.) that he does not need too many bullets for this would be rated as excessive use of force and could have legal consequences as well. And if he only shoots and injures the man he needs to expect to be sued for "Körperverletzung" (physical injuring?) and "attack with a lethal weapon."I got injured myself by a knife last year in a street assault out of the blue. I defended myself and while completly disabling him I unfortunately could not avoid to injure that sucker quite severly, and he was motionless. Although his lawyer later withdraw the case, initially I got charged for physical violance (Körperverletzung), which even was legally suspect becasue at that tim,e he trialed the case he was under charges by the police himself! (seems to be a grey area in German laws, but I do not know) Man, you lawyers and idiots - that guy tried to put a knife into my poor belly, I have a 6 cm-long scar on my right side from a 2 cm deep cut when he tried to stab me! Obviously some people would expect me to accept being stabbed down and die in my blood.Accepting to be a victim is a virtue. Weakness is a virtue. Strength is elitary - it needs to be condemned. We are all a happy family, Western society is great, reasonable and tolerant. Death to anyone who casts the shadow of a doubt about this paradise.Perverted thinking stinks.

Thats terrible! It is understandable though because people who like to be victims can't stand people that are able to defend themselves (Its a phycology thing) and would rather die than give up their victim status. Problem is, these people seem to be the very people speaking the loudest to get their laws passed since people that can defend themselves don't give these thoughts a second thought.

What really needs to happen is that criminals should be held to and give up all their rights during the commision of a crime with intent to harm. Its the only way to fix what is broken.

-S

[CB..]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Thats terrible! It is understandable though because people who like to be victims can't stand people that are able to defend themselves (Its a phycology thing) and would rather die than give up their victim status. Problem is, these people seem to be the very people speaking the loudest to get their laws passed since people that can defend themselves don't give these thoughts a second thought.

What really needs to happen is that criminals should be held to and give up all their rights during the commision of a crime with intent to harm. Its the only way to fix what is broken.

-S

now come on that doesn't actually make any sense--which victims?
see how we get confused about all this..

[scandium]

Originally Posted by CB..

now come on that doesn't actually make any sense--which victims?
see how we get confused about all this..

I believe he means the people who "like to be victims". Since I've never met anyone who enjoyed being a victim of violent crime I'll take his word on that

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Thats terrible! It is understandable though because people who like to be victims can't stand people that are able to defend themselves (Its a phycology thing) and would rather die than give up their victim status. Problem is, these people seem to be the very people speaking the loudest to get their laws passed since people that can defend themselves don't give these thoughts a second thought.

What really needs to happen is that criminals should be held to and give up all their rights during the commision of a crime with intent to harm. Its the only way to fix what is broken.

-S

There are two ways people deal with recogniozing they are inferior , compared to something. First possebility, they try to improve themselves so that they become competitive again, or gain the abilities and qualities they are lacking. second possebility, they try to bring down the better ones to their own mediocre misery and declare it a virtue to make the lesser standard the better one. Unfortunately, eurppean policies on antional and international levels are basing on the second "solution", as does the recipes and strategies of the political left in general. Speak out the word "elite" in Germany, and you get slapped for the rest of the day.

Let's be solidaric in our mediocrity. It makes living so much more a fulfilled experience. Equality for all!

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Unfortunately, eurppean policies on antional and international levels are basing on the second "solution", as does the recipes and strategies of the political left in general.

Which left-wing recipes and strategies would those be Skybird? Specifically I mean. This is what Wiki says about "Left-wing issues" and I'm curious as to which of these general left-wing ideas you take issue with:

"The far left has historically opposed the concentration of wealth and power, especially in an institutionalized form, in the hands of those who have traditionally controlled them. As such, the left often works to eliminate high levels of inequality. Outside the United States, which lacked a historical ruling class or nobility, this often included at the most basic level demands for democratisation of the political system and land reform in agricultural areas.


With the spread of the industrial revolution, left-wing politics became concerned with the conditions and rights of large numbers of workers in factories and of lower classes in general. Social democracy or socialism, the welfare state, or trade unionism have been specific models of socieity which leftists believe will advance the interests of the poor. In modern times the left also criticized what it perceives as the exploitative nature of globalization, as in global economic integration, through the rise of sweatshops and the race to the bottom, and has sought to promote fair trade.


As civil and human rights gained more attention during the twentieth century, the left allied itself with advocates of racial and gender equality, and cultural tolerance. It has also been opposed to some forms of aggressive nationalism, such as imperialism and offensive war, which have been seen as a vehicle to advance the interests of corporatism.


Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary to advance the interests of the poor and middle class, often in the pursuit of Keynesian ideals.


Advocacy of government or social intervention in the market puts those on the left at odds with advocates of the free market as well as corporations (who oppose democratic control of the markets but not necessarily all control) if they see their interests threatened.


Many on the Left describe themselves as "progressive", a term that arose from their self-identification as the side of social progress and openness to change.


Left-wing positions on social issues, such as opposition to social hierarchy and authority over moral behaviour, strict adherence to tradition, and monoculturalism, may make them allies with right wing advocates of "individual freedom", though their solutions are very different.


The above strands of left wing thought come in many forms, and individuals who support some of the objectives of one of the above stands will not necessarily support all of the others. At the level of practical political policy, there are endless variations in the means that left wing thinkers advocate to achieve their basic aims, and they sometimes argue with each other as much as with the right."

[TteFAboB]

Once again, Scandium comes out of his alienated cave to spin the wheel of illusion.

It's impossible to communicate with those who live in a fantasy world, next Skybird will answer him, but Scandium will not believe a word he says, he cannot even consider believing his partners are in fact partners-in-crime.

Who wants Popcorn?

[Skybird]

The left's policies is the policies I see implemented by the left in the present reality if I just open my eyes. Judging them by deeds, not words, of course.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

Once again, Scandium comes out of his alienated cave to spin the wheel of illusion.

It's impossible to communicate with those who live in a fantasy world, next Skybird will answer him, but Scandium will not believe a word he says, he cannot even consider believing his partners are in fact partners-in-crime.

Who wants Popcorn?

WTF are you talking about? Your habit of responding to everything I post, and in the third person no less, with some kind of ad hominem is becoming very tiresome and here, as usual, I have no idea what you're even talking about.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The left's policies is the policies I see implemented by the left in the present reality if I just open my eyes. Judging them by deeds, not words, of course.

Alright so which deeds? What is the left doing, specifically, to contribute to this problem? You're "opening your eyes" comment is out of place, given that you know I don't live in Europe and that I am, therefore, asking you as a European for what it is that you see happening there because of left-wing deeds.

[TteFAboB]

Oh, I'm no longer in your ignore list? Very well then, I will provide you with a worthful response. The third-person I took from the football comentators.

Nice link to wikipedia, but if you want to compete, I can do better:

We Communists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a capitalist system that has served its purpose, but no longer meets the needs and requirements of the great majority of our people.
We believe that socialism USA will be built according to the traditions, history, culture and conditions of the United States. Thus, it will be different from any other socialist society in the world. It will be uniquely American.
What will be the goals of our socialist society?

1. A life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness.
2. An end to racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, all forms of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. An end to the unequal status of women.
3. Renewal and extension of democracy; an end to the rule of corporate America and private ownership of the wealth of our nation. Creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering of the human personality, creativity and talent.

The advocates and ideologues of capitalism hold that such goals are utopian; that human beings are inherently selfish and evil. Others argue that these goals can be fully realized under capitalism.
We are confident, however, that such goals can be realized, but only through a socialist society.

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/13/

As you can see, it is very easy to put nice words on paper that appeal only to the emotional, but fail to gain any attention from the cool reasonable mind, for example:

"The far left has historically opposed the concentration of wealth and power, especially in an institutionalized form, in the hands of those who have traditionally controlled them. As such, the left often works to eliminate high levels of inequality. Outside the United States, which lacked a historical ruling class or nobility, this often included at the most basic level demands for democratisation of the political system and land reform in agricultural areas.

How does the left works to eliminate high levels of inequality by demanding a land reform? Will the land be reformed by convincing people to resign their own lands voluntarily or will they be taken by force? Depending on this choice, this general left-wing idea becomes completely objectionable.

Specifying:

As civil and human rights gained more attention during the twentieth century, the left allied itself with advocates of racial and gender equality, and cultural tolerance(...)

That left-wing-built public school in Berlim for Muslim immigrants not only advocates gender inequality by remembering the students their daddies can beat their wives as much as they want as to say otherwise would be intolerant to their culture, but the segregation of the pupils created racial conflicts with the rest of the population. If the paragraph quoted above means this kind of policy is the general left-wing idea, then it is completely objectionable. Perhaps the Author excluded German and French politicians from his abstraction.

Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary to advance the interests of the poor and middle class, often in the pursuit of Keynesian ideals.

Generic. If the means are not agreed upon, then to some the intervention could mean mass forced abortions. The simplicity of this articles is glaring, apparently Anarchists are excluded from the spectre. Someone should add an apology to the Anarcho group or at least explain why they are not good enough to be considered one of the different left-wing groups, perhaps the idea of abolishing the government and it's capability of social intervention is a reactionary idea, sorry Anarchists, you are almost nobody according to the Author, insignificant, irrelevant, there's some tolerance and respect for you.

Advocacy of government or social intervention in the market puts those on the left at odds with advocates of the free market as well as corporations (who oppose democratic control of the markets but not necessarily all control) if they see their interests threatened.

Back to the real world. How did corporations ended up in there? I suppose the Ford Foundation and George Soros will not appreaciate it. If democratic control of the markets means transferring internal economic policy to the EU, this idea is completely objectionable.

Left-wing positions on social issues, such as opposition to social hierarchy and authority over moral behaviour, strict adherence to tradition, and monoculturalism, may make them allies with right wing advocates of "individual freedom", though their solutions are very different.

I don't see anything to possibly oppose here, such a generic and confusing paragraph it is. It's impossible to specify on this one unless the Author does the favour of also being more specific.

So, there you go, unless you are ignoring the entire European left-wing and all their actions, you won't find anything to take an issue with, since you can't take an issue from nothing.

[Skybird]

You are right, Scandium.

Next.