Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: MDV on March 06, 2008, 01:23:20 PM
-
QUESTION:
How do you tell the difference between a UK Police Officer, an Australian
Police Officer and an American Police Officer?
ANSWER:
Pose the following question -
You're down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.
Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the
corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and
charges.
You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere
seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?.
UK Police Officer answer:
Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his
hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this
send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he would be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound
me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he
was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-9-9?
Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and
weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage
such behaviour.
If I raise my gun and he turns and runs away, Do I get blamed when he falls
over running away, knocks his head and kills himself?
If I shoot him, and lose the court case does he have the opportunity to sue
me, cost me my job, my credibility and will I lose my family home?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALIAN OFFICERS Answer:
BANG!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN OFFICERS Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click... (sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click.
Daughter: "Nice grouping dad, were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"
-
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
:lol:
-
Hahaha too true.
-
HA ... very funny, in a sad way.
-
:lol::lol:
-
Ace!!
-
that comparison is completely untrue.
none of the glock .40 caliber sidearms have a 12 bullet cartridge capacity :P
-
The English cop would also have wondered "Hmmm, is he black?"
Y'know, institutionalised racism and all that.
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
A Dutch cop would have made him a cup o' tea.
Or he would have ran away, screaming like a sissy.
The perp will be fine as long as he doesn't drive too fast past a speed camera.
-
:lol: :lol:
It's not going to be this way for much longer (he prays) :?
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
:lol: :lol:
It's not going to be this way for much longer (he prays) :?
Oh, I think it is, unfortunately.
But I don't want any American-style cops going BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! (etc) either. :?
-
Just a BANG in the leg would have been sufficient/ideal I suppose. :lol: :?
-
:lol: :lol:
It's not going to be this way for much longer (he prays) :?
Oh, I think it is, unfortunately.
But I don't want any American-style cops going BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! (etc) either. :?
We could do with more tough action and less bollocks or the crims win. One bang is enough.
-
We could do with more tough action and less bollocks or the crims win. One bang is enough.
Agreed, but in the long term I'd like to see less crims in the first place (and not just because they're dead), so there's less need for tough action.
We somehow (and I don't know how :( ) have to get back to a point where responsible parents bring up their kids with respect for authority and consideration for each other. And I mean real respect, not some bullsh!t macho concept of "respeck".
There have always been elements of society who decided to do wrong. What we have now is a terrifying number of people who have never been taught there are such things as right and wrong. They just do what they please, with no thought for anyone else, or for the consequences. And the kids they produce will be even more frightening.
-
I agree with what you're saying Phil. Perhaps in some respect what Johnny said about more tough action could help achieve what you're after; more tough, traditional action against criminals sends out more of a "this is wrong" message than pussy-footing around. Whether that helps much at all though I have no idea.
-
Strong parenting is on the down apparently, in a debate in politics the other day, my teacher (head of yr9 - height of c--kiness etc) explained that parents tell the teachers to try and sort them out, they believe its down to this great education education education system b0ll0cks.
Then theres all this stuff about the point where punishment becomes abuse
-
Strong parenting is on the down apparently, in a debate in politics the other day, my teacher (head of yr9 - height of c--kiness etc) explained that parents tell the teachers to try and sort them out, they believe its down to this great education education education system b0ll0cks.
But then when the teachers do take action, the parents take the kids' side - no matter what they've done - and come down and threaten the teachers.
It drives me mad when I see these "Jeremy Kyle guest" parents saying "it's not my responsibilty what they do when they're out". Oh yes it is, you tossers. :x
-
But then when the teachers do take action, the parents take the kids' side - no matter what they've done - and come down and threaten the teachers.
It drives me mad when I see these "Jeremy Kyle guest" parents saying "it's not my responsibilty what they do when they're out". Oh yes it is, you tossers. :x
Yeah I know what you mean about the teacher-parent thing. Many parents are so unwilling to admit they're child has done anything wrong. That's from first-hand experience at a school with a good reputation as well.
And as for Jeremy-Kyle guest people (interesting terminology- the Tories are using the EXACT same example for some new campaign of theirs!), well yeah... that's really quite shitee.
-
And as for Jeremy-Kyle guest people (interesting terminology- the Tories are using the EXACT same example for some new campaign of theirs!), well yeah... that's really quite shitee.
Aaargh, God forbid I should align myself with the Tories. I'll be buying the Daily Mail next. :oops:
But the thing that worries me about the "get tough on crime", "string 'em up" etc arguments is that it's closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, in a sense. Give someone a beating every time they step out of line and they'll stop doing it (perhaps... eventually...) - but it won't turn them into a well-adjusted member of society.
An enormous part of a person's personality, values and attitudes is formed in the first few years of life. If the parents get that part wrong, I believe it's too late. Those little scumbags who kicked Garry Newlove to death will still be scumbags when they get out of prison, it isn't going to change who they are.
-
Aaargh, God forbid I should align myself with the Tories. I'll be buying the Daily Mail next. :oops:
Here you go:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MP9WmoaLFWM
Those little scumbags who kicked Garry Newlove to death will still be scumbags when they get out of prison, it isn't going to change who they are.
Yeah fair play. But how do you get parents to take responsibility for their kids and educate them properly while their growing up? Especially when many of such parents were brought up in the same circumstances. Can anyone say vicious circle?
-
Yeah fair play. But how do you get parents to take responsibility for their kids and educate them properly while their growing up? Especially when many of such parents were brought up in the same circumstances. Can anyone say vicious circle?
Oh yeah, absolutely. That's what worries me most. If the parents themselves lack values and don't know what to teach their kids, then how do you break that cycle? I wish I had the answers. :(
-
Me too!!! Or I wish one of the idiots sitting in the houses of parliament, getting paid to think about this sort of thing, knew the answers. :?
-
We somehow (and I don't know how :( ) have to get back to a point where responsible parents bring up their kids with respect for authority and consideration for each other. And I mean real respect, not some bullsh!t macho concept of "respeck".
you mean restecp?
da ali G way?
LMFAO
-
In a way Ali G's Restecp is way better than macho "respeck bruv innit!" :lol:
-
Love Ali G :P
Along the same subject lines, for those in yonder countryside.
Gypsys...
They were outside a village shop, with an unlicensed (prob stolen) quad bike, police come up to ask for driving license + reg etc.
"well you can $%&# off, its nothing to do with you"
and so he did...
The issue is futher confused by being very near the Herts and Beds border, and so they cannot be prosecuted (also because they have no permanent address)
Despite my father being arrested for drunk driving on farm property and losing license for 3 years, by sodding Beds police :?
-
The thing is the parents aren't going to get better. Why is this? Well I've got a few theorys to bang around. I was born in the sixties which isn't that long ago really. My parents were born in the thirties. Theirs just at the end of Victoria's reign. So 3 generations away from so called Victorian Values what ever they may be but you get the picture. Her husband Albert supposedly being all virtuous ect according to his memorial near The Albert Hall. People aspired to all of this back then, well most did. Now they don't even know what a virtue is or as Philly pointed out the difference between right and wrong. So is this how things were before The Victorians came along? Not sure, perhaps one of us is a historian and could shed some light. So if you have no education, no morals intellect or logic ect your left with instincts, which in their basic form are fuking scary! Drugged up cave teens with shooters, great eh! I can see your point Phil, get to the basics and stop them being criminals in the first place but with parents so deluded and in denial you've got no chance. I really think the human race as a whole has peaked and is now in free fall. There isn't enough space, resources and were not the only country breeding things like this. Ha ha you've got to laugh haven't you! We have a government who haven't got a clue about anything anymore let alone getting to grips with this shitee. What a $%&#ing sorry mess it all is :lol: Find salvation in your guitars boys, it's all we've got! :roll:
-
^ I've been on the Whisky for 2 hours. What a rant!
:lol:
-
^:lol:
Ha ha you've got to laugh haven't you! We have a government who haven't got a clue about anything anymore let alone getting to grips with this shitee. What a #$%!& sorry mess it all is Laughing
That's basically it really, yeah. :lol: :? :shock: :shock:
Find salvation in your guitars boys, it's all we've got!
That just conjures imagery of a load of geezers strumming away in trenches or something. :lol: :oops:
-
^:lol:
Ha ha you've got to laugh haven't you! We have a government who haven't got a clue about anything anymore let alone getting to grips with this shitee. What a #$%!& sorry mess it all is Laughing
That's basically it really, yeah. :lol: :? :shock: :shock:
Find salvation in your guitars boys, it's all we've got!
That just conjures imagery of a load of geezers strumming away in trenches or something. :lol: :oops:
Well they could be used as non lethal weapons! Get the sound from a rig of over cooked Kochs up to around 170db point in the direction of the enemy and chug. Then when they get too close chug at will! 8)
-
The English cop would also have wondered "Hmmm, is he black?"
Y'know, institutionalised racism and all that.
LOL
-
The thing is the parents aren't going to get better. Why is this? Well I've got a few theorys to bang around. I was born in the sixties which isn't that long ago really. My parents were born in the thirties. Theirs just at the end of Victoria's reign. So 3 generations away from so called Victorian Values what ever they may be but you get the picture.
I've got another couple of theories to throw in the pot...
For most of our history we've never been too far away from a war. And during those wars, people pulled together and strengthened their sense of community. Nowadays, we still get involved in international conflict, but it doesn't involve most of us because the weapons are more powerful and sophisticated. And with 24 hour news, more moral ambiguities become clear, it's not so clear who the good guys are, so we're not necessarily all on the same "side".
And then there's religion. 50 or 100 years ago, the vast majority of people shared a common(ish) religion - a large percentage even believed in it. Again, it strengthened communities. Nowadays, we might claim to be a "Christian country", but who goes to church or actually believes? Pretty much no-one. And in our multi-cultural society, there are lots of religions - they create divisions instead of common ground.
Not that I want to get sent off to war or start going to church (I'm an atheist!), but it seems that even those factors which used to make our society more united are now making it more fractured than ever before.
I really think the human race as a whole has peaked and is now in free fall.
Yep, we're a decadent society. Roll on that environmental disaster to wipe us out like the dinosaurs! :wink:
-
Well they could be used as non lethal weapons! Get the sound from a rig of over cooked Kochs up to around 170db point in the direction of the enemy and chug. Then when they get too close chug at will! 8)
HA! A whole brigade of soldiers chugging on their Kochs!!! Yes, that is the way forward! :lol: :oops:
And Phil- totally agree about religion + war e.t.c. Just pretty much EVERYTHING about our society does not lend itself to togetherness. Especially with a growing population and the mass media.
I think we can overcome it. But how we would do that, and if we actually WILL, I'm not sure.
:?
-
The thing is the parents aren't going to get better. Why is this? Well I've got a few theorys to bang around. I was born in the sixties which isn't that long ago really. My parents were born in the thirties. Theirs just at the end of Victoria's reign. So 3 generations away from so called Victorian Values what ever they may be but you get the picture. Her husband Albert supposedly being all virtuous ect according to his memorial near The Albert Hall. People aspired to all of this back then, well most did. Now they don't even know what a virtue is or as Philly pointed out the difference between right and wrong. So is this how things were before The Victorians came along? Not sure, perhaps one of us is a historian and could shed some light. So if you have no education, no morals intellect or logic ect your left with instincts, which in their basic form are fuking scary! Drugged up cave teens with shooters, great eh! I can see your point Phil, get to the basics and stop them being criminals in the first place but with parents so deluded and in denial you've got no chance. I really think the human race as a whole has peaked and is now in free fall. There isn't enough space, resources and were not the only country breeding things like this. Ha ha you've got to laugh haven't you! We have a government who haven't got a clue about anything anymore let alone getting to grips with this shitee. What a #$%!& sorry mess it all is :lol: Find salvation in your guitars boys, it's all we've got! :roll:
the problem is, though, that victorian values were shite, and also london/britain wasn't some kind of nostalgic safe place where everyone danced hand-in-hand under rainbows during her reign either.
i don't know what to do to sort it out either, but as philly says, we need to see why they commit crimes, and cut it off at the source, as it were. no point in sending someone to jail for 5 years to be "tough on crime" if they come out more hardened criminals than they went in.
These super-rich oligarchs (who got their money by EXTREMELY dubious means), hedge fund owners, businesses avoiding as much tax as possible (seems tesco is at it now too) etc. flaunting their wealth and not having to pay tax either aren't exactly helping to set a good example. If people with more money that it's possible to spend without being daft and putting in an order for 6000 learjets are trying to shirk their responsibility to pay fair taxes, how the heck do we persuade those worse-off that they're doing something which is "wrong"?
I'm far more concerned with the cheapos who already are doing better than 99.9999% of the population, but who are still not content, and are still trying to gip the system.
You know what's wrong? Tax evasion when you're already one of the richest people in the country.
:evil:
Don't get me wrong, i'm not in favour of thugs, or people who go round happy-slapping etc. I want them locked up as much as the rest of you do. But I also want the Mr Burns-style characters locked up too. :twisted:
-
In the past the pond life who are todays chav parents would not have spawned as they would have been cannon fodder in some war or another. Unfortunitely these days they live long enough to inflict ther rat faced offspring upon the rest of us.
I have lived most of my life with armed cops (not whimpy pistols and MP5s) and never found them a problem.
Then I experienced the Met firearms teams who where just itching to shoot. I have to say they where the most undisiplined & childish representives of the law that I have ever seen. I'm just glad that I wasn't carrying a table leg or MP3 player at the time http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/13/mp3_gun_swoop/ (to understand the reference)
-
HA! A whole brigade of soldiers chugging on their Kochs!!!
Now that's just not helping the military stereotypes!
-
Too right Dave! :evil:
I'm just glad that I wasn't carrying a table leg or MP3 player at the time http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/13/mp3_gun_swoop/ (to understand the reference)
Oh my GOODNESS, no way- I saw this on a late-night crime program recently I'm sure of it. A woman rang the police with a description of a man who she thought had a gun, and he got on the bus and was followed by a helicopter, and then held up by armed police shortly after he got off the bus. It sounds too similar to be a different story. Except the program mentioned nothing of the mp3 player or the fact that it was a case of mistaken identity basically. That is unbelievable.
-
My god,
What have I created :o
Some good points, though.
For the record, I think a reasonable factor in it is the impunity that kids can feel in public now.
You touch them and its assault at the least, threats of molestation at worst. We overprotect our children and therefore, to a degree, render them immune to the idea of consequence. Most systems, schooling and law in particular, are geared up to automatically regard children and teens as victims and to protect them.
At what point did we forget that kids can be utter bar-stewards and need to learn that there are repercusions for being a tw@t? At what point did we forget that if you give a young delinquent an inch, they'll take a mile and laugh at your gullibility a moment later?
I think if the public, i.e. any given person, were more entitled in the eyes of the law to defend themselves against aggressors, and the moral reletavism of ultimate causation of violent behaviour removed from the law and each person made responsible for each act in isolation (i.e. you come at someone with a knife and nobody gives a $%&# that youre poor and addicted to crack or your daddy beat you you came at someone with a knife and you have to answer for that) then we'd have a safer country.
-
My god,
What have I created :o
Some good points, though.
For the record, I think a reasonable factor in it is the impunity that kids can feel in public now.
You touch them and its assault at the least, threats of molestation at worst. We overprotect our children and therefore, to a degree, render them immune to the idea of consequence. Most systems, schooling and law in particular, are geared up to automatically regard children and teens as victims and to protect them.
At what point did we forget that kids can be utter bar-stewards and need to learn that there are repercusions for being a tw@t? At what point did we forget that if you give a young delinquent an inch, they'll take a mile and laugh at your gullibility a moment later?
I think if the public, i.e. any given person, were more entitled in the eyes of the law to defend themselves against aggressors, and the moral reletavism of ultimate causation of violent behaviour removed from the law and each person made responsible for each act in isolation (i.e. you come at someone with a knife and nobody gives a $%&# that youre poor and addicted to crack or your daddy beat you you came at someone with a knife and you have to answer for that) then we'd have a safer country.
I don't like to keep agreeing with people so much, but again- I agree with everything you said.
To be honest, speaking as someone fresh from this societies education system, a heavily disciplinary system in schools would do WONDERS. I'm not talking bringing back the cane, but as you say, it's all about consequence. The little shitees in my school didn't give a TOSS about what they did; no sufficient punishment, or incentive to behave. Now couple that with what Phil mentioned earlier about parents siding with kids, and you have a recipe for disaster which ends in teachers having littler to no control.
-
That story about the guy with the MP3 player reminds me of a guy I was talking to today. He was arrested by the police and held for 6 hours after having been dabbed and dna'd. His crime? He innocently bought a van that turned out to have been stolen. He'd done HPI checks beforehand and nothing untoward showed up. He was trying to tax it when the problem arose and the police were informed. So he loses £5.7k as the vehicle is(quite rightly) confiscated and then gets treated like that. This guy was 43 years old and had never had any contact with the police all his life-not even a parking ticket. Meanwhile there are scrotes walking our streets laughing at us and immune from any form of punishment. They put pensioners refusing to pay council tax in jail and let muggers and burglars go free- figure that one out and if you can make sense of it, can you let me know please. That lot in the asylum that is Westminster have a lot to answer for.
-
Ahh, politics :lol:
The word politics is derived from 'poly' meaning MANY and 'ticks' meaning BLOOD SUCKING PARASITES.
-
I don't like to keep agreeing with people so much, but again- I agree with everything you said.
To be honest, speaking as someone fresh from this societies education system, a heavily disciplinary system in schools would do WONDERS. I'm not talking bringing back the cane, but as you say, it's all about consequence. The little shitees in my school didn't give a TOSS about what they did; no sufficient punishment, or incentive to behave. Now couple that with what Phil mentioned earlier about parents siding with kids, and you have a recipe for disaster which ends in teachers having littler to no control.
i don't know what to do to be honest. my dad was a teacher, and i'm not too long out of school myself, and i know discipline is a major problem.
however, I know fine rightly, from my experience in school, that all the more strict teachers managed to achieve, more often than not, was to scare the bejasus out of those pupils who were already behaving- people like me and my friends. the real hardened misbehavers didn't care less- being told off was often even a badge of honour. what is it they say? the law is only for those stupid enough to follow it...
of course, the really, really strict teachers sometimes managed to scare everyone- the downside being that it was too much to lose, even for those already behaving. I'd rather have been in a class with people misbehaving than been scared to sneeze at the wrong time (as you were with a couple of teachers)- treatment like that was verging on abuse, frankly.
we can't really try kids as adults in court, and also the problem is, for many people there is no deterrent. Look at countries with the death penalty- people still commit crimes (in many cases, more crimes than countries without such a stiff punishment)... a lot of criminals (a) don't think they'll be caught or (b) feel like they have nothing to lose or even (c) make a calculated risk based on how much there is to gain if they aren't caught.
Those are pretty hard things to fight against.
I think if the public, i.e. any given person, were more entitled in the eyes of the law to defend themselves against aggressors, and the moral reletavism of ultimate causation of violent behaviour removed from the law and each person made responsible for each act in isolation (i.e. you come at someone with a knife and nobody gives a $%&# that youre poor and addicted to crack or your daddy beat you you came at someone with a knife and you have to answer for that) then we'd have a safer country.
i agree, but the problem with not looking at the causes of crime will mean that the public will feel more able to defend themselves, but there'll be about ten times as many people coming at you with a knife...
i wouldn't fancy my chances against someone with a knife.
of course, we could just legalise handguns. that'd be awesome. :twisted: (i'm being serious)
-
however, I know fine rightly, from my experience in school, that all the more strict teachers managed to achieve, more often than not, was to scare the bejasus out of those pupils who were already behaving- people like me and my friends. the real hardened misbehavers didn't care less- being told off was often even a badge of honour. what is it they say? the law is only for those stupid enough to follow it...
of course, the really, really strict teachers sometimes managed to scare everyone- the downside being that it was too much to lose, even for those already behaving. I'd rather have been in a class with people misbehaving than been scared to sneeze at the wrong time (as you were with a couple of teachers)- treatment like that was verging on abuse, frankly.
Yeah you have a point. Even the best teachers can't control everyone. And if you push too hard then as you say, where do you draw the line before it becomes abuse.
But basically on the whole, it's a battle that needs to be fought on two fronts at the same time for anything to get better. Firstly, locating and fighting the causes of the crime- education and a sense of morality and responsibility with kids as they grow up. Treat them more like adults, more interaction between kids/adults in the community e.t.c. so that there isn't such a huge gulf between generations.
Secondly, at the same time, be tough on the existing crime, with youths especially. Perhaps tougher than we are, to send out a strong message.
I think. :lol:
-
of course, we could just legalise handguns. that'd be awesome. :twisted: (i'm being serious)
But in a society where you carry a handgun, do you think the bad guys won't? They'll have Uzis.
If we take the "fight fire with fire" route we're not going to end up with less violent crime.
-
I think if the public, i.e. any given person, were more entitled in the eyes of the law to defend themselves against aggressors, and the moral reletavism of ultimate causation of violent behaviour removed from the law and each person made responsible for each act in isolation (i.e. you come at someone with a knife and nobody gives a $%&# that youre poor and addicted to crack or your daddy beat you you came at someone with a knife and you have to answer for that) then we'd have a safer country.
i agree, but the problem with not looking at the causes of crime will mean that the public will feel more able to defend themselves, but there'll be about ten times as many people coming at you with a knife...
i wouldn't fancy my chances against someone with a knife.
of course, we could just legalise handguns. that'd be awesome. :twisted: (i'm being serious)
Thats not what I mean.
I mean that self-defence and bystander-intervention are more acceptable in the eyes of the law.
That wont make people more aggressive, because its implicit in that that aggressors are in the wrong, and anyone that gives comuppance for it there and then, provided they dont go nuts, will not be arrested for defending themselves/others.
I'm talking about aggressors getting the short end of the stick in the law. At the moment any violent act is, stricktly speaking, viewed as illegal regardless of circumstance (i.e. you defend yourself aggressively, youre in the wrong)
Though I do think that the police have a decent grasp of this already. I was in a fight a little while ago, typical pub nonesense, where this guy nutted me out of the blue, so I hit him back (reflex action). I got a sore lip and loose tooth, he got a knocked out, broken nose (had to be set back in place) and wandered round with two black eyes for a week. There was quite a bit of blood. Realising that I had caused more damage than him, I went to the police to get in first in case they had to be (if an ambulence was called) and explained what happened, and that I was there because I didnt want to be nicked because I defended myself. They said "As far as were concerned hes the perp and youre the IP" and stuck him in the cells for the night. I asked them not to take any further action and the guy admitted he was being a tw@t and bought me a drink the next day.
I know quite a few police officers (my parents met in the police) and this sort of attitude seems to be prevelant.
Its when it gets to courts and the moral evaluation of the situation is thrown out of the window and replaced with the letter of the law, which in this regard is an ass, that we get the problem.
Many criminals know all about that and exploit it.
That needs to stop, is basically my point.
-
defend yourself aggressively
Surely this is an Oxymoron? :wink:
Personally, I don't think there is a way around the current state, short of the ridiculous: War, Nuclear Holocaust, sponsorship of the CPS by Dave Mustaine etc.
But I do think that the actual situation is blown waaay out of proportion by the press.
I certainly feel safe walking the streets at night (nearby residential area has one of the highest concentrations of ASBOs in the country, although it's not mosside by any stretch of the imagination), and I imagine that, overall, you're far less likely to be injured in a dark alley today than 110 years ago, in the halcyon days of Queen vic.
oh yeah, the joke was good :lol:
-
It's all about getting the balance right. Balance is the key to everything really.
I know the Victorians weren't as virtuous as we're led to believe but those things did get bred into my parents generation. London has always been a mad place as were other citys and towns. Look at what went on at Tyburn Gallows. Hanging 9 at a time. You had sympathisers and supporters all kicking the shite out of each other tanked up on Ale and Gin. Then the cavalry would break it up with cutlasses. A bit like football violence but with more to lose. All this will never change. You can't educate everyone. Instincts will always take over if intellect or logic can't or won't get a chance to prevail. It's natural really so what am I moaning about!!
Yeah fight fire with fire like James Hetfield bellowed once, that's natural too!
-
The table leg story. The person who phoned the police had a personal vendetta against Harry, the man who was shot dead by police apparently. They knew he didn't have a gun but told the police he was carrying one. There are some nasty weasels out there.
-
Yeah you have a point. Even the best teachers can't control everyone. And if you push too hard then as you say, where do you draw the line before it becomes abuse.
But basically on the whole, it's a battle that needs to be fought on two fronts at the same time for anything to get better. Firstly, locating and fighting the causes of the crime- education and a sense of morality and responsibility with kids as they grow up. Treat them more like adults, more interaction between kids/adults in the community e.t.c. so that there isn't such a huge gulf between generations.
Secondly, at the same time, be tough on the existing crime, with youths especially. Perhaps tougher than we are, to send out a strong message.
I think. :lol:
yeah, tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. good point about treating kids like adults- i don't agree with trying them as adults, but it certainly wouldn't hurt if some adults weren't so supercilious with them. :)
of course, we could just legalise handguns. that'd be awesome. :twisted: (i'm being serious)
But in a society where you carry a handgun, do you think the bad guys won't? They'll have Uzis.
If we take the "fight fire with fire" route we're not going to end up with less violent crime.
oh, i know. just the difference now is that the crims have guns and I don't. I'd rather have a handgun against a crim with an uzi, than the current situation where i have no gun and a criminal has a handgun. if anything, single-shot guns are more accurate and easy to aim. It's unlikely to escalate into much of an arms race... i can't see too many criminals going round with RPGs, driving challenger tanks etc., or perhaps a tactical nuke. The whole point of illegal weapons is that you have to be able to hide them- pretty hard with anything much bigger than a handgun.
And my sister always makes an excellent point about this- women are already by and large weaker than men. This surely encourages rape etc. Society has no problem with accepting that women are less able to defend themselves than men as things are, yet it's wrong for women to want to have guns to protect themselves?
Much the same for wussy guys (like myself). I don't want to have to learn to do ju-jitsu for 15 years so I can defend myself- and more's the point, what do I do for those 15 years until I'm good enough, not go out? And as mark will rightly say, if you do know ju-jitsu, or other martial art, what would go down as self-defence for an amateur member of the public would be considered murder in the eyes of the law.
As my sister says, currently women pretty much have the option of being raped, or else learning self-defence where, in the unfortunate event they managed to successfully fend off a rapist, would likely be tried for murder, or assault, because of their training.
Not exactly a great choice there. guns would level the playing field somewhat.
Thats not what I mean.
I mean that self-defence and bystander-intervention are more acceptable in the eyes of the law.
That wont make people more aggressive, because its implicit in that that aggressors are in the wrong, and anyone that gives comuppance for it there and then, provided they dont go nuts, will not be arrested for defending themselves/others.
I'm talking about aggressors getting the short end of the stick in the law. At the moment any violent act is, stricktly speaking, viewed as illegal regardless of circumstance (i.e. you defend yourself aggressively, youre in the wrong)
Though I do think that the police have a decent grasp of this already. I was in a fight a little while ago, typical pub nonesense, where this guy nutted me out of the blue, so I hit him back (reflex action). I got a sore lip and loose tooth, he got a knocked out, broken nose (had to be set back in place) and wandered round with two black eyes for a week. There was quite a bit of blood. Realising that I had caused more damage than him, I went to the police to get in first in case they had to be (if an ambulence was called) and explained what happened, and that I was there because I didnt want to be nicked because I defended myself. They said "As far as were concerned hes the perp and youre the IP" and stuck him in the cells for the night. I asked them not to take any further action and the guy admitted he was being a tw@t and bought me a drink the next day.
I know quite a few police officers (my parents met in the police) and this sort of attitude seems to be prevelant.
Its when it gets to courts and the moral evaluation of the situation is thrown out of the window and replaced with the letter of the law, which in this regard is an ass, that we get the problem.
Many criminals know all about that and exploit it.
That needs to stop, is basically my point.
ah, sorry, yeah, i agree there. definitely dodgy how they'll spend weeks in court arguing over an action which someone had perhaps a few seconds to judge what to do.
similar thing happened to jeremy clarkson, i think, and he got off too.
i guess we need to separate whether the criminal had a bad life (which is society's fault, not the victim's) from trying to get the victim charged. instead of blaming the victim for fighting back (which is bs), blame society. something like that anyway. It doesn't sit easily with me that, as it appears anyway, a lot of these situations you just have to hope not to happen to you- once you're in them, it can feel like a catch-22 situation...
:)
-
defend yourself aggressively
Surely this is an Oxymoron? :wink:
Its not. If you've been in that situatio, you understand. Even the joke includes it: its taking hostile, potentially harmfull action against somone attacking you. Throwing a punch in answer to a headbutt, shooting someone running at you with a knife.
As opposed to defending yourself passively: Holds and throws, evasion, or running away with maybe a bit of hiding.
I hear what youre saying about the improvment and press skewing our view. Life is very very much safer now than 100 years ago. Probably even 50.
I dont think we should leave it at where we have it, though.
-
yep, just because it's as good as we've ever had it, doesn't mean it can't improve further. :)
-
Thats not what I mean.
I mean that self-defence and bystander-intervention are more acceptable in the eyes of the law.
That wont make people more aggressive, because its implicit in that that aggressors are in the wrong, and anyone that gives comuppance for it there and then, provided they dont go nuts, will not be arrested for defending themselves/others.
I'm talking about aggressors getting the short end of the stick in the law. At the moment any violent act is, stricktly speaking, viewed as illegal regardless of circumstance (i.e. you defend yourself aggressively, youre in the wrong)
Though I do think that the police have a decent grasp of this already. I was in a fight a little while ago, typical pub nonesense, where this guy nutted me out of the blue, so I hit him back (reflex action). I got a sore lip and loose tooth, he got a knocked out, broken nose (had to be set back in place) and wandered round with two black eyes for a week. There was quite a bit of blood. Realising that I had caused more damage than him, I went to the police to get in first in case they had to be (if an ambulence was called) and explained what happened, and that I was there because I didnt want to be nicked because I defended myself. They said "As far as were concerned hes the perp and youre the IP" and stuck him in the cells for the night. I asked them not to take any further action and the guy admitted he was being a tw@t and bought me a drink the next day.
I know quite a few police officers (my parents met in the police) and this sort of attitude seems to be prevelant.
Its when it gets to courts and the moral evaluation of the situation is thrown out of the window and replaced with the letter of the law, which in this regard is an ass, that we get the problem.
Many criminals know all about that and exploit it.
That needs to stop, is basically my point.
ah, sorry, yeah, i agree there. definitely dodgy how they'll spend weeks in court arguing over an action which someone had perhaps a few seconds to judge what to do.
similar thing happened to jeremy clarkson, i think, and he got off too.
i guess we need to separate whether the criminal had a bad life (which is society's fault, not the victim's) from trying to get the victim charged. instead of blaming the victim for fighting back (which is bs), blame society. something like that anyway. It doesn't sit easily with me that, as it appears anyway, a lot of these situations you just have to hope not to happen to you- once you're in them, it can feel like a catch-22 situation...
:)
I dont agree. I think that every single thing everyone on this earth does is their own responsibility, unless they were coerced.
-
you don't think being in a bad situation is coercion? not many millionaires shoplift mars bars, for example.
I don't condone it; my argument is that many supposedly "better off" people might act the same, or similarly, if dealt the same hand.
-
I dont think it is no. By coercion I mean actual threats.
I dont think circumstances of that kind mitigate anything.
To say otherwise is to force the law to have an uneven hand: it treats the poor better than the rich (and the super-rich best of all)
I've been poor. I didnt steal anything.
My family was pretty poor as a kid. No one broke the law there.
And sitting there saying 'society made me do it' and then officially allowing that excuse takes responsibility for a persons life out of the persons hands and into the governements, or other environmental factors.
That leads to nanny states at best and totalitarian at worst.
And I despise nanny states. (never been in a totalitarian one, so cant really say)
-
i dunno, man. As i said, I don't condone breaking the law. Have never done so myself.
But poor people, by and large, would break the law more than rich (certainly for petty crime).
Maybe you're just a nicer person than a lot of people are when you didn't break the law.
I just don't like to say that I could guarantee that I wouldn't break the law if dealt a bad enough hand.
-
Much the same for wussy guys (like myself). I don't want to have to learn to do ju-jitsu for 15 years so I can defend myself- and more's the point, what do I do for those 15 years until I'm good enough, not go out?
:lol: :lol:
And as mark will rightly say, if you do know ju-jitsu, or other martial art, what would go down as self-defence for an amateur member of the public would be considered murder in the eyes of the law.
The few people I know who've studied martial arts have never actually used it. And when you ask "what would you do if...", they all say (a) keep your eyes open and try not to get into trouble; (b) if you do get into trouble, the best thing to do, if you can, is just run away.
It seems to me that the real purpose of self-defence training is just to increase self-confidence. But that's going off on yet another tangent.
I hear what youre saying about the improvment and press skewing our view. Life is very very much safer now than 100 years ago. Probably even 50.
I dont think we should leave it at where we have it, though.
I'm sure it's safer than 100 years ago, maybe even 50, but I don't think it's as safe as it was 20, 30 years ago. Or maybe I've just got more scared as I've got older.
Even if it is statistically safer nowadays, I think the difference is that more people are - how can I put it? - close to the edge. There will always be "bad" parts of town and a hardcore of nutters, wherever you go. But I think people generally have become more aggressive and unpleasant, simultaneously less tolerant and less considerate of those around them.
It may just be small things like not holding doors or letting someone else go first, or playing music loudly, or shouting into mobile phones, but everyone is so self-centred. And on public transport there's this strange stay-out-of-my-space atmosphere - defensiveness mixed with mild hostility.
Maybe it's just a London thing.
-
Theres no doubt that poor socio-economic circumstances lead to higher crime rates.
But the fact that so many people, the vast majority, that are in those circumstances dont screw other people over to get by proves that there is something else going on (probably many things).
I'm not so sure about 'nicer' either. Its not as simple as good or bad person.
-
Much the same for wussy guys (like myself). I don't want to have to learn to do ju-jitsu for 15 years so I can defend myself- and more's the point, what do I do for those 15 years until I'm good enough, not go out?
:lol: :lol:
And as mark will rightly say, if you do know ju-jitsu, or other martial art, what would go down as self-defence for an amateur member of the public would be considered murder in the eyes of the law.
The few people I know who've studied martial arts have never actually used it. And when you ask "what would you do if...", they all say (a) keep your eyes open and try not to get into trouble; (b) if you do get into trouble, the best thing to do, if you can, is just run away.
It seems to me that the real purpose of self-defence training is just to increase self-confidence. But that's going off on yet another tangent.
I hear what youre saying about the improvment and press skewing our view. Life is very very much safer now than 100 years ago. Probably even 50.
I dont think we should leave it at where we have it, though.
I'm sure it's safer than 100 years ago, maybe even 50, but I don't think it's as safe as it was 20, 30 years ago. Or maybe I've just got more scared as I've got older.
Even if it is statistically safer nowadays, I think the difference is that more people are - how can I put it? - close to the edge. There will always be "bad" parts of town and a hardcore of nutters, wherever you go. But I think people generally have become more aggressive and unpleasant, simultaneously less tolerant and less considerate of those around them.
It may just be small things like not holding doors or letting someone else go first, or playing music loudly, or shouting into mobile phones, but everyone is so self-centred. And on public transport there's this strange stay-out-of-my-space atmosphere - defensiveness mixed with mild hostility.
Maybe it's just a London thing.
It has to be said: its just one-mans-view, but I've lived in london and its head-and-shoulders above in suspision and hostility between strangers.
You can add me to the list: I know a little martial arts and Ive used it in anger, so to speak.
I dont have sufficient expertise for my skills to be considered a weapon, though. Not by a long shot.
Its a fuzzy one that. If you train long enough in most martial arts you get to death-blows. If its know that you know that then a court can say 'you administered a lethal blow, knowing that its a lethal blow: murder', but you can still maintain the defence 'in the heat of the moment, split second decision, a carried out a conditioned reflex response without consciously considering it: manslaughter'. It really depends on the circumstances.
The first things you learn in any martial art are defensive techniques and normal (non-debilitating/lethal) kicks and punches anyway. They would certainly come out first and I very much doubt courts have to deal with this one often.
-
The few people I know who've studied martial arts have never actually used it. And when you ask "what would you do if...", they all say (a) keep your eyes open and try not to get into trouble; (b) if you do get into trouble, the best thing to do, if you can, is just run away.
It seems to me that the real purpose of self-defence training is just to increase self-confidence. But that's going off on yet another tangent.
I hear what youre saying about the improvment and press skewing our view. Life is very very much safer now than 100 years ago. Probably even 50.
I dont think we should leave it at where we have it, though.
I'm sure it's safer than 100 years ago, maybe even 50, but I don't think it's as safe as it was 20, 30 years ago. Or maybe I've just got more scared as I've got older.
Even if it is statistically safer nowadays, I think the difference is that more people are - how can I put it? - close to the edge. There will always be "bad" parts of town and a hardcore of nutters, wherever you go. But I think people generally have become more aggressive and unpleasant, simultaneously less tolerant and less considerate of those around them.
It may just be small things like not holding doors or letting someone else go first, or playing music loudly, or shouting into mobile phones, but everyone is so self-centred. And on public transport there's this strange stay-out-of-my-space atmosphere - defensiveness mixed with mild hostility.
Maybe it's just a London thing.
it's possible about self-defence. much like the way in 4x4 adverts, when it says, "buy one and don't be pushed off the road by other aggressive drivers" what it really means is "now you can be the aggressive one!"...
But I don't know. I'm sure plenty of people are doing it just in case. or maybe they just like it.
I'd also tend to agree with the fact that it was perhaps safer 20 or 30 years ago. Certainly, in the grand scheme of things, it's safer than it's been in the past. However, in the past few years, things seem to be going backwards- for example, we're better educated than at most points in the past, yet reading skills probably aren't as good as they were in the 50s.
I know I noticed that when i was at school, the younger kids seemed a lot cheekier and more confident than we'd been at the same age. that was maybe 7 years ago. when we were the youngest in the school, we were scared of the 6th formers... when we were 6th formers, they didn't seem to be.
maybe that's back to my wussiness, though.
Theres no doubt that poor socio-economic circumstances lead to higher crime rates.
But the fact that so many people, the vast majority, that are in those circumstances dont screw other people over to get by proves that there is something else going on (probably many things).
I'm not so sure about 'nicer' either. Its not as simple as good or bad person.
i dunno mark... the whole concept of capitalism seems to be "screw over or be screwed over"... that's another reason why i'm very sceptical of the law. form a plc and float on the stock exchange, and it's a good business model... don't and you're a common criminal. e.g. l'oreal with their fake eyelashes in mascara adverts.
as you say, it's complicated.
-
Dave: people take up martial arts for lots of reasons. Self defence is probably the most common. Liking it is the most common reason to carry on with it (not winning fights or anything like that). There are benefits to it that often suprise people. Historically its tied into eastern philophies and the majority of eastern martial arts espouse dicipline, peacefull resolution, minimum force needed and respect. Real respect. Not 'respeck' :shock:
A martial arts expert is much more likely to not want to fight.
Something thats often said is the confidence boost. Its true. The difference you feel is significant: you carry yourself better and become more assertive (but not aggressive, theres a world of difference). I wouldnt be suprised if just the air of confidence is an effective deterrant.
We used to make sport of the smaller kids in 6th form, if they gave us the excuse. A mate of mine put one in the bin and rolled him down the stairs once because he was in the 6th form area, and wasnt allowed to be (and he was running round being a pest). I laughed for what seemed like days.
The thing I like about capitalism is it allows you to pursue anything. Free market. Go, do, be. Its great.
What youre talking about, I thnk, is where the pursuit of money becomes a higher priority than other basic human morals.
That isnt implicit in capitalism. Or rather, captialism isnt in contradiction with that. Pure capitalism is a nightmare and thankfully doesnt happen. Capitalism can be a part of a society without that (and is: we have welfare and corporations are regulated externally to prevent infingments on more basic human rights in the quest for big numbers in your bank ballance).
Theres the safety net of welfare, too. But sponging gits have to kick the arse out of that and ruin it for other people as well.
-
oh yeah, i was just agreeing with philly that taking up martial arts might appeal to the odd person who wanted to use it for ill. I'm well aware and agree that most don't. my sister did it for a while, lol.
my complaint with it is that i can't be arsed. :lol:
i'd find it very hard to argue with the rest of your post (apart from perhaps pushing the kid down the stairs :o :o :o :lol: :lol: :lol: ), and in fact pretty much agree.
Much like your argument about safety- my feeling about capitalism is that it's the best we have thus far, but it doesn't mean we can't improve it (or try to).
:)
-
I agree, it can be improved. But then theres 'improved acording to whom?'
What measure? By what system of value?
Somethings always going to screw someone over in some way.
-
Just a comment on the original post, my Dad's a copper. He would have thrown the glock on the floor and charged the guy, breaking his knife-arm in one swift motion and then brutalizing every bone in the guys body for having the cheek to brandish a knife at him.
But then, my Dad's old-skool. :lol:
-
Just a comment on the original post, my Dad's a copper. He would have thrown the glock on the floor and charged the guy, breaking his knife-arm in one swift motion and then brutalizing every bone in the guys body for having the cheek to brandish a knife at him.
But then, my Dad's old-skool. :lol:
Both my parents were in the police, too. They met in the MET. Dad taught me how to disarm someone with a gun, as it happens (not that I expect I'd have the stones to do it for real)
They thought it was funny.
-
Yeah my Dad's always telling me how pissed off all this bureaucratic cr@p and over-political-correctness screws the job up. You're not allowed to manhandle criminals anymore, it's beyond stupid. The good days of British Policing are gone I'm afraid. I haven't shown him the thread yet but he'll probably think it's funny just because it's so true, lol. :lol:
-
Yeah, dads got some pretty funny stories.
Though from what I can tell the good ol days of policing also includes full sirens and lights when youre going to get your lunch :lol:
-
Never a dull moment. :wink:
-
The ones ivolving "Sorry, was that your head?" also crack me up
Rooftops of terraced houses sound like fun places to have chases too.
Not sure that happens much any more.
-
Yeah, all that "health and safety" balls, lol.
-
Thtas another topic entirely.
Dont even get me started.
At work they try and tell us chairs are dangerous.
$%&#ING CHAIRS!?!?!?!?
-
Ugh Health & Safety! I got told off for using my Ipod charger at work as it didn't have one of those stickers on it to say that it had been tested as being safe. I was apparently using "unauthorised equipment". I told the guy to go away and make love to himself though I used other words to express that sentiment.
-
. I told the guy to go away and make love to himself though I used other words to express that sentiment.
HA! :lol: :lol: :lol: That's one of your finest in recent times Beatle. :lol:
-
I agree, it can be improved. But then theres 'improved acording to whom?'
What measure? By what system of value?
Somethings always going to screw someone over in some way.
true, but some people are being screwed over more than others. :)
"approved according to majority", i'd say. democracy. though obviously you need a system in place to prevent the majority from persecuting the minority, too.
agreed about health and safety. They seem to spend their time (95% of the time, anyway) worrying about things which are extremely unlikely to be dangerous, meanwhile missing the obvious things which are extremely dangerous.
:lol:
-
I've refrained from posting in this thread up until now.
My 'real' job, when I'm not gigging, is a police officer. I'm 16 years in the job - mainly working the streets of Glasgow.
Hopefully no one will hold this against me :wink:
The main cause for complaint from the public is certainly youth disorder. This is a mild term for the hurt, fear and general distaste that young people get involved in and is used by the Home Office.
I've been heavily involved over the years in actively engaging youths on the streets (who are causing mayhem) and to be quite honest it's been like hitting your head against a brick wall.
The minorty - and it is a minority - section of youths that get involved in disorder, like assault, theft, carrying weapons etc have no respect for anything or anyone.
There is no deterrant in their schools or family circle that will cause them to stop what they're doing. Even if I arrest one (or more) it means nothing to them and generally speaking they will be released shortly after.
Only if the crime is of a grave nature, i.e murder, rape, robbery etc will they be detained for court. There are exceptions but they only kick in if the youth has numerous previous incidents relating to crime.
I say the above in relation to my previous experiences on the street, but recently a new method has been utilised to combat this type of crime, and you may wonder why it hasn't been used before now ....
Normally speaking the police go it alone in the fight against crime. That's the way it's always been really. Now however we have been trying a different approach - when it comes to youth crime and disorder.
Instead of just arresting or reporting a youth for something and having no further involvement we now team up with housing officers and do a follow up visit to the homes of those involved.
It's explained to the parents of the youths that they are engaging in anti-social activities and a continuation of this may (read will) result in their eviction from council housing.
This may sound simple but the results, so far, have been astounding. In the areas where this has been used it has reduced youth disorder to a fraction of previous levels.
Suddenly parents take notice and deal with their kids. The threat of eviction seems to galvanise a sense of parental responsibility that we thought long lost (if it ever existed at all).
Hopefully the rest of the country will take notice of this and adopt it as a workable and sustainable strategy to combat youth disorder.
Hopefully .....
-
Machinehead :
I didn't bother quoting.
You are right that it's a minority of the 'youth population' that casues the trouble, though unfortunitely that percentage seems to be increasing.
The parents of these weasels are the ones who where causing trouble 15 years ago (and usually still are causing trouble for that matter)
I walways wonders why courts bothered fining these (for want of a better term) people when the courts then said that the fine was to be paid @ £2 per week.
If the threat of losing their house forces these so called parents to do something then it has be be better than what we have now.
I have nothing against the vast majority of police officer (there is always bad one in every walk of life), but I do object to all these politicians, social workers and oloigists making excuses for criminals
-
I think the threat of council house eviction is shear genius.
I'm glad someone thought of it.
A nice solid sword of damoclese to hang over the scum that doesnt clog prisons up any more than they are and forces the parents to deal with their kids, or they suffer too.
Brilliant.
-
Great idea Machine Head! I did hear something on the news on long those lines but didn't realise it was already in practise 'up the road'.