91 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 02 February 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

I've answered this time and time again, and I repeat again, I haven't sided with any particular angle on this, I haven't said our laws are beyond reproach, I haven't said the Welsh proposals will work, and i've said it'll be interesting to see what they do with them, and if they're ammended in debate. I've also said that prosecution only occur if the CPS find sufficient evidence. I'm not going to sit and write some long winded scenario out for you, because the scenario was given, the scenario is additional evidence like cctv etc, it has also been pointed out to you that in your "scenario" I can't see it likely there would be a prosecution, since there's hardly any evidence.

So, given all this has been explained to you time and time again, given that all your points have been addressed time and time again, why are you insisting on lying about what i've said, and ignoring the answers given? ..and if you're not trolling as you claim you're not, then what exactly is your problem?

Maybe you're not familiar with the nature of many dogs.  I understand from the experience that only dog ownership could prove how gentle and loving they are around family, and how vicious they can turn when they perceive their pack is under threat.   The nature of dogs shouldn't be misused as a prosecutory tool to blame the victim of a crime with this silly nonsense that "his dog wasn't under control" in his own house.   Bugger that, mate.  A home invader must yield to the protective nature of many species of dog if UK law is going to live in harmony with nature and not resort to blaming the victims of crime for it.   This is discriminatory of many breeds and it's frankly preposterous.   If you're fool enough to break into someone's house and get your neck chewed off by Fido, nobody else needs to control anything but you.  You need to learn how to control yourself and the price you paid was your own fault.   You can understand the simple language that there's no excuse for rape, period.   Well mate, there is no excuse for burglary period either.   Implying that your guidelines are so wonderful without being able to answer to the specifics of my scenario met the point I have here.  I've exposed a weakness, and what I would call a glaring hole in the law over there and it would behoove English/Welsh authorities to reform it away.

And with all due respect, I don't have a problem.   I don't enjoy being berated for no good reason because some people can't keep it on the level.   If we find debate and discussion so problematic, maybe we shouldn't be doing it.   You can attack my points all you like, but in ungentlemanly fashion you keep referring to me in personal terms and that is what's been out of line. You haven't addressed my points so much as you've belittled them, threatened them, resorted to ad hominem because of them, and redirected them to general authority that you didn't even bother to relate a single bit of to my scenario to show how it was even relevant. I have a brain and sometimes there's this weird thing I do called thinking.   Even less common is when I ask questions afterwards.  That was bold of me, I know!   But based on the description of your own dog, you won't be having any problems from the police.   Convenience!   Carry on, mate.  


Have a great weekend.  

Edited by Yamato, 02 February 2013 - 03:50 PM.

[spud the mackem]

Yamato, on 02 February 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

From my American perspective of defending civil liberties, this anti-dog attitude in UK law is borderline Monty Python:

*doorbell rings*

Yamato:  *answers the door*

Yamato:  Oh thank goodness it's you!  The police!

UK Policeman:  Well of course it's the police!  You called us didn't you?

Yamato: Yes I did.  Can you help me?  I've been the victim of a crime.

UK Policeman:  I'm to understand there's been a burglary here

Yamato:  Yes there has.  There's a dead burglar in my living room.  He met my dog, Rottie.

UK Policeman:  Good heavens why didn't you say so?

Yamato:  I did...when I called.  I didn't tell you, because you didn't answer.  They dispatched you right?

UK Policeman:  Well I'm here aren't I?

Yamato: Well yeah...but...

UK Policeman:  Nevermind that!  Are you going to let me in or not?

Yamato: Do I have a choice?

UK Policeman:  No, you don't actually, now out of my way!

*shoves Yamato aside and barges in*

UK Policeman:  What did you say your name was again?

Yamato: I didn't tell you my name.

UK Policeman:  Well why not?

Yamato: Because you didn't ask.

UK Policeman:  Well I'm asking you now, what is it?

Yamato: Yamato...but you see it's...

UK Policeman:  Yamato?  Isn't that a Jap name?

Yamato: Well maybe 60 years ago you could call it that, yeah...

UK Policeman:  You don't look Japanese...what are you doing in the UK?

Yamato: I find myself asking that very question right now, believe me.   Actually it's just a username.

UK Policeman:  You's a what?

Yamato: Nevermind.

UK Policeman:  So where is the burglar?

Yamato: *points*

UK Policeman:  Oh dear!  Bloody hell!   Was this the only one?

Yamato: No, there were others.  I saw them running when I came down the stairs with my English Mastiff.

UK Policeman:  Well did they get a good look at you?

Yamato: Excuse me?

UK Policeman:  Or did you get a good look at them?

Yamato:  No. They were running and had their backs turned to me.  

UK Policeman:  What else can you tell me?

Yamato:  They were dressed in dark clothes and running very fast.   I think the torn artery on their friend here gave them second thoughts about stealing my grandmother's china.

UK Policeman:  China, I thought you said Japanese?

Yamato:  No.

UK Policeman:  Where did you say you were again when this happened?

Yamato:  Upstairs.

UK Policeman:  And what were you doing upstairs might I ask?

Yamato:  I was in the bathroom and had my headphones on.

UK Policeman:  And how am I supposed to know you were upstairs?

Yamato:  Well you could ask my dog I suppose, but she doesn't speak English.

UK Policeman:   Wasn't your dog English?

Yamato:  The one upstairs is, I suppose, yes.   But he was upstairs with me then too, so he didn't see anything.

UK Policeman:  And the one downstairs?

Yamato:  German.

UK Policeman:  Typical German too.  Bloody hell, this is gruesome!

Yamato:  Oh yeah, that's my girl.   Isn't that right, Rottie!  Ooooooh you're such a good girl!

*Yamato scratches Rottie's red chin*

UK Policeman:  And what were you doing in the bathroom upstairs?

Yamato:  I was on the toilet.

UK Policeman:  And what, may I ask, were you doing on the toilet?

Yamato:  Are you serious?

UK Policeman:  I'm a UK police officer, of course I'm serious!   Everything we do is strictly by the book and the book is strictly by everything we do!

Yamato:  I was taking a dump.

UK Policeman:  A dump?   You were dropping a Washburn?

Yamato:  I was freeing the brown hostages.

UK Policeman:  You were launching torpedoes?

Yamato:  I was carpet bombing Afghanistan.

UK Policeman:  You were taking a Nixon?

Yamato: I was backing the big brown motorhome out of the garage.

UK Policeman:  And then what happened?

Yamato:  I wiped.

UK Policeman:  You mean to say you were freshening up?

Yamato:  I was finishing up some paper work.

UK Policeman:  You were going to see a man about a dog?

Yamato:  Yes I suppose that's exactly right.   I came downstairs and Rottie was enjoying her 3rd meal of the day.  Isn't that right my precious little monster?

UK Policeman:   Just look at that blood splatter!  It nearly reaches the ceiling!

Yamato:  Yeah, good girl Rottie!!!

UK Policeman:  I'm sorry I cannot believe your alibi that you were upstairs!

Yamato:  Uhh why not?

UK Policeman:  These wounds are too severe.  I'm going to have to call a forensics team to examine this immediately.

Yamato:  Yeah but what does that have anything to do with...

UK Policeman:  Silence!  You are nearly crossing over the line with your childish questions!

Yamato:  I still don't understand why the blood has anything to do with where I was when this happened, I think that...

UK Policeman:  You must understand something... I am a police officer.  Of the law.   You are a Japanese immigrant with a Chinese grandmother, an English dog that can't collaborate your story, and a German.

Yamato:  Rottie.

UK Policeman:   Yes and what kind of dog is that?

Yamato:  It's a Rottweiler. They're famous for their jaw strength actually.

UK Policeman:  I'm sorry Yamato, but due to your irrelevancy and trollish behavior, and especially due to the extent of these injuries, I'm going to have to take you in until the laboratory has confirmed your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yamato:  Uhhhh WTF

UK Policeman:  Our moderator has it on good authority that this is a reasonable approach.   We don't just consider what you happen to say after we question you, we look at all the evidence!  Did you know that your fingerprints were all over this leash?  

Yamato:  Yes I'm sure they are, it's my leash.  

UK Policeman:  And this light switch.   You turned the light on and you didn't try to stop this butchery?

Yamato:  Well no, I'm sure my fingerprints were already on that too, you see I live here, and...

UK Policeman:   No more questions for now!  You're coming with me until we run a sweep of the area to make sure nobody else walking the streets in dark clothing saw what you were doing while this monster of yours did its number on this lifeless man.   Look at that dead man your dog killed...I can barely stand to look at him!   But before we go, I'm going to have to get a look at your papers?

Yamato:  I already flushed them, sorry.

UK Policeman:   Yes I see now, you are quite guilty.  Quite guilty indeed young man!   It's a good thing that Sky Scanner took over our department.   Our prosecution of dog owners has skyrocketed since he started posting our guidelines.

  Classic buddy, but in this strange antiquated land, a Police Officer cannot barge into your home unless (a) he is invited. ( there has been a serious crime committed, however Customs Officers have the right of entry at any time 24/7 into any premises  without invitation as long as they have the Queens Commission available for inspection which they are required to carry at all times...Good eh!...cheers.

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 02 February 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Maybe you're not familiar with the nature of many dogs.  I understand from the experience that only dog ownership could prove how gentle and loving they are around family, and how vicious they can turn when they perceive their pack is under threat.   The nature of dogs shouldn't be misused as a prosecutory tool to blame the victim of a crime with this silly nonsense that "his dog wasn't under control" in his own house.   Bugger that, mate.  A home invader must yield to the protective nature of many species of dog if UK law is going to live in harmony with nature and not resort to blaming the victims of crime for it.   This is discriminatory of many breeds and it's frankly preposterous.   If you're fool enough to break into someone's house and get your neck chewed off by Fido, nobody else needs to control anything but you.  You need to learn how to control yourself and the price you paid was your own fault.   You can understand the simple language that there's no excuse for rape, period.   Well mate, there is no excuse for burglary period either.   Implying that your guidelines are so wonderful without being able to answer to the specifics of my scenario met the point I have here.  I've exposed a weakness, and what I would call a glaring hole in the law over there and it would behoove English/Welsh authorities to reform it away.

And with all due respect, I don't have a problem.   I don't enjoy being berated for no good reason because some people can't keep it on the level.   If we find debate and discussion so problematic, maybe we shouldn't be doing it.   You can attack my points all you like, but in ungentlemanly fashion you keep referring to me in personal terms and that is what's been out of line. You haven't addressed my points so much as you've belittled them, threatened them, resorted to ad hominem because of them, and redirected them to general authority that you didn't even bother to relate a single bit of to my scenario to show how it was even relevant. I have a brain and sometimes there's this weird thing I do called thinking.   Even less common is when I ask questions afterwards.  That was bold of me, I know!   But based on the description of your own dog, you won't be having any problems from the police.   Convenience!   Carry on, mate.  


Have a great weekend.  

Quotes the post where I say I haven't supported or criticised the latest proposals relating to the ownership of dogs, merely that i'll be interested to see where they go....you reply with "Implying that your guidelines are so wonderful without being able to answer to the specifics of my scenario met the point I have here"...and this is what you have done with every single point made, asked a question, given a reply, then made your own version of that reply up in order to attack a point that was never made. You do this all the time, you think me pointing this out to you is me attacking you, on the contrary, i've given you plenty of opportunity to play fairly, you're running out of room with these games of yours though.

Stop deliberately misinterpreting people's posts. Thanks.

[freetoroam]

Yamato, on 02 February 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

UK Policeman:   Yes I see now, you are quite guilty.  Quite guilty indeed young man!   It's a good thing that Sky Scanner took over our department.   Our prosecution of dog owners has skyrocketed since he started posting our guidelines.

very good, could do a sketch with this.
have not copied and pasted the whole thing again because, well, its half a blooming page long.
BUT, the police do not find you guilty here, they just detain or arrest you and leave the rest to  the courts to decide if it will proceed further, down to evidence submitted.
As information wise goes, I did find your post very enlightening on you having a dump.  I don`t think I can look at your avatar again without a little giggle.

[Beckys_Mom]

Sky Scanner, on 01 February 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

Oh it's not relevant to me now, was just curious...the dog I own now runs from cats lol...scared of it's own shadow, it's a cross between a king charles spaniel and a labrador (one strange union that was lol)

Runs away from cats?  You should video that some day and send it into - You've been framed..Score £250  lol

Sky Scanner, on 02 February 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

Stop deliberately misinterpreting people's posts. Thanks.

That's the last time I will sit by and let you talk about my two cats like that ever again.. You said that your dog will get them,  how can you say such horrible things?  What are you, some sort of cat hater?  I bet you trained your dog to only go after cats....  You should be reported to the RSPCA .. Another thing, my cats are not scared of their own shadow..  How dare you.  If you brought your dog, around to my house, so it can scare the life out of my cats, and tear up my sofas .. I should say  OI SKY SCANNER NOOOO !! .. *holds up one of her cats and lets it hiss at the screen*  lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 02 February 2013 - 08:57 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

skookum, on 02 February 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

UK law is ridiculous when it comes to defending your property.

It has changed ...

David Cameron described burglary as a crime of violence as the Conservatives set out plans to give homeowners more rights against intruders who break into their homes.  http://www.telegraph...eir-rights.html


Now you CAN fight back against burglars: Law change protects anyone using violence to defend home

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2JmKFzXNQ

I saw it on the news a while back..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 02 February 2013 - 09:14 PM.

[freetoroam]

Beckys_Mom, on 02 February 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

It has changed ...

David Cameron described burglary as a crime of violence as the Conservatives set out plans to give homeowners more rights against intruders who break into their homes.  http://www.telegraph...eir-rights.html


Now you CAN fight back against burglars: Law change protects anyone using violence to defend home

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2JmKFzXNQ

I saw it on the news a while back..

I think the big campaign for Tony martin brought this about, the government did not do out of the goodness of their hearts, they did it because the innocent public had just about had enough of the human right brigade defending the criminals. The government were afraid the public would start fighting back, because many said they would....the shame to the police force and the government were too much for them to handle, so Ken Clarke had to come up with something to stop that. it still does not mean people will not do it, it just means that some of the criminals are thinking twice now...which is a good thing.


ps: is it me or does Vincent Cooke look like Sky Scanner?

[Sky Scanner]

Beckys_Mom, on 02 February 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

Runs away from cats?  You should video that some day and send it into - You've been framed..Score £250  lol



That's the last time I will sit by and let you talk about my two cats like that ever again.. You said that your dog will get them,  how can you say such horrible things?  What are you, some sort of cat hater?  I bet you trained your dog to only go after cats....  You should be reported to the RSPCA .. Another thing, my cats are not scared of their own shadow..  How dare you.  If you brought your dog, around to my house, so it can scare the life out of my cats, and tear up my sofas .. I should say  OI SKY SCANNER NOOOO !! .. *holds up one of her cats and lets it hiss at the screen*  lol

LOL

If you had bothered to read my post, you would see I was referring to big cats, since I would never own a dog that ran from domestic cats lol ...besides, I only posted the guidelines surrounding the bullying of dogs by those little fury freaks, I neither favoured the dog or the cat

[Sky Scanner]

freetoroam, on 02 February 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

I think the big campaign for Tony martin brought this about, the government did not do out of the goodness of their hearts, they did it because the innocent public had just about had enough of the human right brigade defending the criminals. The government were afraid the public would start fighting back, because many said they would....the shame to the police force and the government were too much for them to handle, so Ken Clarke had to come up with something to stop that. it still does not mean people will not do it, it just means that some of the criminals are thinking twice now...which is a good thing.


ps: is it me or does Vincent Cooke look like Sky Scanner?

That isn't Vincent Cooke (unless i'm looking at the wrong pic)..that's the guy that was stabbed to death, and i'm very much alive ...plus, i'm better looking then him anyway

[freetoroam]

Sky Scanner, on 02 February 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

That isn't Vincent Cooke (unless i'm looking at the wrong pic)..that's the guy that was stabbed to death, and i'm very much alive ...plus, i'm better looking then him anyway

OMG, so it is, sorry.

Thought you would prefer the dog to the cat.

Very good to know you are alive and you are bette....oh, think someone is at the door.  ha,

[Sky Scanner]

freetoroam, on 02 February 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

OMG, so it is, sorry.

Thought you would prefer the dog to the cat.

Very good to know you are alive and you are bette....oh, think someone is at the door.  ha,

lol that actually looks like my dog, hence it gets walked at night, through a carefully chosen route of dark alleys and disused roads, so i'm never seen!

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 02 February 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

Quotes the post where I say I haven't supported or criticised the latest proposals relating to the ownership of dogs, merely that i'll be interested to see where they go....you reply with "Implying that your guidelines are so wonderful without being able to answer to the specifics of my scenario met the point I have here"...and this is what you have done with every single point made, asked a question, given a reply, then made your own version of that reply up in order to attack a point that was never made. You do this all the time, you think me pointing this out to you is me attacking you, on the contrary, i've given you plenty of opportunity to play fairly, you're running out of room with these games of yours though.

Stop deliberately misinterpreting people's posts. Thanks.

You're neutral about the new laws and you want to wait and see.   Someone with a powerful dog that has a chance of paying the price over these legal changes might not want to wait that long.   That's all good, and not related to the scenario I posited.   Nothing is deliberately misinterpreted here.  If I don't get a hypothetical explanation disproving a hypothetical scenario, the conditions of disproving that hypothesis are not met.  It's as simple as that.

You said "the guidelines are pretty straightforward" in reply to my scenario, as if they would somehow answer to my scenario, but you never explained how that could possibly be the case.   Just repeating how complete the evidence gathering is doesn't answer my question, it's just rhetoric.   I can use that kind of answer to assure anyone of anything no matter what the scenario or topic happens to be.  Your answer would have been relevant if I was denying that the UK had laws/guidelines addressing home defense by dog.  Therefore, I believe, without any reason to believe otherwise, that an eyewitness is necessary in my scenario.  That isn't misinterpreting anything, that's drawing my own conclusion.  You're free to disagree with me if you like.   I definitely can understand the concern people have over the new laws, and we're free to disagree there as well.

You also didn't see anything wrong with someone "being restrained and dying for some reason then no charges are brought."   I have to interpret that how I see it, and I think "some reason" is a hell of a way to die to just presume it's all well and good, supposedly by the straight forward guidelines outlining self defense.  I don't think a kick to the head is necessary to rise to the level of gross negligence in someone's death.  I'd say when someone is overpowered by a crowd and has no chance of getting up, you take some reasonable action (reasonable force) to make sure you're not suffocating the person to death, but maybe I respect life too much and you think I'm misinterpreting something because of that.  Whatever.  We are free to disagree.   My opinion doesn't match yours...AT ALL.  No misinterpretation about it.  

In summary:  I assert that neither reasonable force nor forensics should be applicable in any way whatsoever to a dog owner that cannot be in control of his animal, including any case where such control cannot be determined.  If such circumstantial evidence is not verified connecting the owner to the dog, and if police are going to prosecute with an expectation of reasonable force placed on the dog without a connection to the owner(s) established - somewhere in all that careful evidence they collected per the guidelines yada yada - I have some swampland in Florida for sale, cheap.   And I'll buy it myself before I move to Wales and try those new laws on with the dogs I grew up with and happen to lovingly care for today.   Good day to you.

Edited by Yamato, 03 February 2013 - 12:48 AM.

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 03 February 2013 - 12:38 AM, said:

You're neutral about the new laws and you want to wait and see.   Someone with a powerful dog that has a chance of paying the price over these legal changes might not want to wait that long.   That's all good, and not related to the scenario I posited.   Nothing is deliberately misinterpreted here.  If I don't get a hypothetical explanation disproving a hypothetical scenario, the conditions of disproving that hypothesis are not met.  It's as simple as that.

You said "the guidelines are pretty straightforward" in reply to my scenario, as if they would somehow answer to my scenario, but you never explained how that could possibly be the case.   Just repeating how complete the evidence gathering is doesn't answer my question, it's just rhetoric.   I can use that kind of answer to assure anyone of anything no matter what the scenario or topic happens to be.  Your answer would have been relevant if I was denying that the UK had laws/guidelines addressing home defense by dog.  Therefore, I believe, without any reason to believe otherwise, that an eyewitness is necessary in my scenario.  That isn't misinterpreting anything, that's drawing my own conclusion.  You're free to disagree with me if you like.   I definitely can understand the concern people have over the new laws, and we're free to disagree there as well.

I think agreeing to disagree is the best way forward too

Quote

You also didn't see anything wrong with someone "being restrained and dying for some reason then no charges are brought."   I have to interpret that how I see it, and I think "some reason" is a hell of a way to die to just presume it's all well and good, supposedly by the straight forward guidelines outlining self defense.  I don't think a kick to the head is necessary to rise to the level of gross negligence in someone's death.  I'd say when someone is overpowered by a crowd and has no chance of getting up, you take some reasonable action (reasonable force) to make sure you're not suffocating the person to death, but maybe I respect life too much and you think I'm misinterpreting something because of that.  Whatever.  We are free to disagree.   My opinion doesn't match yours...AT ALL.  No misinterpretation about it.

Well I can see how you might have thought "some reason" was a flippant way of talking about how someone died, but it was spoken of in the context of a death through restraint, against a death through intentional violence, which is where the reasonable force law is tested through the courts, with the latter being more likely to lead someone into having to answer for it in court. Also, it's not the case that you respect life too much, since that is what all these measures are designed for anyway, whereby life is more important then property, so you are expected to act with nothing more then is absolutely necessary to secure your safety, and not risk someone's life in the protection of your property....that is the way the law has been moulded over here for quite some time now.

Quote

In summary:  I assert that neither reasonable force nor forensics should be applicable in any way whatsoever to a dog owner that isn't in control of his animal, or any case where such control cannot be determined.  If such circumstantial evidence is not verified connecting the owner to the dog, and if police are going to prosecute with an expectation of reasonable force placed on the dog without a connection to the owner(s) established - somewhere in all that careful evidence they collected per the guidelines yada yada - I have some swampland in Florida for sale, cheap.   And I'll buy it myself before I move to Wales and try those new laws on with the dogs I grew up with and happen to lovingly care for today.

That's fair enough, like I said i'll be interested to see what version of this law ends up on the statute book after the usual debates and ammendments it'll go through.

Edited by Sky Scanner, 03 February 2013 - 12:49 AM.

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 03 February 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:

I think agreeing to disagree is the best way forward too



Well I can see how you might have thought "some reason" was a flippant way of talking about how someone died, but it was spoken of in the context of a death through restraint, against a death through intentional violence, which is where the reasonable force law is tested through the courts, with the latter being more likely to lead someone into having to answer for it in court. Also, it's not the case that you respect life too much, since that is what all these measures are designed for anyway, whereby life is more important then property, so you are expected to act with nothing more then is absolutely necessary to secure your safety, and not risk someone's life in the protection of your property....that is the way the law has been moulded over here for quite some time now.



That's fair enough, like I said i'll be interested to see what version of this law ends up on the statute book after the usual debates and ammendments it'll go through.

Not so much your rhetoric of "some reason", which seemed to fit the details given of this OP well enough.  I do however think that the case in the OP itself seemed flippant towards life.   It's possibly (probably) just inadequate information provided in the article; and a resulting battery of unanswered questions that can arise from it.

With the rest of it, it's all good and fair enough!  Thanks for the discussion.

[ExpandMyMind]

Wow. Did not see that coming.