You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Now most people are more scared of detaining the burglar and defending their actions in court than anything else.
I don't think this is true in the majority of cases, it all sounds a bit Daily Mail. Are Muslims going to try and get Christmas banned this year again too?
We're not all fortunate enough to class ourselves as (ex-)professional fighters. I'm ten stone wet through. Any lack of intervention on my part wouldn't stem from a fear of court retribution for use of excessive force, it'd stem from a fear of waking up next to a machine that goes 'beep'. I'd expect that your habitual criminal is no stranger to violence and so is rather likely to be better at it than I am.
Cougar
Any lack of intervention on my part wouldn’t stem from a fear of court retribution for use of excessive force, it’d stem from a fear of waking up next to a machine that goes ‘beep’. I’d expect that your habitual criminal is no stranger to violence and so is rather likely to be better at it than I am.
Back in the 70's or 80's you wouldn't have been intervening alone and more importantly the habitual criminal wouldn't expect you to remain alone.
So instead look at the tenacious granny again... you are one of those 2 blokes and other blokes are walking past and the "normal" thing to do is wade in and help the granny so you fully expect the other guy to help and a couple of passers by.
That's not the normal situation though .... and the habitual criminal is no stranger to lack of violence, indeed even to your "non expert eye" he can't look very good at it either. There is no audio but I imagine what he's telling the blokes is he'll have them prosecuted for assault if they lay a hand on him.
Wouldn't it be better if the granny had backup and knew people would step in?
If your driveway incident had gone the other way, you'd ended up in a fight, one of those guys had been hit by you, fallen and taken a bang to the head, and later died, you'd be on a manslaughter charge. Rightly so. A self defense argument would be of little help as you'd picked up the steel bar. This sort of thing happens all the time. If you're determined to sort this kind of thing your way you'd be wise to get better acquainted with the law and stop posting about it on social media.
Rightly so.
So you're suggesting if someone comes up and say's give me your phone, car, bike I should just say here you go?
Hence why violence needs to be renormalised.
The law needs to be changed, if they hit me and they die that is their problem.
They shouldn't have been stealing from me in the first place, they should have left when I asked.
If people like living then don't go stealing from people then threaten them then hit them... otherwise they can do what they want when they want with no consequences.
Back in the 70’s or 80’s you wouldn’t have been intervening alone and more importantly the habitual criminal wouldn’t expect you to remain alone.
Like I said, it all sounds a bit Daily Mail. "Back in the day..." followed by some halcyon scenario that never actually existed - I grew up in the 70s and 80s - doesn't really convince me otherwise I'm afraid. Quite the opposite in fact.
So instead look at the tenacious granny again… you are one of those 2 blokes and other blokes are walking past and the “normal” thing to do is wade in and help the granny so you fully expect the other guy to help and a couple of passers by.
You've got two people struggling over a bike. How do you know the granny isn't the bike thief and the young lad is just trying to get his bike back? How reliable is your profiling before deciding whose side to take? Which of those two looks most like a cyclist to you?
The "normal" thing to do in this country is to mind your own business, to not get involved. I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way it is and it's the way it's always been in my living memory. A fear of getting it wrong promotes inaction, it's safer to do nothing.
How many folks on here know basic first aid, for instance? And how many don't know it because they don't want the responsibility, best to leave it to someone better?
So you’re suggesting if someone comes up and say’s give me your phone, car, bike I should just say here you go?
Hence why violence needs to be renormalised.
At what point does this logic fall down? If someone comes up and says "give me your phone etc" and they have a knife or worse, are you still going to play John in First Blood or are you going to shrug and make an insurance claim? Do you value your bike more than your left kidney?
Normal people aren't going to come out best in a fight with an attacker. "Come and have a go then if you think you're hard enough" is a monumentally dangerously stupid approach for most people.
The law needs to be changed, if they hit me and they die that is their problem.
The law isn't the problem here. The law states that you're allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself. If you use unreasonable force - and given your background, you of all people should be able to give someone a discouraging slap without murdering them to death - then you're going to get the book thrown at you and rightly so as in that case you're clearly a psychopath.
Steve, your proposition is similar to 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun...'. how's that working out for the USA in your estimation?
The solution to the problems you're experiencing is a properly funded police and criminal system as a back up for properly funded education.
Also you need to stop posting stuff like 'if they hit me and they die that is their problem.' because you may be unfortunate and find this being used in court against you one day.
If your driveway incident had gone the other way, you’d ended up in a fight, one of those guys had been hit by you, fallen and taken a bang to the head, and later died, you’d be on a manslaughter charge. Rightly so
Not necessarily. You have the right to use reasonable force, defined as reasonable in your mind, at that time, believing you were at serious risk.
That pensioner a couple of years ago wasn't charged for the death of the burglar he stabbed. Tony Martin was convicted because he shot a burglar in the back as he was leaving.
You're right of course but equipping yourself with a weapon risks it being taken off you and used against you and also weakens your defence.
I have sympathy for the 'rather be judged by 12 peers than carried in a box by 6', don't get me wrong, but property is not worth dying or being imprisoned over.
What about people who aren’t burly? If the attacker or thief is packing a knife/shank etc and when you threaten to ‘persuade’ them with your fists they decide to rush you (and anyone helping you) with it, you should be better equipped. Maybe it’s time to bring back swords and pistols as per Victorian England? Give everyone/all genders/sizes etc a fighting chance, not just the big brave foolhardy guys?
Or if guns are too much for the British trembly upper lip then what about the good old Irish fighting stick (shillelagh)?
Cougar
You’ve got two people struggling over a bike. How do you know the granny isn’t the bike thief and the young lad is just trying to get his bike back? How reliable is your profiling before deciding whose side to take? Which of those two looks most like a cyclist to you?
It's pretty easy .. you ask them to each call the police and no-one is leaving with the bike until they do and their ID checked. By the time it gets to this however it's pretty likely the thief will have run off.
However it really doesn't matter that much it's totally up to the thief if it ends in violence.
To take this specific example ... lets say you are one of the 2 blokes... you both step in to stop the granny getting hurt.
In this case the granny shows the facebook stolen bike post.. she calls the owner who say's he's sending the receipt by text...
or the not thief say's its all a mistake, here are the pics of me riding this at various places for the last 2 years...
noone got hurt at this point ... bike ends up with rightful owner. the only time someone does get hurt is if they initiate violence.
The only difference is you made it clear the thief was not leaving with the bike and they took this seriously not "lay a hand on me and I'll sue you".
At what point does this logic fall down? If someone comes up and says “give me your phone etc” and they have a knife or worse, are you still going to play John in First Blood or are you going to shrug and make an insurance claim? Do you value your bike more than your left kidney?
I don't do insurance ... but who knows, you work it out at the time.
Do you value your bike more than your left kidney?
It's no different to riding ... you seem to have some huge mental block that one is different to the other because you have normalised and manage the risks cycling.
To most members of the public hitting a 20' gap jump is the same.
The law isn’t the problem here. The law states that you’re allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself. If you use unreasonable force – and given your background, you of all people should be able to give someone a discouraging slap without murdering them to death – then you’re going to get the book thrown at you and rightly so as in that case you’re clearly a psychopath.
Only it's not, as pointed out they can fall over and hit their head ... plus you can't anticipate them. We had plenty of training injuries just fighting best friends. No different to doing a jump.. or a decent you've done 100x
but they can also just claim whiplash, psychological trauma or whatever.. and their solicitor probably will just because it detracts from the burglary/mugging whatever.
Add to which it's decades since I fought professionally.
What appears to be a big difference here is I equate the risks to something I've done. Perhaps it's more translatable between them than a bike? When you enter the ring, even with your best mate you accept a decent chance one of you will get hurt not through malice, just because shit happens. It's the same as getting on a bike ... at some point that gap that scares you just has to be done, if you screw up then there's hospital.
The law isn’t the problem here. The law states that you’re allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself.
You already covered that in part ... reasonable in what way? They may pull a knife, they may not... I'm tempted to err on the side of caution.
The term "reasonable" to some extent gets abandoned when they attack me. That's not the same as being a psychopath, it switches from say passively stopping someone removing a stolen item to actively preventing them.
Then assuming they fall over, hit their head ... or they just claim it this is then being presented before a jury of people who weren't there and who have been indoctrinated into a mindset you sum up as :
are you going to shrug and make an insurance claim
The “normal” thing to do in this country is to mind your own business, to not get involved. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s the way it is and it’s the way it’s always been in my living memory. A fear of getting it wrong promotes inaction, it’s safer to do nothing.
How many folks on here know basic first aid, for instance? And how many don’t know it because they don’t want the responsibility, best to leave it to someone better?
It's not responsibility, its liability.
I dip into this thread every now and again and there appears to be some need of some serious counselling help, or there's some weapons grade internet hardman one-upmanship going on...Either way, it's a eye opener into a wildly different mindset fo'shure.
It’s not responsibility, its liability.
No. There are Good Samaritan laws that cover this sort of thing. It's why doctors and nurses (for instance) will help you, and not turn away, if you fall.
I dip into this thread every now and again and there appears to be some need of some serious counselling help, or there’s some weapons grade internet hardman one-upmanship going on…
Yep. Any proper discussion has been lost because of one particular person's need for affirmation and validation. Which is a shame.
del
Steve, your proposition is similar to ‘the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun…’. how’s that working out for the USA in your estimation?
It's a fair comparison to make but I don't think it is the same thing.
Guns are by their nature to kill or maim people (or animals). It's their "purpose".
Another random Youtube selection for me ... was a bloke actually in America who stopped to help a young lady being hassled by 4-5 blokes.
He didn't have a gun he just had his balls to face off the gang leader and say he was quite prepared to meet violence with violence and that the young lady was leaving.
At the same time he was talking to the gang members ... "why are you following this guy... are you willing to get hurt for him..." and why are you brining our neighbourhood/race into disrepute (the girl was of asian origins and the gang were of african, like the bloke who stopped)
The solution to the problems you’re experiencing is a properly funded police and criminal system as a back up for properly funded education.
We keep going through this ... the police never were everywhere, they relied on THEIR community.
We had a good natured game of cat and mouse with our local beat bobby... (PC Purvis the Rosegrove Beat Bobby) over minor stuff like building rafts on the canal or bike ramps ramps on the JD Edmunds car park when it was closed.. but never would we do anything that might get him hurt and we and the whole community would go to him with confidence indeed most would have stepped in to help him.
All that ended when the police shipped in the Strathclyde TSG over a protest. (Which dates it)
Also you need to stop posting stuff like ‘if they hit me and they die that is their problem.’ because you may be unfortunate and find this being used in court against you one day.
Another fair point but I can't see this coming up, especially with anyone from this forum.
I'm stating what the law should be IMHO... not my interpretation of the current law.
I'm simply saying that the law should be that if someone attacks someone and it turns out they attacked the wrong person that's down to their bad choices.
What about people who aren’t burly?
There are lots of them ...
Current situation is someone isn't burly gets told to hand over their phone or wallet there is nothing they can do. The NE lancs I grew up in that didn't happen... other people stepped in but perhaps more importantly the mugger expected other people to step in. They weren't threatening a single non-burly person they were risking a passer by or 5 stepping in.
Cougar
sorry, didn't answer this
Like I said, it all sounds a bit Daily Mail. “Back in the day…” followed by some halcyon scenario that never actually existed – I grew up in the 70s and 80s – doesn’t really convince me otherwise I’m afraid. Quite the opposite in fact.
This was the Padiham/Rosegrove I grew up in.
I'm not talking about going into Burnley on a match day wearing a blue scarf... which was all a bit Nick Hornby but very few of the trouble makers were actually part of the communities... in the same way when I lived on the Winstanley Estate it was despite being a police no-go area one of the safest places for the residents. Most of the real problem wasn't the people on the estate but the gangs travelling to the estate but other than a few shootings from and by people (gangs) from outside the estate the community didn't tolerate muggings or such like so they just didn't happen.
That didn't mean loads of vigilantes wandering the estate, it meant the local community knew it couldn't get away with people walking past... and further would lose the protection of the community.
When these were reported in the Daily Mail etc. it was always implied the people were from the estate.. they were also always little angles who just happened to be carrying guns and everyone knew there was a pre-arranged gunfight going to take place. This was then reflected on the statistics for violent crime but the reality was it was much rarer than up the road on Clapham Common opposite the police station!
I have sympathy for the ‘rather be judged by 12 peers than carried in a box by 6’, don’t get me wrong, but property is not worth dying or being imprisoned over.
Context is everything. I'd hand over any belongings if threatened, but I guess if I felt it was "him or me" instead or regardless, I'd do my best to make sure it wasn't me. I'm making no claims on my ability to succeed though.
At the same time he was talking to the gang members … “why are you following this guy… are you willing to get hurt for him…” and why are you brining our
neighbourhood/racegender into disrepute (the girl was of asian origins and the gang were of african, like the bloke who stopped)
Discuss? ‘Be a man’ defined as ‘ready to do violence’ has only been so helpful.
Maybe women should also train in martial arts/self-defence from a very early age. And push for a change in the law to allow certain weapons to be carried for self-defence? Or are you relying always on numbers?
There isn’t always going to be another male (?) nearby willing to do violence to protect her from the abuse/violence of other men. In fact the ‘male protector’ trope is still just the same old same old narrative, another side of the same coin IMO.
@stevextc it seems a lot of your experience is specifically psycho-social in origin yet you are applying it universally?
I suggested (devils advocate here) before on the derailed (violence against women) thread that you maybe look a little more deeply? What are the two least violent countries in the world and what do they share in common? Say/list say 5 or 10 things about them which correlate/are instrumental in their being that way?
Then make a convincing case why those two cultures should ‘renormalise violence’ to encourage a similar societal/community situation to that which you experienced/witnessed in your childhood?
What are the two least violent countries in the world and what do they share in common?
A google search first result for least violent countries is:
#1 Iceland
#2 NZ
https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/non-economic-data/most-peaceful-countries
Then make a convincing case why those two cultures should ‘renormalise violence’ to encourage a similar societal/community situation to that which you experienced/witnessed in your childhood?
Iceland doesn't need to... renormalize it never lost it. Likewise Japan.
In common: Islands, very low population density, and have volcanoes/glaciers outdoors based lifestyles???
Not sure why you want to pick 2 though, the list continues
Rank Country
1 Iceland
2 New Zealand
3 Portugal
4 Austria
5 Denmark
6 Canada
7 Singapore
8 Czech Republic
9 Japan
10 Switzerland
Glaciers and volcanoes continue to be common. Population density is then all over the place
There is however also a difference in what different countries consider violent crime.
Iceland has had a homicide rate of less than one per year for the last several decades. In a notable deviation from this trend, Iceland registered four homicides in 2017, but only one again in 2018. The Commissioner of Icelandic National Police considered 2017 an aberration and not evidence of increasing violence.
The Singapore justice system would itself be "violent crime" in the UK wheras as Iceland two kids having a bit of a scrap is unlikely to be classed as "violent crime" or end badly.
Gun ownership in Iceland is high, but guns aren't used in crime and only a very small armed police who have to date only ever shot one person.
Maybe women should also train in martial arts/self-defence from a very early age. And push for a change in the law to allow certain weapons to be carried for self-defence? Or are you relying always on numbers?
Numbers ... or more importantly the EXPECTATION of numbers.
There isn’t always going to be another male (?) nearby willing to do violence to protect her from the abuse/violence of other men. In fact the ‘male protector’ trope is still just the same old same old narrative, another side of the same coin IMO.
There isn't now ... nor does it need to be a male, it just needs to be the people around willing to step in.
However as established the chance of violence against women by strangers is vanishingly small compared to inside the home or people they know.
It’s the same as getting on a bike
But it isn't, is it.
On a bike you're in control. You decide whether or not you think a jump is within your ability. You wouldn't attempt a 20' jump without having previously done lots of 10' ones. You build up skills and experience gradually over time.
Confronting a miscreant, you're only in control if you're handier than your opponent. Which you might well be and it's biasing your perception, but I'm likely not and the same is probably true of the majority of the great unwashed. Whilst you might not have fought professionally in years you still have experience that most regular people do not.
Another random Youtube selection for me … was a bloke actually in America who stopped to help a young lady being hassled by 4-5 blokes.
He didn’t have a gun he just had his balls
It's a fine line between brave and foolhardy, and between lucky and very unlucky. Good for him and his balls, I'm sure if it had gone differently his widow would have been proud of him.
This was the Padiham/Rosegrove I grew up in.
Right. So you're not describing "the general public" but rather established communities where people are much more likely to have known each other. That's not quite the same scenario.
Whereabouts in Padiham, incidentally?
It’s pretty easy .. you ask them to each call the police and no-one is leaving with the bike until they do and their ID checked.
You're being silly now. How do you envisage that playing out?
"Excuse me old bean, would you mind waiting here for 20 minutes whilst I summon the Old Bill?"
"Right you are then, squire." doffs cap
By the time it gets to this however it’s pretty likely the thief will have run off.
Run off, or removed your left eyeball with a screwdriver.
Does it not strike you that as a former professional martial artist your views on physical violence might be a little outside the mainstream, and perhaps these two facets may be related?
Your sentiment is laudable and one I agree with in principle, I wish that as a society we stood up against injustice and antisocial behaviour more than we do. Scrotes do as they please because we let them, and it pisses me off.
But what you're actually advocating is people putting themselves in potentially serious danger over something material. For every have-a-go hero granny protecting her grandson's bike there's a dozen battered to death for refusing to hand over the £12.47 in her purse to a smackhead.
What the solution here is, I don't know. Maybe you had the answer yourself earlier - encourage more social cohesion, make people feel like part of a community rather than 'other'. We've been painting 'us and them' circles for years, bloody Millennials / foreigners / women / vegans / travellers / cyclists / benefits scroungers / transsexuals / leavers / bass players / etc etc.
On a bike you’re in control. You decide whether or not you think a jump is within your ability. You wouldn’t attempt a 20′ jump without having previously done lots of 10′ ones. You build up skills and experience gradually over time.
You're overestimating my skills. I get the building up but quite honestly quite often I fully expect to hurt myself and often do.
I was out last weekend with some other mates and did a blind double drop and my mate asked how I knew I could land it... I told him totally honestly I didn't think I could but I did it anyway.
My kid is the same, he expects to crash so prefers noone watching.
Confronting a miscreant, you’re only in control if you’re handier than your opponent. Which you might well be and it’s biasing your perception, but I’m likely not and the same is probably true of the majority of the great unwashed. Whilst you might not have fought professionally in years you still have experience that most regular people do not.
A bit, but it's not like I practice. I don't actually know any more than that drop.
I actually put both in the same category.
Run off, or removed your left eyeball with a screwdriver.
Only it rarely is.... in fact the times I've been stabbed/slashed have all been out of the blue.
On the other hand when I have made it obvious I'm quite happy to mix it up it VERY rarely does. (Even though I'm 5'10 and 11st)
Right. So you’re not describing “the general public” but rather established communities where people are much more likely to have known each other. That’s not quite the same scenario.
Yes, which coincidentally or not is probably common to many of those top 10 most peaceful places!
Whereabouts in Padiham, incidentally?
Raleigh Street ..
Your sentiment is laudable and one I agree with in principle, I wish that as a society we stood up against injustice and antisocial behaviour more than we do. Scrotes do as they please because we let them, and it pisses me off.
But what you’re actually advocating is people putting themselves in potentially serious danger over something material. For every have-a-go hero granny protecting her grandson’s bike there’s a dozen battered to death for refusing to hand over the £12.47 in her purse to a smackhead.
What the solution here is, I don’t know. Maybe you had the answer yourself earlier – encourage more social cohesion, make people feel like part of a community rather than ‘other’. We’ve been painting ‘us and them’ circles for years, bloody Millennials / foreigners / women / vegans / travellers / cyclists / benefits scroungers / transsexuals / leavers / bass players / etc etc.
I'll try and answer all together for that ?
And yep both Rosegrove and Padiham had a self of identity/community.. (as did the Winstanley estate at Clapham Junction) and whatever the reputation people were safe. (at least a degree of safe, you'd get into scuffles etc. but mostly it was nothing serious and muggings were all but unknown and I remember a rapist at one point) but we never felt truly threatened like someone sticking the screwdriver in your eye threatened because people stood together over serious shit.
We’ve been painting ‘us and them’ circles for years, bloody Millennials / foreigners / women / vegans / travellers / cyclists / benefits scroungers / transsexuals / leavers / bass
Yeah, but who's we ...?
Take bloody cyclists/motorists .. I take the fellow road users approach. I often point out cyclists do the same things they accuse drivers of.. (racing, using roads for leisure etc.)
I cycle far more hours than I drive...
Same goes for the all the "other" groups (except leavers - sorry) which is where I end up sounding unsympathetic. (or whatever)... I don't see people as separate groups and I don't like it when I'm expected to because ultimately it leads to bad shit, even when the intention was good.
This is where I blame the media a lot... because creating a them n us is what sells.
Media stories are designed to cause discord ... indeed going back to the B word and NE Lancs ... look what discord accomplished for Leave!
But what you’re actually advocating is people putting themselves in potentially serious danger over something material. For every have-a-go hero granny protecting her grandson’s bike there’s a dozen battered to death for refusing to hand over the £12.47 in her purse to a smackhead.
Not really, what I'm actually saying (rather than answering leading questions) is that we need to re-normalise violence to be like Iceland or Japan. (etc.)
and as I think you pointed out rebuild communities.
Padiham and Rosegrove were never exactly affluent and were along with other areas known to be a bit rough round the edges... but they had communities. Jeez, its 3 decades and I can tell you Shirley owned the shop on Gannow Lane... (Now CJ's barbers) and Mick and Ange lived next door and had a telephone we could use in emergencies and the bear bobby was PC Pervis (and yes as kids we had a bit of fun ay his expense by changing his surname but he was a sounbd bloke dragged me home by my ear a few times).
Talking of barbers, I was amazed Angela Gregson was still open in Padiham (at least last March).. I'd love to know if she ever married Jane...
They were not "non-violent" they were non-serious violence, non daring to say "so WTF are you going to do about it"... because it wasn't YOU, it was WTF are the COMMUNITY going to do.... and I don't mean vigilante actions I mean stepping in.
However, as you point out the current situation is not conducive.
Next time you see someone nicking a bike you'll still have no confidence whatsoever you can say anything because they will just say "WTF are you going to do about it" and no-one will back you up because everyone is so de-normalised to responding to threats of violence.
Despite all the "non-violent society" you would need to be be off your head to threaten a granny in Japan or Iceland because it wouldn't be tolerated and anyone and everyone walking by would be on you. Can't say I can really speak for NZ but at some point i'll ask a mate who lived there (5'3" and 55?kg) and ex SFOR and like me willing to step in when doing so can be done quietly but I don't think he ever had to in NZ (he never mentioned it anyway) whereas living in London he has on a few occasions.
Yeah, but who’s we …?
Well, not us, obviously, the others. Erm. Oh.
This is where I blame the media a lot… because creating a them n us is what sells.
Amen to that.
I was amazed Angela Gregson was still open in Padiham
Now we really are into 'small world' territory. I'll PM you.
And, no, she isn't open. There's a sign in the window saying they're not planning on reopening any time soon.
I have not read thru the whole thread but....
I have intervened a few times with thefts or violence and i am for sure much more of a lover than a fighter
1) 3 youths with an obviously stolen moped trying to start it - I did my best begbie impersonation and took it off them and they scattered. Returned to its owner via the police
2) 6 youths with a stolen moped - tried the same tactic they didn't buy it, I scattered but I got the bike they had stolen and had hot wired stopped again before I decided discretion was the better part of valour and left
3) two men in a road rage incident starting to knock lumps out of each other in a crowded street. I shouted and intervened - thought for a moment this might hurt but my intervention led others to intervene and the two were separated
A couple of anecdotes:
an acquaintance who was a tree surgeon - got into a stomash with 3 men in a pub. fled home, they followed him and kicked his door in to kick his head in. He picked up the nearest thing to hand - a hand axe to protect himself, put one in hospital with serious injuries. He was charged with a trivial offense and paid a small fine I think because he chased them off his property rather than letting them flee
You are allowed to use a weapon of opportunity ie something you have to hand and so long as the violence is no more than needed to protect yourself a self defense defense works. this is why i have an antique ice axe hanging on the wall off my flat by the door ( along with various other antique implements)
Its my experience from what I have seen that if you make an intervention others will follow - its no one wants to make the first move. Its also my experience that the begbie act often works but make sure yo have an escape route
also around here the police tend to view self defense very widely and allow you to go a long way to defend yourself. I know of other incidents similar to above
" all it takes for evil to flourish is for good folk to do nothing"
forgot the other anecdote
A man and a woman were arguing in the street and starting to get physical. I went to intervene and they both started on me. I noped straight out
My PM's won't work (can't reply)
Dude, Angela and Jane cut mine and my brothers hair for years.
I couldn't believe it was still there. They must be really getting on now so unsurprising they are not reopening.
tj
You are allowed to use a weapon of opportunity
The rules in England are different in your own house ..
also around here the police tend to view self defense very widely and allow you to go a long way to defend yourself.
I have intervened a few times with thefts or violence and i am for sure much more of a lover than a fighter
1) 3 youths with an obviously stolen moped trying to start it – I did my best begbie impersonation and took it off them and they scattered. Returned to its owner via the police
2) 6 youths with a stolen moped – tried the same tactic they didn’t buy it, I scattered but I got the bike they had stolen and had hot wired stopped again before I decided discretion was the better part of valour and left
3) two men in a road rage incident starting to knock lumps out of each other in a crowded street. I shouted and intervened – thought for a moment this might hurt but my intervention led others to intervene and the two were separated
... and still have a strong sense of community.
and I'd bet it's actually much safer than "civilised places" despite getting a bad rep... (city of culture not withstanding)
it is however the one place I got someone (with a squash raquet) try and pick a fight between the changing rooms and ring many decades ago.
Absolutely no confidence in law enforcement if this (from Gloucestershire Police Federation) is standard throughout the other forces in UK
‘We are not public servants’ and ‘policing by consent is not a duty’
A truly shameful attitude.
See here. The end result of accepting the Thatcher government instructions when they wanted to break the unions.
The end result of accepting the Thatcher government instructions when they wanted to break the unions.
This is exactly the start I remember.
The police became a tool to enforce the will of the government and that required the divorce of police and community.
It also started the indoctrination through schools that any/all violence is bad unless the police do it as you couldn't have enough police to impose this will against the people without firearms if they dare to fight back.
I dip into this thread every now and again and there appears to be some need of some serious counselling help
That was pretty obvious to me before the thread even started...
I dip into this thread every now and again and there appears to be some need of some serious counselling help
An interesting take.. anyone who doesn't share your belief system needs serious counselling?
An interesting take.. anyone who doesn’t share your belief system needs serious counselling?
Stevextc; I think people are recognising signs of behaviour they find disturbing, in your posts. Which, from my perspective, seem to be far more about your need to assert your 'manliness' or whatever, than to actually engage with the wider debate. All you've done, is post your own opinions, but you're not taking on board any other perspectives, such as the need to view matters using a far more encompassing lens than your own ego. You've talked about feeling the need to defend your property using violence, or at least the threat of it. And your willingness to inflict serious violence and even injury, on someone who might just be stealing some scrap metal or something. This isn't about justice, in a broader, socially consensual sense, this is about you asserting your authority and power over others. You've effectively shut down any interesting discussion, by banging on about scenarios which may or may not be real, as a means of attempting to justify your own opinion. We get it; you need us to think you're really tough and brave. But the question you need to ask yourself, is why do you need us to think that?
Absolutely no confidence in law enforcement if this (from Gloucestershire Police Federation) is standard throughout the other forces in UK
‘We are not public servants’ and ‘policing by consent is not a duty’
A truly shameful attitude.
See here. The end result of accepting the Thatcher government instructions when they wanted to break the unions.
A perfect example of someone occupying a position of power, who really shouldn't.
bridges
I think people are recognising signs of behaviour they find disturbing, in your posts.
Which is based on beliefs...
Which, from my perspective, seem to be farmore about your need to assert your ‘manliness’ or whatever, than to actually engage with the wider debate. All you’ve done, is post your own opinions, but you’re not taking on board any other perspectives, such as the need to view matters using a far more encompassing lens than your own ego. You’ve talked about feeling the need to defend your property using violence, or at least the threat of it. And your willingness to inflict serious violence and even injury, on someone who might just be stealing some scrap metal or something. This isn’t about justice, in a broader, socially consensual sense, this is about you asserting your authority and power over others.
This is about my right to not have to live my life under a constant threat of violence, pure and simple.
Your belief system seems to be that if someone wants to take something from you all they need to do is threaten you and that's OK because that is your belief system.
My belief system is if someone wants to take something from me by threat of violence then they are going to be told no you can't.
This isn’t about justice, in a broader, socially consensual sense, this is about you asserting your authority and power over others.
Again this is purely your belief system.
What I don't understand and you are not explaining is why you feel you need to judge my belief system? How is my belief system affecting you.
The only people it affects are people who threaten me with violence and I don't think you are likely to do that so how does this affect you?
You’ve effectively shut down any interesting discussion, by banging on about scenarios which may or may not be real, as a means of attempting to justify your own opinion. We get it; you need us to think you’re really tough and brave. But the question you need to ask yourself, is why do you need us to think that?
Because all you have is summarised by
You’ve talked about feeling the need to defend your property using violence, or at least the threat of it. And your willingness to inflict serious violence and even injury, on someone who might just be stealing some scrap metal or something.
So I just let them steal because they threaten me?
or are you worried you might be being robbed or beaten up and someone steps in and hurts your attackers?
someone who might just be stealing some scrap metal or something
Define might be stealing in the context of "please leave my property alone and leave repeated several times? when they carry on and one comes over to threaten me"
All they had to do was leave when asked:
inflict serious violence and even injury
This is their choice isn't it.
They could just not steal,
they could just walk away when caught,
they could try not threatening me?
Some people are vegan, it's not my concern nor do I care until they start to tell me what I can and can't eat.
This is about my right to not have to live my life under a constant threat of violence, pure and simple.
One incident where two people tried to steal from you, is a constant threat?
[img] 
[/img]
Random words to make people appreciate the effort I went to download and save this image to Flickr, and it's not just another inline advert
So I just let them steal because they threaten me?
It is one option, yes. If you take the view that property is not worth being injured for, or injuring another person to defend, then yes, forgoing violence is a sensible route.
There have been any number of studies that show violence just begets more violence. It's a cycle that effects both attacker and victim, escalating each time the need for and response with more and more violence, either as a learned response, or "get in first" attack. It's well studied and understood. What happens if the end result of you threatening violence' is hospital or a police record?
This is about my right to not have to live my life under a constant threat of violence, pure and simple.
So do you feel you are under 'constant threat'?
Your belief system seems to be that if someone wants to take something from you all they need to do is threaten you and that’s OK because that is your belief system.
Not at all. I haven't posted anything at all about my 'belief system', so I'm curious as to why you would mention it.
belief system
Why do you keep talking about a 'belief system'? Do you believe in a legal system as organised within a society by public consensus?
So I just let them steal because they threaten me?
No; people have already mentioned the use of 'proportional force' to defend your property and personal safety. You're talking about the use of threats and violence, which may well be very disproportionate to the actual threat you may suffer.
Some people are vegan, it’s not my concern nor do I care until they start to tell me what I can and can’t eat.
Why on earth are you so defensive? What do vegans have to do with anything? Do you really not get why other people might think you have issues, based on your posts?
This is about my right to not have to live my life under a constant threat of violence, pure and simple.
Most people, at least men, don't feel under a constant threat of violence. Violence is thankfully incredibly rare in most peoples lives and is generally ignored. A lot of your attitude toward violence seem to stem from the fact you seem to expect to be involved in it, most people don't think that at all.
Do you really not get why other people might think you have issues, based on your posts?
Can I guess the answer. Wouldn't want to say it though as it may get all violent...
You are allowed to use a weapon of opportunity ie something you have to hand and so long as the violence is no more than needed to protect yourself a self defense defense works. this is why i have an antique ice axe hanging on the wall off my flat by the door ( along with various other antique implements)
Ok. For starters, you misunderstood the notion of what constitutes a 'weapon of opportunity'. Deliberately placing a weapon (in this case, an 'antique ice axe') in place, in anticipation of violence, would fall somewhat outside of this remit. And you've just told the entire internet about this. A 'weapon of opportunity' is something that 'just happens' to be there; for example; if you were in a kitchen when attacked by an intruder, a 'weapon of opportunity' might be a kitchen knife or rolling pin that would legitimately be there. Of course a decorative antique ice axe might also be there legitimately, as would all manner of objects you probably wouldn't be advised to carry openly in public. In a public place, a 'weapon of opportunity' might be a piece of wood just lying about, or a bottle, or anything really. Again, it would all be about proportionality; if someone is attacking you with a knife, a broken bottle might constitute a reasonable defence. Pretty tricky though. And it's all dependent on the level of violence; using lethal force against someone who has already killed or seriously injured others, and means to harm you as well, could be simple self defence. Beating someone who just gave you a slap, unconscious and with serious injuries, is 'unreasonable'. Physically restraining them until police arrive would be proportionate. So, it's a very tricky and murky area, and many fall foul of it. But a good idea, is to not have weapons placed somewhere then tell the internet about it, I'd say.
So do you feel you are under ‘constant threat’?
I said "under a constant threat of violence"
Well are all under constant threat of violence. Every time you don't say "why are you cutting that bike lock", every time you don't say "why don't you just do as the shop keeper asked and wear the mask" ... every time you expect the answer to be "F-off before I beat the shit out of you" so you say nothing.
Most people, at least men, don’t feel under a constant threat of violence. Violence is thankfully incredibly rare in most peoples lives and is generally ignored
Sure you can walk round with a sign round you neck saying "if you want my phone or wallet just ask"
Why do you keep talking about a ‘belief system’?
What else do you call your illogical view?
It's simply based on a belief that violence is bad?
No; people have already mentioned the use of ‘proportional force’ to defend your property and personal safety. You’re talking about the use of threats and violence, which may well be very disproportionate to the actual threat you may suffer.
Ah, so you're saying it's replying to the threat ... ??
Nope still don't understand?
Just to be clear here do you think it is OK to threaten someone to steal but not to answer?
You’re talking about the use of threats and violence, which may well be very disproportionate to the actual threat you may suffer.
Well, would you say breaking their ankle is proportionate?
I put in hours of cutting up 350kg of scrap to the sizes for maximum value and in the process broke my ankle... (as a few here already know)
I view that as a decent deal... when I get paid. Based on that why would I not accept a similar injury defending my property or expect the thieves to?
nickc
There have been any number of studies that show violence just begets more violence. It’s a cycle that effects both attacker and victim, escalating each time the need for and response with more and more violence, either as a learned response, or “get in first” attack. It’s well studied and understood. What happens if the end result of you threatening violence’ is hospital or a police record?
Studies paid for to keep a passive population and biased towards the most serious.
Honest answer please ... do you think a thief who threatens people is encouraged or discouraged by people just handing over their phone/wallet?
Or the other angle do you think a thief who is used to threatening people to steal who gets a good hiding for his or her threats is more or less likely to continue?
What happens if the end result of you threatening violence’ is hospital or a police record?
This is where the two diverge ...
if the end result is hospital .... what is this, did I post on netmums by accident ?
I fully expect to end up in hospital a few times a year as a result of biking accidents. That's not counting ancillary trips like getting my ankle caught in a 350kg "bear trap" (wheelchair lift)
So sorry, that isn't really a question ... I mean the answer is I end up in hospital one extra time that year.
or a police record?
So here is the rub, for me a disaster, for the recidivists with a record longer than their arm absolutely nothing,
Again, honest answer .... do you think that is balanced?
Someone earlier brought up Japan as a non violent country.
So the real question if someone wants to mug a granny in downtown Tokyo do you really think people will just walk past and ignore it?
Honest answer please … do you think a thief who threatens people is encouraged or discouraged by people just handing over their phone/wallet?
Or the other angle do you think a thief who is used to threatening people to steal who gets a good hiding for his or her threats is more or less likely to continue?
It could make the thief worse and more violent in future or it may not make any difference. It won't stop them being a thief though.
bridges
Again, it would all be about proportionality; if someone is attacking you with a knife, a broken bottle might constitute a reasonable defence. Pretty tricky though. And it’s all dependent on the level of violence; using lethal force against someone who has already killed or seriously injured others, and means to harm you as well, could be simple self defence. Beating someone who just gave you a slap, unconscious and with serious injuries, is ‘unreasonable’. Physically restraining them until police arrive would be proportionate. So, it’s a very tricky and murky area, and many fall foul of it.
It seems we agree on this.... just not the balance.
Physically restraining them until police arrive would be proportionate.
or not .. it's all down to jury selection.
Well are all under constant threat of violence
That's like saying we're all under constant threat of nuclear attack, or a deadly virus, or a piece of old space junk falling on us, or being hit by a bus, or.... Most of us just get on with our lives though. Being constantly fearful isn't a good thing, especially in a society where violence is still statistically quite low.
Sure you can walk round with a sign round you neck saying “if you want my phone or wallet just ask”
That's just paranoia now.
What else do you call your illogical view?
Please explain why you think my own view (strange, as I've not particularly expressed it here) is 'illogical'?
Well, would you say breaking their ankle is proportionate?
I put in hours of cutting up 350kg of scrap to the sizes for maximum value and in the process broke my ankle… (as a few here already know)I view that as a decent deal… when I get paid. Based on that why would I not accept a similar injury defending my property or expect the thieves to?
What the actual **** are you talking about now? Are you saying that thieves attacked you and broke your ankle? Or that you sustained the injury whilst dealing with your scrap?
Studies paid for to keep a passive population and biased towards the most serious.
Who needs experts, eh? As you've already decided what the outcome will be, clearly.
if the end result is hospital …. what is this, did I post on netmums by accident ?
This is just nonsense. Sexism thrown in for good measure? So anyone who isn't the tough, hardman you claim to be, is somehow weak and 'effeminate'? Something like that?
I fully expect to end up in hospital a few times a year as a result of biking accidents
Then I suggest you either learn to ride a bit better, or take up a less dangerous hobby. Seems like you actually enjoy putting yourself in harm's way. Is it so you can prove yourself as a man, is that it?
kerley
It could make the thief worse and more violent in future or it may not make any difference. It won’t stop them being a thief though.
Do you know this through experience or reading the findings of people trying to justify serial killers?
What I'm saying is there are theories based on the most mentally ill individuals that seek to explain.
An example:
According to Ted Bundy, he had an uneventful childhood. His friends and family often backed up this claim. But a closer look reveals he was a socially awkward child who sometimes crossed the lines of propriety, morality and legality. Though the suspect behavior exhibited by a young Bundy has been seen in others who didn't go on to rape and murder numerous victims, his childhood offers some clues as to how he became a serial killer.
Ignore the facts (more later) ... go with the theory?
Bundy's behavior could be disturbing. On at least one occasion, his aunt woke up to find her toddler nephew placing knives near her sleeping form. She later told Vanity Fair, "I remember thinking at the time that I was the only one who thought it was strange. Nobody did anything." In the same Vanity Fair article, Dr. Dorothy Lewis, an experienced psychiatrist, gives her opinion that such actions would occur "only in very seriously traumatized children who have either themselves been the victims of extraordinary abuse or who have witnessed extreme violence among family members."
Or he was just mentally ill.
Some Bundy experts have theorized he was the result of Louise being raped by her father, though she said she'd been seduced and abandoned by a war veteran). Bundy may have experienced physical or psychological abuse at the hands of his grandfather, despite his later insistence that the two had a good relationship.
Ignore the facts ... go with the theory?
Honestly we'll never know but this is the sort of speculation on theories.
"If only there is something we could have done"?
I'm not saying either one or the other but these "self appointed" bundy experts are just that.
They are making money from this ...
bridges
That’s like saying we’re all under constant threat of nuclear attack, or a deadly virus, or a piece of old space junk falling on us, or being hit by a bus, or….
You can pretend all you like ... I certainly grew up in the 4 minute warning duck and cover era.
The irony of a deadly virus surely doesn't escape you?
The chance of a impact by a meteor is pretty high... you might want to pretend otherwise.
Most of us just get on with our lives though. Being constantly fearful isn’t a good thing, especially in a society where violence is still statistically quite low.
In what way is it low?
How many times a day do you think someone gets told "WTF are you going to do about it?"
What the actual **** are you talking about now? Are you saying that thieves attacked you and broke your ankle? Or that you sustained the injury whilst dealing with your scrap?
Perhaps you reread the post?
Who needs experts, eh? As you’ve already decided what the outcome will be, clearly.
It's not me who gets to decide the outcome it's the funding body for a academic study.
I've got to pop off soon and do some lying to a customer who's paying for my expert opinion to match their flawed outcome. That's what "experts" do ...
This is just nonsense. Sexism thrown in for good measure? So anyone who isn’t the tough, hardman you claim to be, is somehow weak and ‘effeminate’? Something like that?
Please explain how that is sexist? Is netmums a sexist forum only allows females?
I'm still missing this tough/hardman/sexism thing ...
Do you think Rachel, Tawny or Becci see breaking a bone, dislocating a shoulder or concussion as anything other than missing races and training?
Then I suggest you either learn to ride a bit better, or take up a less dangerous hobby.
If I could ride as well as any of the lasses above I'd be made up... but they end up in hospital way more than I do.
I strongly suspect they are way better riders than you as well.
Seems like you actually enjoy putting yourself in harm’s way. Is it so you can prove yourself as a man, is that it?
Hmmm... seems this isn't about me.
This is just nonsense. Sexism thrown in for good measure? So anyone who isn’t the tough, hardman you claim to be, is somehow weak and ‘effeminate’? Something like that?
Agreed with all of your posts.
I also very much doubt he's gobbed off to anyone who's used to or perfectly happy and in fact entertained by meting out extreme violence. People try to de-escalate for a reason, there's always an outside chance that the person you're about to confront is actually one of those nutters that can put down four or five others. Fightings a last resort measure.
This threads so ****ing stupid.
or not .. it’s all down to jury selection.
I don't know what kind of paranoid world you're living in Steve, but unless you kill the other person, if you were attacked or threatened most of the time it doesn't even go to court. The police generally do not seem to care if you go a bit too far with some shifty eyed scrote that's known to them. The amount of police officers that get away with pushing the boundaries of reasonable force is testament to that as well.
It's simple, if you kill them or do something stupid like use a weapon that you've mentioned on a forum or you've bottled them and then kerb stomped them for good measure on CCTV on a Friday night in town - you'll have to answer for something.
Hmmm… seems this isn’t about me.
No; it really is all about you. You've been on that mission from the very start.
Bottom line here is that you aren't really prepared to listen to anyone else's opinions, and believe your own to be the only ones that are valid. You crack on mate; we're not the ones busting ourselves over a few quids worth of scrap.
Perhaps you reread the post?
I tried, but all I found was a thread where you were talking about how horrid your childhood schooling was. Kind of answered a few questions, to be honest. I hope that one day, you'll find the space to be able to accept that you might not have all the answers after all. I wish you all the best.
This threads so **** stupid.
Aye.
Or the other angle do you think a thief who is used to threatening people to steal who gets a good hiding for his or her threats is more or less likely to continue?
"Do you think..." is irrelevant here because, like I almost said elsewhere earlier, facts are not changed by opinions.
If a thief gets a 'good hiding,' are they statistically more likely to go "bugger that, I'm not doing that again" or are they more likely to go "bugger that, I'm going tooled up next time"?
I don't know the answer but I'd rather suspect that "teaching a lesson" to career criminals isn't the universal panacea that you seem to think it is.
How many times a day do you think someone gets told “WTF are you going to do about it?”
I can count the number of times it's happened to me, outside of random drunken idiots spoiling for a rumble, on the fingers of one foot.
It's almost like we're approaching this differently, isn't it.
Please explain how that is sexist? Is netmums a sexist forum only allows females?
No, you've got that backwards. You were the one that brought it up, "what is this, did I post on netmums by accident ?"
If it's been misinterpreted by readers then you need to clarify what you meant instead, if your implication wasn't that you thought we were all a bunch of girls.
Do you know this through experience or reading the findings of people trying to justify serial killers?
WTF are you on about now. You asked for an honest answer to your question about whether a thief should be beaten up and I gave you my honest answer.
How you then linked that to justification of serial killers god only knows.
I don't think the previous advice about counselling was mean't as an insult by the way but the fact you took it as such is not going to help and possibly part of the problem.
I don’t know what kind of paranoid world you’re living in Steve, but unless you kill the other person, if you were attacked or threatened most of the time it doesn’t even go to court.
So your suggestion is I should have just asked politely and when threatened battered them and that would be OK? I assume not?
The police generally do not seem to care if you go a bit too far with some shifty eyed scrote that’s known to them.
The scrotes are free to pursue their own legal proceedings.
and when it does go to court you have people with the attitude
You crack on mate; we’re not the ones busting ourselves over a few quids worth of scrap.
Apparently my scrap that I busted my guts over isn't worth something (whatever busting ourselves over means)... protecting?
Bridges
Perhaps you reread the post?
I tried, but all I found was a thread where you were talking about how horrid your childhood schooling was. Kind of answered a few questions, to be honest.
You didn't try very hard did you... or perhaps those buttons with pages are as confusing as modern bikes?
If you did read my experience of schooling then you'd understand that I know from 1st hand experience that phycologists only wish to twist everything into their version of reality and why I wouldn't believe a word written by anyone claiming to be a psychologist because they are unable to believe a word their subjects say.
Precis:
P: Why are you misbehaving at school
M Answer because I want to get expelled
P Why is that do you think?
M Because its a prison I am forced to attend and a waste of my time
P Perhaps there is a different reason
M No
P Show me on this doll where your father touches you
M Can I go now?
P Go where?
M Home you dumb F where else am I going to go?
P You still have an afternoon of school left
M Then I might as well stay here .. even with your fed up questions its better than school and closer to the bus
P Why don't you want to go to school?
M Are you F***ing deaf?
So yeah... I wonder why I have no respect for these "self proclaimed experts pretending to be scientists"?
Bottom line here is that you aren’t really prepared to listen to anyone else’s opinions, and believe your own to be the only ones that are valid.
What, you have an opinion?
So what's that opinion?
You crack on mate; we’re not the ones busting ourselves over a few quids worth of scrap.
You seem more concerned about the scrotes welfare than the fact they are stealing from me and threatening me.
Can you explain why it's OK for them to steal from me and OK for them to threaten me when I ask politely but not OK for me to physically stop them?
Once again what do you think I should have done and why?
Do you have a value in mind? If it was a £100 bike is that OK and not worth asking them to stop or if the bikes weighs 20lbs .. should I just say "hey crack on .. or should I start off polite and when they threaten me say "Oh OK then"?
Can you explain how this is NOT completely their choice ?
They chose the path of violent threats not me so why is their health my concern morally?
Sure you can walk round with a sign round you neck saying “if you want my phone or wallet just ask”
You're very paranoid. I have exactly zero expectation of getting mugged as I'm a middle aged white man who doesn't live in a major city. Even growing up in Rochdale I didn't expect it. The fights that seemed to happen in the centre on weekend nights were almost always between the idiots who wanted to fight. I only once had someone try and fight me but laughing at him seemed to do the trick.
In all seriousness, I think there's someone on this thread who has properly diagnosable anger management issues that need to be worked through. It's genuinely worrying.
Cougar
No, you’ve got that backwards. You were the one that brought it up, “what is this, did I post on netmums by accident ?”
If it’s been misinterpreted by readers then you need to clarify what you meant instead, if your implication wasn’t that you thought we were all a bunch of girls.
Bunch of girls
https://www.instagram.com/p/B3fSKGegO-a/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
or a new one if someone prefers people riding sub 20lb bikes
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/yolanda-neff-recovering-from-life-threatening-crash.html
I'd have thought that was obvious to anyone into MTB after mentioning Rachel, Tahnee and Becci that expecting to get hurt and end up in hospital is part and parcel of MTB.
who has properly diagnosable anger management issues that need to be worked through
That's just as hilarious...
"Anger Management Issues" is simply a term created to fund a business.