Feeds

back to article Naked intruder cracks one off in Florida rampage drama

Doctors have attempted to determine just what mind-altering substance may have provoked a carnival worker to allegedly jump naked onto a Florida couple's roof, charge into the house, smash a TV, masturbate on the living room floor, defecate on the premises and drink the contents of a wet-dry vacuum cleaner before he finally …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Re: @Alfred 2 - Home Owners Defending themselves

That's your experience. We had a persistant drunk harrassing the woman over the road and the cops were pretty good, turning up every time I called (which was a lot) within a few minutes. LIkewise for a car break-in that happened one night. Clearly not your experience, but from my POV they seemed to do a pretty good job actually, I was pleasantly surprised and had to shelve some of my fuck-the-police hangups from my student days.

And just for the record, what size socks do you wear?

4
1
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Home Owners Defending themselves

"Can't help but think though that in the UK the phone call would have gone:"

"Police there's a drug crazed burglar in my house I'm terrified he might hurt someone."

How about:

All right Sir, clam down, get your family and yourself out of the back door, and we'll get a car over. Then he can only hurt himself and nobody gets shot.

I really don't know why people's reaction when their house has an insane or armed intruder in it is either to foolishly stand around waiting for them to burst in, or to engage in a lethal confrontation when they have a perfectly good back door!

I mean: We don't hang around to try to deal with a burst gas main or a blazing inferno, do we?

1
2

Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

Titus Technophobe: Your characterization of disabled people as "oxygen thieves" is evil. In fact it isn't just your posts, it is you. You are evil. You are scum, not fit to lick shit off my shoes. You are totally without any sort of redeeming features Your very existence is an offence against any civilized society.

This also applies to the people who up voted your reprehensible post, also evil scum.

I hope there is a hell for you to burn in for eternity.

1
13
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

@Chris

Nope you have misread the context of my post. I have not characterised all disabled people, further than that I haven't really characterised any disabled people as Oxygen thieves I merely refer to folks who where described in the first paragraph who might then feel they were entitled to disability benefit.

The people I describe in the first paragraph certainly wouldn't be disabled but presumably might be able fake the symptoms sufficiently to qualify.

4
1
Anonymous Coward

@Psyx

Criminals must love you and insurance companies hate you. I am frequently amazed at how it can be seen as a good thing to encourage criminals and let them commit all the crime they want. As the police often dont catch them and if they do the criminal is allowed out I wonder if you want a crime state?

Worse than that a persons life is important to them. People work hard to build a life, so they could be understandably upset if some nutter wants to ruin it for them. A burst gas main or blazing inferno is responded to as soon as possible. Do the police do that (the answer is an absolute no). If they eventually turn up and your life is in ruins what use are they? They cant be everywhere and dont know where the criminals are, so you think its a good idea to let criminals do all they please.

This is before considering this nutter isnt attacking them (he allegedly did) or that the son wasnt home (an unknown) who may not have been able to get out without passing the potentially harmful nutter. Your dream scenario often is only a dream. This is why being prepared and capable is important.

As I have read plenty 'they dont break into my home I have a gun. They go next door instead'.

3
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Psyx Re: Home Owners Defending themselves

"..... get your family and yourself out of the back door, and we'll get a car over....." All of which assumes you actually can get your family out without them coming to harm, and that the intruder won't follow you out to the car, or even that the intruder will stand idly by whilst you call the police. Reality doesn't always play out that way.

2
1

Re: @Alfred 2 - Home Owners Defending themselves

@Nuke

Okay, you got me beat there: I had to wait 2 days for the police to arrive after I was assaulted outside my house. Apparently they were all busy trying to catch a purse thief who was working the area.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

You missed Quantitative Easing off that list.

0
0
Bronze badge
Devil

Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

For the record, there are far too many people posting here who seem willing to pull the trigger on outright hate, threatening violence at gunowners or those who agree with them. Those people are just one of the reasons why I own guns. Your intolerance is JUST as damning as that of the Nazi collaberating French or Germans.

Titus Techniphobe's characterization was not of Disabled people as Oxygen Thieves but one of a multi-generational culture of a type of person who seems to think they can steal anything that's not welded down and get away with it, especially those who have learned to "work the system" no doubt a skill learned while cooling one's heels in the slammer or at the feet of a 21st century Fagan.

The only reason why that person would be "disabled" is due to some "injury" that they supposedly "suffered" on the steps of a public building and milked out a lovely "settlement". Obviously they can't hold down a real job, so they get all the remaining benefits they "deserve". Trouble is, that he seems to have a second career as a second story burglar (funny how that bad back that "disabled" him does not hurt all the time). However, his lawyer gets him off since it's "obvious" that poor guy is too "disabled' to have pulled the job.

Perhaps the poor man is disabled because he fell off the roof of some rich mans house and sued because having an easily climable downspout was an "attractive nuisance" that "coaxed" him into climbing up on the roof (so he could rob the place blind).

Perhaps Titus' characterization bothers you so because he hit so close to the mark?

3
5
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

I am reminded of that all time classic of UK justice? Tony Martin who was not only imprisoned for shooting a couple of burglars. But the subsequently sued by one of the miscreants for 'loss of earnings'.

Rather than trying to help Mr Martin the UK justice system provided the burglar with at least £5000 of legal aid. Justice eventually prevailed in the this instance when The Sun published photo's of the 'Plaintiff' cycling and climbing with little apparent difficulty suggesting that his injuries were not as serious as had been claimed.

This all seems wrong to me .....

4
2

Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

@Titus

Mr Martin shot 2 intruders with an illegally held pump action shotgun. His claim at self defense was dismissed when forensic evidence showed he had not shot down the stairs at the burglars, but had been downstairs and shot as they broke into the house, suggesting he had been lying in wait.

He was charged and convicted of murder as he shot 3 times: Once as they entered the house and twice as they fled. One died of wounds sustained to the back, indicating he was fleeing at the time, which also denies 'self defense'. This was later dropped to manslaughter as it was argued he did not intend to kill: The shotgun was loaded with 'bird shot'.

The surviving intruder tried to sue Mr Martin claiming loss of earnings as he was not able to work. This was thrown out of court, partly because he was witnessed going about his daily life without problem, and partly because there had been no financial loss (he was unemployed).

The only thing 'wrong' in all of this was the legal aid being offered without first ascertaining that there was a valid case, and/or was not reclaimed when it turned out there was not.

4
2
Bronze badge
WTF?

@PatientOne

You don’t find anything wrong with the concept that somebody injured as a consequence of criminal activities should be in any way shape or form be eligible for compensation?

4
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Home Owners Defending themselves

"Seriously bad policing that"

From what I've heard of the way police work goes over there it's par for the course. It's not that long ago that a guy got an insanely long sentence for shooting someone who was trying to bash in his skull at the time. Apparently he was charged with having the gun and murder, when his only other option was to allow himself to be killed.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Psyx Home Owners Defending themselves

"All of which assumes you actually can get your family out without them coming to harm, and that the intruder won't follow you out to the car, or even that the intruder will stand idly by whilst you call the police. Reality doesn't always play out that way."

Where as you assume that the criminal is not between you and your guns, that you can get them to hand, that the intruder doesn't stop you, and that you can use it without there being an issue.

All told, my assumptions are far less in extent than your own, Matt.

1
1
Silver badge
Holmes

Re: @Psyx

"Criminals must love you and insurance companies hate you. I am frequently amazed at how it can be seen as a good thing to encourage criminals and let them commit all the crime they want. As the police often dont catch them and if they do the criminal is allowed out I wonder if you want a crime state?"

I pay for insurance. So why the hell would I get involved in a lethal firefight over a television? You can't honestly tell me that you believe we should own firearms out of respect for our insurance companies.

I really don't understand why you assume that not having a lethal weapon somewhere in the house makes someone a crime magnate. It clearly does not.

Getting the hell out of an invaded house and calling the police is not 'encouraging' a criminal.

"People work hard to build a life, so they could be understandably upset if some nutter wants to ruin it for them."

Again: House insurance.

And if you really believe that breaking a TV or a bit of jizz on your carpet 'ruins' your life, I think you need to take a good look at your priorities!

Likewise, responding to even theft or burglary by shooting someone is insanely disproportionate.

"A burst gas main or blazing inferno is responded to as soon as possible. Do the police do that (the answer is an absolute no). If they eventually turn up and your life is in ruins what use are they? They cant be everywhere and dont know where the criminals are, so you think its a good idea to let criminals do all they please."

You think they stop for burgers on the way to home invasion calls? I'm afraid I can't do anything about your lack of faith and preconceptions in the police. I'm not big fans of their either, but they are not wilfully shit when people are under threat.

And plenty of burglars get caught. My last one did.

" Your dream scenario often is only a dream."

So is yours. Except yours has a firearm in it. That makes it a dream where someone can die, which isn't better than mine at all.

1
1
Silver badge
Stop

Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

"I am reminded of that all time classic of UK justice? Tony Martin who was not only imprisoned for shooting a couple of burglars. But the subsequently sued by one of the miscreants for 'loss of earnings'."

Dude: He ambushed them with an illegal firearm and shot them without warning, and then shot one of them in the back as he was running away.

Don't even try to condone that as legitimate self-defence. I don't condone the suing, but I can't condone just gunning down people in cold blood in response to house-breaking.

2
3
Bronze badge
WTF?

Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

Nah I don't condone Mr Martin gunning them down. I think just maybe the evidence was open to interpretation, and in the States he wouldn't have been charged. Bear in mind his sentence was eventually reduced to man slaughter.

The bit that really astonished me was that a 'habitually criminal' was provided with legal aid to pursue Mr Martin for loss of earnings. So because he couldn't go and break into anybody else house for a while you think he should have got a pay off?

1
2
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: @PatientOne

I find it absurd that someone could be accused of murder for killing a home intruder. It doesn't matter what the extenuating circumstances are. If they are in your house, they should expect to end up DEAD. The most that poor fellow should have been on the hook for was a weapons charge for having the illegal gun.

Puts a whole new spin on Clockwork Orange for me.

2
2
Anonymous Coward

Psyx 17:59

If the criminal is between you and your gun he is not between you and the exit. If the criminal is between you and the exit he is not between you and your gun. Unless you store your gun at the door which is asking for it.

Your assumption of always having an exit is a dream most dont have. Not in the real world.

0
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

"Nah I don't condone Mr Martin gunning them down. I think just maybe the evidence was open to interpretation"

Is that the shotgun pellets in the guy's BACK?

"and in the States he wouldn't have been charged."

For backshooting a guy running, unarmed away from you? I don't think so. Bear in mind that we DO have plenty of laws that allow people to use proportionate defence in their own homes. We are not a limp-wristed country that does not allow us any measure of defence. But even under are rules, what he did (set traps, waited in ambush with an illegal weapon, issued no warning, shot someone in the back...) crossed a legal line by a wide margin.

"The bit that really astonished me was that a 'habitually criminal' was provided with legal aid to pursue Mr Martin for loss of earnings. So because he couldn't go and break into anybody else house for a while you think he should have got a pay off?"

I just said that I didn't agree with the suing. So no: I don't. As I said already.

1
0
Silver badge
Holmes

Re: Psyx 17:59

"If the criminal is between you and your gun he is not between you and the exit. If the criminal is between you and the exit he is not between you and your gun. Unless you store your gun at the door which is asking for it.

Your assumption of always having an exit is a dream most dont have. Not in the real world."

What the hell are you on about?

Don't you people have two doors and a bedroom window?

Unless someone is actually in my bedroom, I have an exit. And if I spent the money on an alarm system rather than a firearm, I'm always going to have enough notice to use that exit.

Plus you are assuming that someone is coming into my house to kill me. Last I heard, burglars tend to stay downstairs. Mind you: That's burglas in THIS country, where they don't have guns. I guess yours are more dangerous *because they can get guns so easily*

1
1
Anonymous Coward

@Psyx 10:26

"Don't you people have two doors and a bedroom window?" Finally your dream assumption shattered. No. I have windows that you would not climb out of as it would be a painful landing at best even with a rope/ladder, and 1 door. If the place goes up in flames I will be in pain on landing but as for actual exits I have 1 door. If someone is breaking into my home they come through that door. They come towards my living room I have easy access to the kitchen with easy access to knives. If I am in the bedroom I have access to my firearms. In my bathroom I am fairly fucked but the door has a lock (wouldnt take much to get through). Also the time to get from the front door to the end of either room is few seconds. I would have to move the blinds, open the stiff windows, get something to climb down with and then squeeze out (I am pretty tall). The criminal would have to be very low mobility for me to have a chance to get out. And unlike you I dont think I can dodge bullets and the area I live was avoided by police (even when called) until a few months ago.

"Plus you are assuming that someone is coming into my house to kill me. Last I heard, burglars tend to stay downstairs. Mind you: That's burglas in THIS country, where they don't have guns. I guess yours are more dangerous *because they can get guns so easily*" again your assumptions are wrong (not even debatable). I live in a flat. Enter my flat and there are no exits left. Burglars want to take stuff. They are pretty committed to the act once in. The security on the place is not in my control and we have regular problems due to lack of policing and the security gates wont be fixed because they keep being broken (by the people the police avoid).

Across the road is a pub. Recently (few month ago) the landlady was stabbed. There have been others in the area too. Regular fights and abuse is the norm and the kids freely smash bottles in the road and throw things at house windows.

Cmon hulk, lets see you live out here. Lets see you take regular abuse living where the huge builder wont go near the pub outside. And there are worse areas in this city in england.

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Re: Psyx 17:59

".....Unless someone is actually in my bedroom, I have an exit...." OK, but why should I have to accept abandoning my home to a maniac? Why should I have to accept him smashing up my possessions? And how can you be sure he will not follow me outside as I stated earlier, where I will be even further from the weapons I could use for self-defence of myself, my family and my property? Sorry, but you are putting the rights of the intruder as waaaaaaaaay more important than the rights of the victim simply because you dislike guns.

".....And if I spent the money on an alarm system rather than a firearm, I'm always going to have enough notice to use that exit....." Sorry, but go read the article - the Lands went outside to see what the noise was on the roof. It was the completely unexpected nature of a naked, drugged up guy jumping on their roof - how many burglar alarms do you know that have a warning for "there's a guy on your roof, he's wild and naked but don't worry, he just wants to smash your TV, crap in your hallway and jack off"? Please stop trying to push the blame onto the victims just because you disprove of firearms, it was Bruni that committed the criminal acts.

1
2

Re: @PatientOne

@Titus

I disagree with criminals being able to claim compensation for injuries sustained while they were undertaking a criminal act, yes. However, he was fraudulently claiming legal aid for a disability he wasn't suffering and for losses he hadn't suffered. That should have been checked before legal aid was offered: How the injuries were sustained and any due compensation would have been for the courts to decide, not the legal aid people.

0
0
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: @loads - Argument for gun ownership

If you want a valid argument for gun ownership by the law-abiding population, all you need to do is look at the Palace of Westminster.

There's around 650 damn good reasons why we should be armed...

1
0
Silver badge

Re Tony Martin,

Whilst I am not a fan of excessive force, Mr Martin had been the victim of multiple burglaries which the police had been unable to do anything about. As a society we devolved the responsibility for civil protection to the police. Between underfunding, a toothless justice system, piss poor rehabilitation and a general issue with society creating a significant amount of criminals the police are unable to provide a level of protection that we would all like to have. I don't condone shooting fleeing burglars in the back, but I do have an element of sympathy for Mr Martin.

If you have ever lived on a farm you might have an idea of just how remote you can be. The police might only be a few minutes away from your semi in an emergency but they can be half an hour away from a farm the same goes for the other emergency services. When you are in a situation where you are repeatedly burgled and left to feel helpless because the people who are supposed to protect you cannot, then it becomes a little more understandable that Mr Martin would be pushed to more drastic action. When you do not feel safe in your own home things change. Yes it wasn't ideal, but the ideal solution was the police catch the pikeys breaking into his farm, that didn't happen. I hope I wouldn't resort to what he did, but I can understand why he did. I haven't been in that situation, but I have had to wait 30 minutes for an ambulance whilst doing CPR (you try doing 15 minutes of pressups) because some moron tourist got drunk and caused a pileup at the same time somebody had a heart attack in the water. Thankfully an AED and oxygen saved the person, but unless you have felt that helpless you can't really understand. I'm not saying he was right, just that it is understandable given how he was let down. Manslaughter diminished responsibility seemed like the right sentence.

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Psyx 17:59

"OK, but why should I have to accept abandoning my home to a maniac?"

Why should you want to confront one? Why should you want to put yourself of potentially taking a life over a colour TV. We happily scorn criminals for killing over the price of a TV, but legally killing over the price of your own TV isn't morally too much better. Legal killing isn't a good thing just because it's legal.

Maybe I'm just a little less attached to personal property that you.

"...simply because you dislike guns."

I'm sorry, can you point out where I said I disliked firearms, Matt? You were happy enough to chatter away to me about them as part of the Army sidearm thread.

"Please stop trying to push the blame onto the victims just because you disprove of firearms, it was Bruni that committed the criminal acts."

Stop putting words in my mouth, Matt. I never pushed blame on any of the victims, I commended them.

And where have I stated that I disprove of firearms? Just because my firearm agenda doesn't match yours, you've cunningly shoved me in to the opposing camp and labelled me 'wrong'.

Bruni was committing criminal acts but was insane and unarmed. I don't condone putting bullets into someone in that state. I guess maybe I value human life more than you do, if you think it's fine to put down unarmed intruders with firearms.

Fail back at you, seeing as you like to put that label on anyone with a different opinion.

0
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: @Psyx 10:26

"No. I have windows that you would not climb out of as it would be a painful landing at best even with a rope/ladder, and 1 door. If the place goes up in flames I will be in pain on landing "

Then perhaps you should get a rope ladder. And a lock on the bedroom door.

After all: If you seriously want a firearm for personal protection, then why aren't you planning for other unlikely emergency situations. If you prepare for violent confrontation on the off-chance, then not taking measures against other events just looks like you 'want' a firearm and are then justifying it.

"Burglars want to take stuff. They are pretty committed to the act once in."

No they aren't. They're only committed to violence if you lock them in. Give them an exit and put a light on and they will generally run. They want 'stuff' not a confrontation. They can go and get stuff elsewhere. Granted it's not a catch-all, but it's true in the majority of situations.

You are enormously confrontational in your entire outlook. You have this idea that a firearm will solve your protection worries and yet seem really derisive of anyone taking *other* measures to protect themselves. I'm 'hulk' and can 'dodge bullets' because I've spent a bit of time learning how to look after myself according to you, yet you think you can pull a pistol on someone mugging you with a firearm and blow them away before they pull a trigger? Seriously?

"Cmon hulk, lets see you live out here."

Thanks, but I've lived in enough terminally dangerous dumps. I take pleasure in not waking up to sporadic gunfire.

You think your neighbourhood would be safer if you had a sidearm and concealed carry permit?

Now imagine every one of those scum in that pub opposite, every would-be mugger and every burglar having a firearm too. Tell me how your world is safer than mine?

Just answer that one, please. Instead of just attacking other people's opinions, let's hear you defend your own.

1
1
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: Psyx Re: Psyx 17:59

"....Bruni was committing criminal acts but was insane and unarmed. I don't condone putting bullets into someone in that state.....if you think it's fine to put down unarmed intruders with firearms....." I never said anyone should have shot Bruni, indeed I pointed out that no-one got shot as an example of responsible gun use. I never said Bruni should have been shot, so who is putting words in whose mouth? However, if Bruni had turned violent then I would have felt it quite justified for the Mrs Land to defend herself by shooting him, and even reasonable for Mr Land to shoot him with the shotgun if he had grounds to belief he was doing so to defend Mrs Land, especially as Bruni seemed to be in a state where reasoning with him was not realistic.

"....Why should you want to confront one?...." I have a legal right, even here in the UK, to confront even a trespasser and tell them to leave my land, let alone an intruder smashing my property. I do not have to wait until they actually damage my property. If they should become violent I then have the right to defend myself. You are suggesting just because I have the means and training to defend myself I should not apply them? Why not just ban all martial arts whilst you're at it, seeing as your answer is to roll over and accept whatever criminal action ensues in the hope you are going to be able to report it to a policeman after the event. Sorry, if it was my home Bruni had been running around in, scaring the life out of my wife, I wouldn't have bothered shooting him but I would have beaten the cr*p out of him until he gave up all thoughts of doing anything other than curling up and waiting for an ambulance, and the law would actually be on my side as I could claim reasonable force. In this case, shooting Bruni would not have been reasonable force, but if he had been an armed intruder then it very well could have been.

I'll go thumbs down so as not to hurt your delicate sensibilites.

1
3
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Psyx Re: @Psyx 10:26

"....You have this idea that a firearm will solve your protection worries and yet seem really derisive of anyone taking *other* measures to protect themselves...." Who said that? A gun will give more options, no-one is advocating getting a gun and then leaving your doors unlocked. No-one is saying get a gun and then encourage crackheads to break in, so quit that rubbish. Anyone getting a gun is simply ADDING to their security arrangements, just like someone that gets a dog. I also don't recall anyone saying here that they would buy a gun and not invest in an extinguisher, fire blanket or fire escape, but maybe you missed that when you were hurrying to defend your opinions?

"....You think your neighbourhood would be safer if you had a sidearm and concealed carry permit? Now imagine every one of those scum in that pub opposite, every would-be mugger and every burglar having a firearm too. Tell me how your world is safer than mine? Just answer that one, please....." Easy - most muggers, burglars and the like are career criminals with records, making them inelligible for a permit or even a shotgun licence. Those criminals already given to breaking the law won't give a fudge and will carry a gun anyway, permit or not, as shown by the case of the UK, Washington DC, Chicago, etc. So letting the homeowner also have a weapon at least puts them back on equal terms.

A gun does not remove the possibility of break-ins or even that you will survive a shoot-out, but it does provide the option of at least defending yourself, and it may make you more confident should you be trapped and unable to defend yourself otherwise against an intruder that is simply bigger and stronger. And sometimes an armed homeowner does have proper security, like locked doors, increased police presence in the area, and still has to shoot an intruder determined to hurt them (http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/11/03/woman-shoots-rapist-who-came-back-to-rape-her-for-a-second-time/). Read that link and then stop to think if it had been Preyer breaking into your home to attack your wife, mother, sister, daughter - anyone you actually care about more than Preyer's "rights". Maybe it would help if you knew the first time Preyer raped the woman he told her that if she told the cops - which she did - he would return to "get her". Yeah, I'm sure "backing out the door" was an immensely better option - not!

Hey, no "Fail" icon to upset you, just a "Stop this nonsense forthwith", as I'm afriad you are talking utter nonsense.

1
3
Anonymous Coward

@Psyx 12:05

I dont need a rope ladder. I have a fire extinguisher so I do prepare. This still offers NO solution if someone breaks in because they would be on me before I could get out. Me and my partner. Or do you think I should negotiate our exit down the rope with the nice fluffy criminal? Be real. As for the door, I rent and it has no lock. A fire wouldnt respect a lock and a criminal would break the door easy enough if it had one.

Fact is I am prepared for events, except an armed/over aggressive intruder. No security system would fix this and I rent so have no control over the security system. I laugh at your dream world view because its wrong. I live in the real world your dream does not account for. And you would prefer me dead to being able to protect my home and family. As for wanting firearms, I use them. However a target rifle is useless in a flat and is certainly excessive and less threatening.

"No they aren't. They're only committed to violence if you lock them in. Give them an exit and put a light on and they will generally run." sorry dude but your talking bull. This article alone wipes out this statement and shows you either lying or ignorant. Assuming this guy is on drugs, that does not bode well as such is done in my area. The police raided a house next to the pub (2 doors down) that grew and supplied pot to the locals. They also do harder stuff but as I said the police dont really police our area. To think a criminal is only criminal as long as he hurts nobody flies in the face of fact.

You say I am confrontational but you assume no confrontation will happen. You then assume your training in self defence will save you, which assumes your not attacked by someone bigger/stronger/better trained than you. Dumb assumptions that dont work as someone is always better. Yet the presence of the gun has saved many lives (without shooting). Also it is better to end the attackers life than them take yours (none of your poor excuse get outs here pls) which is often enough knowledge to make an attacker back off. Look back to the comments I made on equalizing. Your way ensures criminals win. Almost certain with little risk.

"You think your neighbourhood would be safer if you had a sidearm and concealed carry permit?" I would be safer. Without doubt. As would the other residents stuck here.

"Now imagine every one of those scum in that pub opposite, every would-be mugger and every burglar having a firearm too. Tell me how your world is safer than mine?" because right now people are stabbed, injured, assualted, beaten, harrassed, etc because the bigger, drugged up, violent muppet has nothing to fear. They can stab people with onlookers being totally helpless. The victims having no defence nor support by the onlookers. Your way the bigger wins and they do so often the police hide. My way the police are armed and the law abiding, meaning they have a chance. While a criminal may be armed, he is not the only one.

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

"Your intolerance is JUST as damning as that of the Nazi collaberating French or Germans."

Godwins. You lose.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Psyx Psyx 17:59

"However, if Bruni had turned violent then I would have felt it quite justified for the Mrs Land to defend herself by shooting him"

So instead of just walking out the door, you would consider it morally ok to stand there covering him with a shotgun, and to put a couple into him if he turned on you? Does it not occur to you that maybe pointing a firearm at a nutcase six feet away is a provocation and at least 20% likely to result in someone getting slotted?

Maybe I've just seen too many unpleasant situations and dead people with holes in them to think that waving firearms around is a valid solution in 99% of occasions. Lethal violence -to me- is absolutely the last resort, and escalating the confrontation is very low on the lost of priorities, too. Putting a firearm in someone's hands means they have this tendency to start seeing every problem as a nail. And for every home owner who would have acting as per this case, there'd be a fucking moron who'd have just murdered someone insane for trespass. You might be the safest gun-owner in the world, but so long as there are muppets out there, we cater for the lowest denominator.

"Sorry, if it was my home Bruni had been running around in, scaring the life out of my wife, I wouldn't have bothered shooting him but I would have beaten the cr*p out of him until he gave up all thoughts of doing anything..."

Personally, I'd have got my wife out of the house and called the police first, and gone from there. Odds are I'd have then gone back in there and hit the guy with a stick myself, but that's a long way from using a firearm or a blade on the guy. As you say: It would not be reasonable force to use a firearm if he was unarmed. Luckily I live in a country where burglars are not armed with firearms.

"I'll go thumbs down so as not to hurt your delicate sensibilites."

Oh do piss off with the constant inferences, Matt. They're not delicate. If you think that there is something weak about giving a shit about human life, regardless of whose it is, then that's your problem, not mine.

Likewise, if you're so attached to your colour TV that you're willing to turn a firearm on someone to protect it, you really need to take a good, long look at your priorities in life.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Psyx @Psyx 10:26

"Who said that?"

The Anon guy who keeps calling me Hulk et al on the basis that I'm willing to defend myself by breaking someone's elbow when I run out of other options, and yet who seems to think that a concealed handgun is the solution to being mugged by an armed assailant at point-blank range in a dark alley. Apparently anything other than a firearm for defence is making too many assumptions for him or is somehow not macho enough or something. There is no way in hell I'd allow someone with such a blinkered view towards solving confrontation a license if it was down to me. You I'd actually consider, despite the fact I think your attitude generally sucks.

"No-one is saying get a gun and then encourage crackheads to break in, so quit that rubbish. Anyone getting a gun is simply ADDING to their security arrangements"

Ok then, so then it's reasonable to not allow anyone a firearm in the home until they have a security system and approved locks? There: That's a sensible minimum licensing requirement, for a start. That'd be on my requirements list:

"I want a gun to protect yourself from burglars"

"Have you got a burglar alarm?"

"No"

"Come back when you have considered other options for home safety other than shooting people"

"Those criminals already given to breaking the law won't give a fudge and will carry a gun anyway."

We're in the UK, Matt. Most criminals in the UK have never even handled a firearm.

0
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: @Psyx 12:05

"the bigger, drugged up, violent muppet has nothing to fear."

No, and he won't have anything to fear if him and his three mates have drawn weapons, either. Once again we're back to you thinking that a concealed weapon is any use in such a situation.

"As for wanting firearms, I use them. However a target rifle is useless in a flat and is certainly excessive and less threatening."

So... your landlord doesn't let you put a bolt on your bedroom door, but lets you have a gun safe bolted to the floor?

"You then assume your training in self defence will save you, which assumes your not attacked by someone bigger/stronger/better trained than you."

"Dumb assumptions that dont work as someone is always better."

Like yours that you can out-draw a mugger with a gun pointed at you, you mean? Which part of "You are making more assumptions by assuming that you can protect yourself with a firearm than I am by thinking I can run away" is not sinking in?

"Yet the presence of the gun has saved many lives (without shooting). Also it is better to end the attackers life than them take yours "

Unfortunately, the very presence of all those firearms in society does more harm than good. Simple maths dictates the lesser of the evils takes priority. If that means that some poor bastard gets killed by a burglar to save five kids shooting themselves or someone else each year with daddy's pistol, then that - to me- is the way it goes.

"(none of your poor excuse get outs here pls)"

And yeah: I'd pull the trigger as a last resort myself. And then I could sleep pretty sound at night (bar the odd bit of PTSD and nightmare) knowing that I had done everything I could to prevent needless death.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: Psyx Re: Psyx @Psyx 10:26

"....who seems to think that a concealed handgun is the solution to being mugged by an armed assailant at point-blank range in a dark alley....." I'm not advocating that a handgun will be the solution for all situations, but it will help you in some where not having a handgun could be terminal. If, for example, I go loopy and decide to camp out in the local tower with a (perfectly legal in the UK) Remington 700, the chap in the street with a concealed handgun is going to be just as dead as you, regardless of your superpowers. But, in my loopy state and unreasonable state, should I decide to enter your homes with the 700, he is going to stand a better chance than you of getting out of that shorter range confrontation alive. Please note that running out the back door is not going to beat a bullet doing about 1900mph, and with five rounds in the mag I will be able to work the bolt and take care of your wife long before she gets out of range too.

"....Ok then, so then it's reasonable to not allow anyone a firearm in the home until they have a security system and approved locks?...." In the UK I have to have a secure home and an approved, fixed gun cabinet before I can apply for a weapon. They come and check as well as talking to you. I see nothing wrong with that approach being taken in the US too, it reduces the chances of weapons being stolen.

"...."I want a gun to protect yourself from burglars"....." Actually, in the UK I can specify several reasons for wanting a weapon, such as target shooting for sport or competition, hunting (including deer stalking), and collecting. Most gun clubs will warn you off telling the coppers you want a weapon for home protection as they will automatically assume you are a paranoid loon. In the old days, if you wanted a handgun for home defence, you said it was for military-class competition shooting.

"....We're in the UK, Matt. Most criminals in the UK have never even handled a firearm." Oh dear, best you don't go search on Youtube for "operation trident gun crime" - it's pretty grim, including a five-year-old girl shot in Brixton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRy131WV5nQ). Or this vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr20MX-oI8Q) - just ignoring the AK and Uzi shown, check about 30 seconds in the boxes of handguns seized in just one month! I'm told that the other large cities like Manchester are not far behind. I suggest you take your head out of the sand as that won't stop a bullet either.

1
2
Anonymous Coward

@Psyx 17:43

I call your hulk because you think you can take on any violent situation which you cant run from. You think you can beat up whatever attacker comes your way, and you may be right, unless the attacker is bigger/stronger/better trained than you. Then your buggered. You have the confidence in your scenario's because they always lean in your favour. You then assume this ideal fantasy land of fluffy criminals and many exits with no harm ever coming to anyone. When I explained the reality that there is no exit where I live and you cant rely on the police you didnt offer a solution. You assume very wrongly that your rope ladder idea is viable even though I already explained it wasnt.

You might be able to break any muggers arm hulk, but what about the majority of people? You are the one assuming some fantasy land where everything goes your way. You dont believe harm can come to anyone because there is always some option you dream up regardless of reality. You also assume a gun for self defence automatically requires firing or even a killing shot. You ignore reality (read this article!). You cry when you think I call you names but you then call me (e.g. "Apparently anything other than a firearm for defence is making too many assumptions for him or is somehow not macho enough or something") because you cannot solve the problem I offer. These are not assumptions about your beliefs, these are your comments. You sound the macho hard man who can handle any situation by breaking arms and leaving through non-existent and non-viable exits. You claim your security system (an alarm?) is enough to save you from someone out of their mind and highly unpredictable. Your the one saying hilarious but unrealistic things. And your the one assuming those who wish to prepare (as we prepare for a fire, etc) are in the wrong. After telling us that we surely prepare for other incidents like a fire (I have an extinguisher to help with the limited exits.

"Ok then, so then it's reasonable to not allow anyone a firearm in the home until they have a security system and approved locks? There: That's a sensible minimum licensing requirement, for a start. That'd be on my requirements list:" Why not. Sensible requirements. As I understand it the police do this in the UK already if you want to own guns. A gun is not the security solution, its part of it. Its not to kill anyone who gets into your house, its to protect you and your families life and give you the option when all others run out.

"We're in the UK, Matt. Most criminals in the UK have never even handled a firearm." Yet they are damn good with knives and blunt objects. Also criminals tend to pick on easier targets. Your hulk like qualities probably save you some trouble. For the majority we are not hulk like.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

@Psyx 17:54

"No, and he won't have anything to fear if him and his three mates have drawn weapons, either. Once again we're back to you thinking that a concealed weapon is any use in such a situation." In the dark alley, out of the way of passers by who may be armed and could feel more capable of assisting the victim. That effectively removes crime from the streets around me!!! Not many of those, instead the brutal assaulters happily do this inside the pub and out on the street in front of our flats! What was that statistic for how many people get involved in the UK when they see someone being assaulted?

"So... your landlord doesn't let you put a bolt on your bedroom door, but lets you have a gun safe bolted to the floor?" To assume makes an ass out of u and me (as a friend would say). I dont have a gun safe or licence. I use my friends firearms at the club and keep air guns which require no such locking up. I nearly got my firearms certificate before moving up here but realised there was little point due to the rented property with little control over it. Concealed carry would keep the gun on my person and it would make my flat a lot safer and I imagine the idiots over the road will be less inclined to knock 7 bells out of each other in the wee hours. Second to that it means I could keep the gun which I would take to the range.

"Like yours that you can out-draw a mugger with a gun pointed at you, you mean? Which part of "You are making more assumptions by assuming that you can protect yourself with a firearm than I am by thinking I can run away" is not sinking in?" A gun is not the solution just as a fire extinguisher isnt. I assume you prepare against fire even with your many exits. I have much fewer and so prepare further. You keep saying run away, but now lets bring you back to the real world a sec. That was eliminated as an option for many people. In my case its the lack of viable exists. For others it could be disability, frailty, injury, etc. So hulk explain for the rest of us how your run away failed idea helps? Tell the families of the victims and the victims that survive. You cant ask me to why this isnt sinking in when I am asking how to save a life and your saying the sky is blue. Stay on subject and answer the question. If you can.

"Unfortunately, the very presence of all those firearms in society does more harm than good" Opinion with no factual basis. "Simple maths dictates the lesser of the evils takes priority" Your confusion whereby it is evil for the victim to have a chance is a skewed view supporting evil."If that means that some poor bastard gets killed by a burglar to save five kids shooting themselves" lack of support leading to an emotional appeal skipping the real world in favour of a fantasy.

"And yeah: I'd pull the trigger as a last resort myself. And then I could sleep pretty sound at night (bar the odd bit of PTSD and nightmare) knowing that I had done everything I could to prevent needless death." I like how you reference that as the outcome. The flip side of that statement is that the violent attacker about to kill you did not get the opportunity to kill you. Also I ask you compare those nightmares to being violently raped/maimed or the horror of watching your friend/family go through it while you are helpless. See what I did there? I took your emotive plea and turned it on itself. Or dont you think victims get counselling? Often for the fear that this person is still out there, can come back and will likely be doing the same or worse still. All because you are legally enforced to be the victim as it is criminal to have the options to protect yourself/family. Go back to your statement of evils and priority. Your way makes evil have priority. Your way enforces it.

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Psyx Psyx @Psyx 10:26

"with five rounds in the mag I will be able to work the bolt and take care of your wife long before she gets out of range too."

I can deal with you throwing insults at me. But that's so not cool, Matt. In fact, it's fucking offensive. Don't bring other people's families into your petty squabbles and imaginary situations. It's pathetic.

"In the UK I have to have a secure home and an approved, fixed gun cabinet before I can apply for a weapon. They come and check as well as talking to you. "

Yes, I know that, thanks. /rolleyes.

Except now they seem to send non-police around, having contracted out the work. At least around here.

0
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: @Psyx 17:43

"I call your hulk because you think you can take on any violent situation which you cant run from. "

No I don't. Hell: You're not even debating gun control any more, just making diversionary insults and erecting rows of straw men.

"You cry when you think I call you names but you then "

Damn right I'll call you a name back after you do it about a dozen times. You didn't like what I was saying, so you resorted to names out of spite. Basically, you just want a firearm of your own. That's pretty much what it comes down to, and you've used cognitive bias to construct reasoning around it, and nothing will change your mind.

Me: I've owned firearms, carried and used them, and generally got over 'needing' them in my life when I saw that a well-armed society is an unpleasant one. Hopefully you'll come to the same realisation one day. But I doubt it, because apparently no other solution will ever be good enough for you.

0
1
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: Re: Psyx Psyx @Psyx 10:26

"I can deal with you throwing insults at me. But that's so not cool, Matt. In fact, it's fucking offensive. Don't bring other people's families into your petty squabbles and imaginary situations. It's pathetic....." Really? Did it upset you to consider your wife dying violently? Is it different when it is someone you care about? But you said it could never happen, so why so upset? And it was you that said in the Lands case you would have concentrated on getting your wife and then yourself out of the house rather than confronting Bruni with a gun. I'm simply using a new scenario to point out that relying on escape could result in you and your wife dying, and that's a scenario using a weapon currently legal here in the UK. Congratulations, you obviously feel strongly about your wife, but do you feel strongly enough about protecting her that you cannot consider ever shooting an armed intruder?

Take our scenario - I'm doing a Bruni only I'm off my head and pointing a rifle at your wife - only this time you do have a firearm which you obviously know how to use, do you risk taking the chance I won't shoot her or do you pull the trigger? Don't think about it for too long, you could have literally seconds to decide if that, or you could be leaving it too late. BANG! Oops, too late! So, now I have shot your wife, I still have four rounds in the mag and I'm working the bolt, do you want to reason with me, try walking out the back door or diving out the window, or do you pull the trigger? Got any kids? Don't worry, the family pet may make it out alive if the armed response team get there in time. Come on, admit it, you already know the answer from your own stated experience - given the right provocation, everyone will eventually reach the point where they will pull the trigger, no matter their stated moral outlook. The only situation where they never will is when they don't have a trigger to pull, because they don't have a firearm.

0
2
Anonymous Coward

@Psyx 14:59

Its ok dude, we know you cant answer the question, instead you rewrite under the assumption your stronger than the attacker or have a way out. We know you cant answer for the actual situations of violent crime, I was just interested to see if you could get past the dream situation you imagine and assess the real world (my flat for example). Its not insults and straw men. Its reality vs your assumption of always being stronger (which doesnt apply to most of the country). The scenario is not a straw man, its life for many and its the regular violent crimes.

"Damn right I'll call you a name back after you do it about a dozen times." Then dont cry when I do it back to you. I ask you a question, you rewrite the question or repeat a wrong answer then blame me for being homicidal, wanting to shoot someone, or thinking a gun is macho. You say its a good idea to prepare for fire, yet cry against the same principal in home security. I like your statement of bias when you failed to answer the questions put to you without huge rewrites to a fictional land of exits and no violent crime. Even to the most hilarious suggestions of rope ladders even when it wouldnt work. Simply- "you've used cognitive bias to construct reasoning around it, and nothing will change your mind.". Read your statement and weep, or learn preferably.

"Me: I've owned firearms, carried and used them, and generally got over 'needing' them in my life when I saw that a well-armed society is an unpleasant one. Hopefully you'll come to the same realisation one day. But I doubt it, because apparently no other solution will ever be good enough for you." Maybe you have but you do sound very unrealistic in your view of the world or very sheltered. Good for you, violence is not good. But to assume everyone has such privileged position is unrealistic. Maybe you lived in warzones or whatever scared you, but your thinking of yourself not victims. Reminds me of (Matts?) comment about the fear of knives. My realisation is violence happens. If you can get out then good. If you cant then you need help. When nobody can help you hope they call the police. When the police wont come what can you do? Your idea that martial arts solves all is a discredited statement and no intelligent person would assume it would work for the majority in the country. The definition by itself being that the majority would be less capable.

Solutions are good. You have offered some valid ones but it requires a lot of conditions. You couldnt provide one in my situation and I am mobile and healthy.

I also notice you dont mention the agreement we have of house security to have firearms at home. Especially since thats the law here anyway. Didnt you know that as a gun owner/user? And you needed your gun? Wow. Was it love? I have yet to hear anyone at the ranges here say anything like that. Is this an insight to your bias?

0
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Re: @Psyx 17:43

".....Me: I've owned firearms, carried and used them, and generally got over 'needing' them in my life when I saw that a well-armed society is an unpleasant one....." OK, I admit I don't particularly rate a trip to Switzerland as a barrel of laughs, but now you're just blanket insulting a whole country?

1
1
Anonymous Coward

"drink the contents from a wet-dry vacuum cleaner"

This is the only part I don't understand

0
0
Silver badge

Re: "drink the contents from a wet-dry vacuum cleaner"

I think it is obvious that the young fellow had lost complete control of his senses. How putting holes in the wall with a .38 could fix that problem is anybody's guess.

2
2

Re: "drink the contents from a wet-dry vacuum cleaner"

So you understand why he started masturbating on the floor when she fired her .38?

4
0
Silver badge
Coat

Re: "drink the contents from a wet-dry vacuum cleaner"

She shot one off so he decided to do the same...

4
0
Silver badge

Re: "drink the contents from a wet-dry vacuum cleaner"

> masturbating on the floor when she fired her .38?

He obviously got excited. Maybe he was an NRA member?

9
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: "drink the contents from a wet-dry vacuum cleaner"

@Steve 26

"So you understand why he started masturbating on the floor when she fired her .38?"

Oooooh yeah, it's that "dominant woman" thing and there's a cfnm situation to boot. I already had to clean the underside of my desk just from reading how she, um, pulled a weapon.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

> Read more: Rampage Naked Florida Wet-Dry Vacuum

The tags are making me laugh harder than the article itself. Sadly this is the only story involving Wet-Dry vacuums. I looked.

3
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.