Vigilante!

[BlairH]

This caught my eye.
Asian Vigilantes
by Barnie Choudhury
16 Aug 2005
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/politics/oldham1.shtml
An investigation for Today has found disturbing evidence that Asian youths in parts of Oldham are trying to create no go areas for white people.

Last year the police investigated record levels of racist attacks in Oldham.Of the 572 cases, 60% turned out to be white victims.
Pakistanis make up the majority on the Glodwick estate just west of the town centre. Some youths speak the language of racial hatred. It's not clear whether this is bravado but their message is blunt... white people keep out.

Many openly admit to carrying out what they see as revenge attacks on white people as part of a tit-for-tat campaign.

One told us: "There are signs all around saying whites enter at your risk. It's a matter of revenge. It's about giving as good as you can take."

Another had a six-inch scar running across his head. He said he had been attacked by a white gang.

"I got slashed by some whites so that I'm totally racist. I don't like whites. It's like this now, we go to a white area and we get done over. It's like them coming here they get done over...it's for your own good."

This hardening in attitude is repeated across the town and has passed down to children as young as 10. Unlike their parents they will not tolerate being victims of racism.

Local white people are scared and many want to leave the estates but cannot.

"I was just walking with my dog around 10 at night and a group of Asian youths in their car, music blaring,threatening me like saying they'd kick me head in calling me white bastard, white scum. You're frightened," one person told me.

Many Asian youths say they take the law into their own hands because they have no confidence in the police.

The perception is that the police do not take racist attacks on Asian people as seriously as assualts on white residents.

Akbor Khan had his three front teeth smashed in a brutal attack by a white gang:

"I used to have a take away in Manchester. We used to get lots of people who used to order food but not pay for it. It used to take the police an hour to get there. We'd ring the police and they'd say we haven't got the manpower. But if it happened to white people they would be there in 10 minutes," he said.

Many Asian community leaders say the trouble is caused by a minority stoking up problems for the majority, who are law abiding residents.

They say they would happily support greater police action to clamp down on the trouble makers.

Greater Manchester Police deny the accusations levelled at them.

A special multi-agency task force has been set up in Oldham to tackle the growing number of racist attacks

[warspite1805]

I think I read something similar to this last year, where some Normandy Vet who had lived there all his life was beaten close to death.
The Communities at large should not be punished by the yobs who undertake such attacks shouyld be permantly expelled from this country, as should the white yobs who behave in similar ways.

[Arvandor]

Yeah. We get reports like this in most towns, especially northern ones - Leeds, Barnsley, etc.

It's common. Take that as you will.

[BlairH]

I think I read something similar to this last year, where some Normandy Vet who had lived there all his life was beaten close to death.

Yikes. That's utterly deplorable!


The Communities at large should not be punished by the yobs who undertake such attacks shouyld be permantly expelled from this country, as should the white yobs who behave in similar ways.

Agreed.

[Arrjay]

This is really sad. Racism in any way, shape or form is just plain wrong.
Racism is the way stupid people level the playing field. Or at least attempt to. This kinda stuff just makes me want to puke.

[Jiro]

One thing is for sure, and that's the police here really are doing their jobs badly. If the police were even halfway competent, this should not be happening.

[BlairH]

This is really sad. Racism in any way, shape or form is just plain wrong.
Racism is the way stupid people level the playing field. Or at least attempt to. This kinda stuff just makes me want to puke.

Agreed. It stinks of the same stink that stank Jim Crowe South :mad:

[BlairH]

One thing is for sure, and that's the police here really are doing their jobs badly. If the police were even halfway competent, this should not be happening.

Unfortunately the police can't be everywhere at once. Therefor the ultimate responsibility for a citizen's safety should lie with said citizen his/herself.

[K'Nort]

I feel another Romeo and Juliet slash West Side Story coming....

[warspite1805]

Unfortunately the police can't be everywhere at once. Therefor the ultimate responsibility for a citizen's safety should lie with said citizen his/herself.

But you know BlairH that our wise government thinks it is wrong for regular people to be allowed defend themselves or their property, as we must not violate the criminals rights in anyway.

[Arrjay]

But you know BlairH that our wise government thinks it is wrong for regular people to be allowed defend themselves or their property, as we must not violate the criminals rights in anyway.

Yes!!
That is a rather screwed up little fact of life isn't it?

Wannabe Burglar:
"I jumped through this man's skylight with the intent to steal his television and rape his wife and I broke my leg!!! He'll pay or in the dungeon he'll stay I say."

Barrister:
"Oh you poor individual. Such bigotry in the face of sheer lawlessness will be fought at every frontier. We will make him pay!!"

[Dreadstar]

Well, ya know, the best way to avoid such a lawsuit is to avoid leaving a potential plaintiff...

[BlairH]

Well, ya know, the best way to avoid such a lawsuit is to avoid leaving a potential plaintiff...

In theory anyway ;)
The darn Prosecuters might still come after you with a criminal conviction unfortunately :(

[K'Nort]

In theory anyway ;)
The darn Prosecuters might still come after you with a criminal conviction unfortunately :(

Not necessarily. Many states (not sure if most) fully allow you to shoot to kill when it's an intruder in your house and sometimes even just on your property.

[BlairH]

Not necessarily. Many states (not sure if most) fully allow you to shoot to kill when it's an intruder in your house and sometimes even just on your property.

yeah but if you try that in the UK, the criminal is hailed as a martyr for criminals rights.

[Slam_Bradley]

yeah but if you try that in the UK, the criminal is hailed as a martyr for criminals rights.


Ahhhh...Yes. The civilized part of the world.

[BlairH]

Ahhhh...Yes. The civilized part of the world.

If being civilised involves disarming the law abiding population and leaving gangs run riot and commit horrid, racist acts, then apparently we're civilised.

[K'Nort]

If being civilised involves disarming the law abiding population and leaving gangs run riot and commit horrid, racist acts, then apparently we're civilised.

Yes but then you have tea, so it balances out.

[warspite1805]

I dn't even lie tea, nor guns for that matter, I like swords and crossbows.

[BlairH]

Yes but then you have tea, so it balances out.

I dislike tea. I like coffee...and guns.

[Slam_Bradley]

I dislike tea. I like coffee...and guns.


You should live in the US of A. In the West. The Old West. The good part.

[BlairH]

You should live in the US of A. In the West. The Old West. The good part.

Indeed. I'm not British...I was just born here by mistake ;)

[Charles RB]

I keep hearing about how the law doesn't allow you to defend your property and how the criminals have more rights than the property owner and blah blah blah- how true is this? Where's the hard data and facts supporting it? How many times has it actually happened?

As for the gang, I can think of a better word for them than "vigilantes"- it's five latters, begins with a T, continues with a W, and rhymes with "cats".

[BlairH]

I keep hearing about how the law doesn't allow you to defend your property and how the criminals have more rights than the property owner and blah blah blah- how true is this? Where's the hard data and facts supporting it? How many times has it actually happened?

As for the gang, I can think of a better word for them than "vigilantes"- it's five latters, begins with a T, continues with a W, and rhymes with "cats".

It's very true.
Unfortunately there are some things that can't be looked at in light of "facts" and "hard data" mainly because there is none. The only stuff I can give you is anecdotal:

1) Old lady gets burgled around twice a year. The last time it happened when she was in her home and almost had a heart attack. The old lady decides to get somebody to install barbed wire atop her back fence. The local council orders her to take the fence down because it may injure burglers.

2) Teacher gets assaulted at school. At home she faces vandals who wreck the contents of her garage every other night. She buys an air pistol and one night fires it into the air so as to frighten them away. She was found guilty of a number of offences and will be sentenced shortly. No charges against those who assaulted her.

[Charles RB]

It's very true.
Unfortunately there are some things that can't be looked at in light of "facts" and "hard data" mainly because there is none.

It's very true and yet there's no data & hard fact on it? If burglars have more legal rights than homeowners, there would be data and hard fact because laws are written down!

1) Old lady gets burgled around twice a year. The last time it happened when she was in her home and almost had a heart attack. The old lady decides to get somebody to install barbed wire atop her back fence. The local council orders her to take the fence down because it may injure burglers.

The Council actually stated "it may injure burglars", did they?

2) Teacher gets assaulted at school. At home she faces vandals who wreck the contents of her garage every other night. She buys an air pistol and one night fires it into the air so as to frighten them away. She was found guilty of a number of offences and will be sentenced shortly. No charges against those who assaulted her.

How much evidence was there against those who committed the assault? If there's little evidence, they're not going to get charged- that's how the legal system works and it works like that due to the "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" ethic. The alternative is worse.

[BlairH]

It's very true and yet there's no data & hard fact on it? If burglars have more legal rights than homeowners, there would be data and hard fact because laws are written down!

Well if you want to get technical, the common law does allow for proportionate self defence. However, your assailant -by defenition- is on the offence so it's his game. He can do whatever he wants because he is already in deep shit, but if I injure him, then it's me who is in the shit.

I phone a policeman and say "my house is being burgled". They will show up in about 20mins. If I phone up and say "I've shot a burgler who tried to kill me" they will show up much sooner with their MP5s and their Glocks.

I reckon that we should employ the doctrine of "you fuck with the bull, you get the horns" ie. A crim should leave his rights at the door, and whatever I do -no matter how ingenious- in my defence should be legally kosher.


The Council actually stated "it may injure burglars", did they?

Yup. They said that given the high probability that she be burgled again, the probability was there that a burgler would get injured.


How much evidence was there against those who committed the assault? If there's little evidence, they're not going to get charged- that's how the legal system works and it works like that due to the "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" ethic. The alternative is worse.

Well, obviously if there's no evidence they shouldn't get charged. However I think the teacher should be able to flex her muscles a little and scare away the thugs. I mean firing an air pistol into the air is as harmful as shouting at them, but it's more athouratative.

[Charles RB]

I phone a policeman and say "my house is being burgled". They will show up in about 20mins.

If you say "my house has been burgled", they might take longer to get there- but taking twenty minutes if it's being burgled when you're calling? If you live twenty minutes drive away from the nearest police station, maybe, but come on. The police are going to want to catch burglars in the act of burgling because it's going to be an easy case for them.

I reckon that we should employ the doctrine of "you fuck with the bull, you get the horns" ie. A crim should leave his rights at the door, and whatever I do -no matter how ingenious- in my defence should be legally kosher.

I reckon it's a very good thing that's not legally kosher. A while back, a guy stabbed a burglar to death with a big sword- after the burglar was already running away because of the big sword being waved in his direction. He got arrested and convicted, and that's a good thing.

Yup. They said that given the high probability that she be burgled again, the probability was there that a burgler would get injured.

Now that's just dumb. Nothing's forcing the burglars to rob her house, it'd be their choice if they want to me big enough of a plonker to try climbing over barbed wire.

However I think the teacher should be able to flex her muscles a little and scare away the thugs. I mean firing an air pistol into the air is as harmful as shouting at them, but it's more athouratative.

There's laws on firing air pistols though IIRC- I don't think it's entirely legal to fire them in the direction of people or in built-up areas. I may be wrong.

What were the offences she got charged for?

[Slam_Bradley]

I keep hearing about how the law doesn't allow you to defend your property and how the criminals have more rights than the property owner and blah blah blah- how true is this? Where's the hard data and facts supporting it? How many times has it actually happened?



Virtually every year there are cases in the US of criminals initiating civil suits against people they were attempting to commit crimes against. The case of the burgler who broke throught the skylight and broke his leg, is real. It was either Cal or NY, case, I'll try to find it. I recall reading another were a trespasser sued the land owner after he broke his leg in a ditch that was somewhat concealed. I believe the jury found for the homeowner in that one.

In those cases, of course, the blame can be put on your neighbors, the jurors, with their heads up their asses.

In Idaho...and a lot of Western states, you are perfectly within your right to use force to protect your person or to come to the defense of others. That includes deadly force if necessary. You also have no duty to retreat if someone is invading your domicile (this is not true in a lot of states). So the answer is to shoot the bastard...then face him so he was coming in the door.

[BlairH]

If you say "my house has been burgled", they might take longer to get there- but taking twenty minutes if it's being burgled when you're calling? If you live twenty minutes drive away from the nearest police station, maybe, but come on. The police are going to want to catch burglars in the act of burgling because it's going to be an easy case for them. [QUOTE]
You'd think so.


[QUOTE]
I reckon it's a very good thing that's not legally kosher. A while back, a guy stabbed a burglar to death with a big sword- after the burglar was already running away because of the big sword being waved in his direction. He got arrested and convicted, and that's a good thing.

A case of evil man obsessed with self defence kills innocent gangsta'? Nope. The guy shouldn't have been convicted. After all, he was violated: A strange man came into his house and quite rightly he shit himself and went apecrap in the intruder.


Now that's just dumb. Nothing's forcing the burglars to rob her house, it'd be their choice if they want to me big enough of a plonker to try climbing over barbed wire.

Exactly, but that's how some councils are run over here. Especially the Labour ones (the "Labour" local council members in Scotland are more socialist than the Blairite liberals in Parliament)


There's laws on firing air pistols though IIRC- I don't think it's entirely legal to fire them in the direction of people or in built-up areas. I may be wrong.

Irrelevant. You commit yourself to a very formalistic standpoint. The woman was entirely justified in attempting to scare the yobs away. She did no physical harm to anybody in the process.


What were the offences she got charged for?
She was charged with a few offences. I forget some of them. One was definately breach of the peace (although the only people who complained about this mischief were the yob scum). Another one was a firearms related offence (very unjust considering an air pistol isn't a firearm)

[Charles RB]

A case of evil man obsessed with self defence kills innocent gangsta'?

No, case of drug dealer being burgled by some rivals and killing one of them, but that's besides the point. Even if it had been a normal guy, he'd still have killed someone after they'd already been scared off.

Nope. The guy shouldn't have been convicted. After all, he was violated: A strange man came into his house and quite rightly he shit himself and went apecrap in the intruder.

He'd gotten the drop on them with a big sword and the burglars were running away because of that. He chased after them and stabbed the guy in the back- that is not proportionate defense, it is not justifiable since the threat was gone, and it's not the actions of someone you want walking around free.

Irrelevant.

It's not. You fire an air pistol in the air where & when you're legally not allowed and you get caught, you'll be charged.

Another one was a firearms related offence (very unjust considering an air pistol isn't a firearm)

Is it legally counted as one?

[BlairH]

It's not. You fire an air pistol in the air where & when you're legally not allowed and you get caught, you'll be charged.

There's no reason for it to be illegal. It scares away the hooliagins nothing more.


Is it legally counted as one?
Nope. Legally, a firearm must displace at least 12 foot pounds upon firing. The air pistol in question displaced around half that.

[Slam_Bradley]

It's not. You fire an air pistol in the air where & when you're legally not allowed and you get caught, you'll be charged.


Not if the prosecutor is doing his job right. Under those circumstances. No way I charge.

[heretic]

Unfortunately the police can't be everywhere at once. Therefor the ultimate responsibility for a citizen's safety should lie with said citizen his/herself.
In that case, should not these young men be applauded for seeking to drive off actual and/or percived threats to the peace and well-being of the community?</sarcasm>

You will forgive me, but there is a fine and readily crossed line between anti-criminal and anti-'undesireable' violence in my experience. More to the point the argument you make here sounds all too much like the rational behind various 'Civic' Organisations from the Bad Old Days who took it upon themselves to deal with 'Criminal' folk however they willed.

Pray, Contemplate.

HTG