[Archived] Hang Em High

[Mike E]

I find it hard to trust govt stats simply because if the police made no arrests it would = 'no crime' when clearly they're just lazy. And I say this having seen many assaults/batteries go unarrested with police absolutely witnessing it.

[DE.]

Why? On immigration the main point made against you was that there are extremely high concentrations in fairly localised areas. That article says nothing to disagree with that.

As for crime, well I trust government crime statistics about as much as I trust Shebby Singh. I was assaulted on a night out with no provocation whatsoever a few years ago and because I fought back the police dismissed my desire to press charges as pointless because it was "six of one" (actual quote). Its a lot easier reclassifying/ignoring crime than reducing it, and call me cynical but I'd be surprised if the drop is mainly down to the second.

I wasn't linking what was said in the article to any past argument you're remembering pal. This thread as a whole is just a magnet for misconceptions and personal experiences suddenly becoming national/global issues as evidenced somewhat in your second paragraph.

[thenodrog]

You do always post radically and bluntly but this is by far your most bizarre post ever! Are you serious?

Of course. Unless you are a religious looney who believes in and needs an emotional crutch in the form of an invisible friend you must realise that this planet and the life on it was not created either by or for us as a species. It and we evolved together. As I've said before the term human rights has only been around for a miniscule fraction of our development. A blink of an eye in the 200000 years or so that humans have walked upright. It's just unecessary made up liberally junk.

Human rights didn't help the 6000,000 Jews in 20th century Europe did it? Didn't help the unconfirmed 20,000,000 to 60,000,000 cossacks and tartars that Stalin put to death either, nor the victims of Pol Pot, Amin, Mugabe and assorted worldwide lunatics did it? Instead Human Rights provides what it calls 'justice' for horrific serial murderers of the worst kind and at the other end of the scale sees victory in getting UK convicts a vote. It's a pompous paper tiger and if thats human rights then count me out. Too many who have answered above cannot see the wood for the trees through lifetime conditioning. We need good strong and enforceable laws and standards not human rights.

[ABBEY]

I wasn't linking what was said in the article to any past argument you're remembering pal. This thread as a whole is just a magnet for misconceptions and personal experiences suddenly becoming national/global issues as evidenced somewhat in your second paragraph.

So its not a national issue?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Human rights is bollux anyway. Why should humans have 'rights'? What rights do rabbits, rats, dolphins, spiders, carrots etc etc have? Yet we pompously award them to ourselves ffs! How conceited and misguided is that?

I always wear a Panama hat when the sun is this strong, take my advice and buy one.

[thenodrog]

I always wear a Panama hat when the sun is this strong, take my advice and buy one.

Try to get away from your 'conditioning' and employ a bit of blue sky thinking Tyrone.... it'll do you good.

Here I'm sure you've seen similar before..........

http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/book1qts/embryo-compare.html

now have a go yourself.....

http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html

When you've done that then explain at what point humans deserve more 'rights' than any other species. Better still do it without referring to the more advanced development of just one single organ, the brain. In respect of developed organs humans do have good manual dexterity BUT we don't have very good eyesight or hearing, we can't run, jump or climb very well and we certainly can't fly or swim naturally. We don't have much capacity for endurance so where do 'rights' come into the equation and why? Is it cos we have developed ways to kill and dominate other species and therefore have developed what we believe is a natural superiority over everything else on the planet?

We are lead to believe that we are somehow superior and important but no matter who lives or dies, no matter what devastation we cause the planet does not even wobble a fraction on it's axis. One thing I do believe is that this planet would be far better off for every other species animal or vegetable if we became extinct.

Now off you go with your explanation of why human's deserve or need or have earned 'rights'.

[Mike E]

George Zimmerman has been acquitted! Bloody ridiculous! So it's okay for cops to kill people if they look a bit dodgy.

[Batman.]

George Zimmerman has been acquitted! Bloody ridiculous! So it's okay for cops to kill people if they look a bit dodgy.

Eh?

Whilst we'll never be certain, he's got off on the grounds that he's convinced the jury that he was being attacked, feared for his life, and used the gun in self defence. A slightly different angle to the one that you've gone for.

[Mike E]

I just find it odd given that witnesses nearer the time said it was unprovoked. I'll admit that I haven't followed it in depth since, which is what provoked quite an agitated response to the verdict.

[Amo]

Anyone else a little alarmed by the racial agenda a lot of the media are pushing with this? Even the good old BBC went with the headline "US jury acquits on black teen death". What does the kid's race have to do with anything?

[jim mk2]

^{Republicans claim no charges against Zimmerman should have brought in the first place - which says everything about the US right and the warped US mentality over minorities and guns.}

[Batman.]

Anyone else a little alarmed by the racial agenda a lot of the media are pushing with this? Even the good old BBC went with the headline "US jury acquits on black teen death". What does the kid's race have to do with anything?

I just hope the Racial angle doesn't deflect from the real problem highlighted by the case; the US Laws.

[jim mk2]

Anyone else a little alarmed by the racial agenda a lot of the media are pushing with this? Even the good old BBC went with the headline "US jury acquits on black teen death". What does the kid's race have to do with anything?

Because it is the US and it is seen as racially-charged crime. Look at the protests across the US today.

[Guest Norbert]

I think Zimmerman was basically a beefed up neighbourhood watch guy with a gun. I think no-one will find out exactly how events played out, but it does show the American tendancy to shoot first and ask questions later.

P.S. I look forward to enslaving Gordon and his family. If he has a hot daughter...............she can do my dishes.

[old darwen blue]

George Zimmerman has been acquitted! Bloody ridiculous! So it's okay for cops to kill people if they look a bit dodgy.

Are you sure he is a Police Officer?

[adopted scouser]

Because it is the US and it is seen as racially-charged crime. Look at the protests across the US today.

Any excuse to bring race into it.

Did the white folks attack the police after Simpson's aquittal ?

[thenodrog]

Any excuse to bring race into it.

Did the white folks attack the police after Simpson's aquittal ?

C'mon Nick. Experience has surely taught you that a black on white attack isn't racist. It's cos of social depravation , lack of job opportunity and relative poverty.

[ABBEY]

And it gives the PC brigade Sumat to moan about. He isn't even police , he's neighbour hood watch . Unless police are neighbourhood watch there.

[Mike E]

Are you sure he is a Police Officer?

Actually no. Just a gun owner, oops. Guess that it shows the fact I live in a country where the only people I expect to carry guns are cops (with an occasional farmer thrown in).

[DE.]

Actually no. Just a gun owner, oops. Guess that it shows the fact I live in a country where the only people I expect to carry guns are cops (with an occasional farmer thrown in).

Yeah, and hopefully it'll stay that way!

[Amo]

Perhaps Steve Moss might provide better insight and accuracy on this than outsiders (us).

Now there's a balanced opinion when you need it.

[Steve Moss]

George Zimmerman admitted killing Trayvon Martin but asserted self-defense. The prosecution failed to defeat that claim which resulted in Zimmerman's acquital.

No one knows who struck the first blow, except for Zimmerman. He didn't testify. But witnesses toward the end of the confrontation andthe bulk of the physical evidence suggests that Trayvon Martin was on top and Zimmerman's head was striking the cconcrete due to Martin's blows. All in all, the claim of self-defense might have been justified and so I'm not in the least critcal of the Florida result.

As to Republican pundits, they've correctly pointed out the local Sheriff and Prosecutor declined to press charges as they believed there was a valid self-defense claim. The Governor appointed a special prosecutor eho brought the case anyway. The local authorites were proven right. It wasted mone, changed nothing and, allegedly, polticized the criminal process. On balance, the GOP is probably right.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Now there's a balanced opinion when you need it.

You weren't far wrong there.

[Steve Moss]

May I ask what you found unbalanced about either my analysis or conclusions?

[thenodrog]

May I ask what you found unbalanced about either my analysis or conclusions?

I doubt you'll get a proper answer to that Steve. But it's quite obvious to me..... it's cos you put your name to it. It's all the looney left on here need to organise themselves and their attacks. Been like this for years.