Autumnpuma

Deadly London

153 posts in this topic

LONDON - A British teenage actor playing a minor role in the upcoming "Harry Potter" film was stabbed to death during a brawl in London on Saturday, police said.

Rob Knox, 18, was stabbed after he got caught up in a fight outside a bar in southwest London early Saturday, London's Metropolitan Police said in a statement.

Knox plays Ravenclaw student Marcus Belby in the upcoming film "Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince," the sixth installment of the popular series set for release in November.

Warner Bros., the studio that is producing the film, said it was shocked by the news.

Knox was one of five young men taken to various hospitals after the brawl, police said. Among them was a 21-year-old who has since been arrested on suspicion of murder.

The fight did not appear to be gang-related, police added, but it puts the number of violent teenage deaths in London at 14 so far this year.

Source

***

Yikes! It appears murder can still happen in a gunless society. Fascinating. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres far more violence going off throughout this country and its damn frustrating. The media are refusing to report on any of the deaths or violent injuries however because its racism with black people on white. Which just p****s me off.

Aside from that there's also the simple reason why all this happens, 160,000 police officers, but when was the last time you saw one been proactively walking the streets to "protect" us? I believe I last saw one 12 months ago, give or take a month. When they do catch people, whats the punishment handed out? A caution? No, thats far too harsh! Just a slap on the wrists, a written warning, so that if they get caught a further two times they might get cautioned!

Yob rule is the way until the current regime is ousted :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yikes! It appears murder can still happen in a gunless society. Fascinating. ;)

Murder occurs everywhere regardless of whether guns are present or not.

14 deaths this year in a city of 7 million is quite low - compare death rates in other similar sized cities....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The media are refusing to report on any of the deaths or violent injuries however because its racism with black people on white. Which just p****s me off.

Yup. Even the spokesman on race from the Association of Chief Police Officers says such issues, which are hugely important, aren't tackled because of "political correctness".

And Mike is quite correct. There is a lot of crime in the UK too. Less than in America, but more than in most countries.

Edited by Murray Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yikes! It appears murder can still happen in a gunless society. Fascinating. ;)

Oh well in that case, best we put a Colt 45 in with our children's packed lunches everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You contradict yourself.

If murder can happen without guns, then why do you need a gun for self-defense since you can murder without one?

Which brings me to another question I wanted to ask the pro-gun people:

If some criminal comes into your house without a gun, would you still shoot him? What if he had a weapon that wasn't a gun? Would you people, who seem to be all for a "fair fight" counter with that weapon, or just go for the gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You contradict yourself.

If murder can happen without guns, then why do you need a gun for self-defense since you can murder without one?

Which brings me to another question I wanted to ask the pro-gun people:

If some criminal comes into your house without a gun, would you still shoot him? What if he had a weapon that wasn't a gun? Would you people, who seem to be all for a "fair fight" counter with that weapon, or just go for the gun?

Its not about "fair fight" when someone breaks into your house. Its about having the best tool to defend your life and property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its quite sad in all the countries. But they are just few losers who are jelous of seeing another successful guy belonging to another race. You see, rasicts are vastly jelous, they just cant stand it when they see another successful person belonging to another race. He/she simply feels denied of his/her good life by people who are successful.

But I see supression far worse than rasicm. Things that are happening in countries like Nepal, Burma, (Iraq in the past) and many more if you want me to go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<snipped story about death in the Nanny State>

Source

***

Yikes! It appears murder can still happen in a gunless society. Fascinating. ;)

Dare I point out that knives are already basically illegal there ... ?

Which brings me to another question I wanted to ask the pro-gun people:

If some criminal comes into your house without a gun, would you still shoot him? What if he had a weapon that wasn't a gun? Would you people, who seem to be all for a "fair fight" counter with that weapon, or just go for the gun?

Depends.

First and foremost, to use an American-ism that I know you, Eric, as well as the other Americans will understand, it's easy to be a Monday-morning quarterback. When you have lots of time to ponder, debate and discuss the issue, it's easier, no matter which side you're on. "Hindsight is 20/20" and all that.

When you're in a potentially life-threatening situation, strange things happen to your sense of time, and you are forced to make the best decision you can, under the circumstances.

That said, as a racer yourself, Eric, I know you know more than a bit about split-second decisions.

So ... To sum up all of the thinking that has to go into a split-second, potentially life-or-death decision: is he armed? if so, with what? Do I perceive a legitimate threat to my life or someone else's life? What happens when I point my weapon and flashlight at him, announce myself and order him to cease and desist?

More directly to your questions: if he's unarmed, and insists on menacing me after having a weapon drawn on him, and I feel an imminent threat to life or safety, then, yeah, he's going down. Same goes if he's holding a gun or a knife or a baseball bat or a can of mace. If, however, armed or not, when confronted, he proves to not be a threat (or ceases to be a threat), then, no, it's unconscionable to shoot him out of hand. It's also illegal. And I, for one, don't give a rat's arse about a "fair fight." If I feel my life, or the lives of my family, are in danger, I will fight to my dying breath to stop that motherfarker, taking any advantage I can, and "fairness" be damned.

Also note that a large percentage (I don't have a statistic immediately available) of hostile encounters immediately deescalate when the intended victim shows resistance. In other words, the majority of cases (in the US) wherein the intended victim shows that they are armed and prepared to defend themselves, end with the surrender or flight of the initial aggressor.

My personal action plan for an intruder goes as follows: Wake my wife, give her the phone, and remind her to CALL 911. Retrieve my bedside weapon and flashlight, and discern the nature of the threat. 99 times out of a hundred (actually, I just pulled that statistic out of my arse, but the truth is somewhere in that vicinity), the perceived threat is benign, the perpetual winds that plague my neighborhood causing things to bang, coyotes howling, a rabbit or other rodent bolting through the back yard (which causes my dogs to have apoplectic fits), etc ... After clearing the interior of the house, I'll take a look around outside. After confirming all is well, I'll return to bed.

In the event I should encounter an intruder, he gets 120 lumens in his face, as well as a warning to stand down. (This, of course, presumes that I don't find him actively threatening someone). If he's a threat, and refuses to stand down, I shoot.

Have there been incidents wherein someone appeared to be a threat, was shot, and subsequently shown to be unarmed? Absolutely. One must still ask what that supposed "innocent" was doing inside someone else's house uninvited, during the wee hours ...

Have there been incidents wherein the "defender" was overzealous in his "self-defense"? Absolutely, but those situations are exceedingly rare, and almost inevitably, the "defender" is tried and convicted. The right and duty to defend oneself does not extend to the right to kill someone "because he needed killin'". In truth, in this country, even if the shooter was totally in the right, it is quite possible, for political reasons, for that shooter to be dragged through the mud of lengthy criminal and civil litigation, wherein all the Monday quarterbacks endlessly debate whether he was truly justified. Even our law enforcement officers routinely have to defend themselves against specious attacks on their character, motives, intelligence and decision-making capacity, when they should be receiving accolades for removing a violent parasite from society.

Is the situation perfect? No; but given the fact that the police are under no legal obligation to prevent a crime or "save" you (this has been addressed in our courts many times; the job of the police is to investigate crime, not prevent it), I don't see any better alternatives, and, as has been mentioned many times, by many men and women over the last ~225 years, there are potential costs to maintaining a free society. "Freedom isn't free," "TANSTAAFL" and all that.

The simple fact is that, if you choose to take responsibility for your own safety, you may be called upon to make a tough decision under the absolute worst of circumstances. The alternative is to let someone else be responsible for that safety; "It wasn't my responsibility to defend my wife/mother/child/self" is cold comfort at the funeral, if you ask me.

I've been the recipient of gunfire; I've been the victim of burglary; thank $DIETY that I've not been faced with that middle-of-the-night need to make that life and death decision; I hope I never have to. I do feel that I have done as much mental preparation for that moment as possible. I also hope and wish that no one else would ever be faced with those decisions, but as a simple statement of fact, there are predators in this world, that will stop at nothing to take what is yours and make it their own. Should you ever meet up with one of them, the decision of how to respond rests squarely on your shoulders.

</soapbox>

Edited by Yoda McFly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An intruder enters my house late at night. I know not what his intentions are except that they are to harm me and my property. To end that threat, I will use force. Might be deadly, but then again, might not. If I have a gun, I will damn well use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People will always have an idea of what the want to do when confronted with a situation like these. However when actually put in this life threating situation / potentially life threatening situation, you will react differently........ especially if you analyse the situation and have to decide whether the rest of yoiur family might be in more danger if you act/ react and if you are outnumbered as well......... it's sad to think that you have to try protect yourself from another human being who for fun or just because he feels he is entitled to your belongings (for whatever reason)...

What a sad world we live in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Mike is quite correct. There is a lot of crime in the UK too. Less than in America, but more than in most countries.

Well, your whole country could fit inside Montana, so the amount is bound to be less...

Oh well in that case, best we put a Colt 45 in with our children's packed lunches everyday.

Ignorant buffoon! .45s are a dinner accessory. Lunchtime is a 9mm affair. I recommend a nice SIG. The swiss make fine cheese and guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. You americans are so gun happy! At least you get a little exercise when stabbing someone, as you have to use more than a finger to kill that person! Probably why americans are so fat. Plus being knifed to death is a far more exciting way to die as it takes longer usually! We brits as always know best!

Edited by Jenson_Rules!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh dear. You americans are so gun happy! At least you get a little exercise when stabbing someone, as you have to use more than a finger to kill that person! Probably why americans are so fat. Plus being knifed to death is a far more exciting way to die as it takes longer usually! We brits as always know best!

Yet a bunch of rag tag farmers beat what was known as the best army in the world.

*dusts off shoulders*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vietnam?

I was talking about the revolutionary war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet a bunch of rag tag farmers beat what was known as the best army in the world.

*dusts off shoulders*

Why do Americans constantly bring this up. They dont seem to understand that back then it would have been nearly impossible for the British Empire to wage any kind of war with the Americans due to the large distance between the two. If England was closer to America then the result would have been very different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see? Now the thread has sunk down to a 'mine's better than yours' thread. Can't we just stay on the subject of the most efficient means of pest control? And I have a theory, I think most Brits are quite jealous of the US in many respects, hence the constant digs.

Well, your whole country could fit inside Montana, so the amount is bound to be less...

Exactly Mike. There's only one thing more boring than statistics, and that's the people that can't have a conversation without them :P Incidently, is Montana for sale? It might be a good idea for us to buy it, and leave the imigration problem we've been importing for the last 100 years to this island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine's bigger than yours. :P

(And, to be pedantic, I was accounting for population. There are more murders per person in America than in Britain, and more per person in Britain than in most countries.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mine's bigger than yours. :P

(And, to be pedantic, I was accounting for population. There are more murders per person in America than in Britain, and more per person in Britain than in most countries.)

YOU! Pedantic? Never, Murray :P And I would imagine yours is bigger than mine Muzza, all that pulling and 'a tugging must have had some effect. :lol:

Murder rate:

I hope you don't mind me going all gooey on you, and unfortunately I have nothing more than some extra years on you to back it up >> But it's about change. And feel. It seems in such a short time we've gone from a reasonably polite bunch (OK, leave out the Kray brothers etc) to the stage we're at now - whereas the US has had conflict/strife/difficulties to contend with almost from birth (as a country). I'm struggling to explain that one........... There might well be more murders in America, but our rate of catch-up in a relatively short time scale is the bit that's of concern to me.

And anyway, stuff the numbers, whatever the numbers/stats say, I think there's too much and there's nothing that will come from legislation to halt it. Hence my electrified fence, Pirahna infested moat and sawn off shotgun under the bed ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If legislation won't work, then what will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murder rate:

I hope you don't mind me going all gooey on you, and unfortunately I have nothing more than some extra years on you to back it up >> But it's about change. And feel. It seems in such a short time we've gone from a reasonably polite bunch (OK, leave out the Kray brothers etc) to the stage we're at now - whereas the US has had conflict/strife/difficulties to contend with almost from birth (as a country). I'm struggling to explain that one........... There might well be more murders in America, but our rate of catch-up in a relatively short time scale is the bit that's of concern to me.

Interesting. I was speaking to a mate of mine from Glasgow about something similar the other day and he was saying that although Glasgow has been pretty bad in terms of violence for a long time it used to be kept between the various gangs etc. that were around at the time, and everyone else was left alone. Now it is not and I think it is that change - the more random acts - that worries people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what the answer is Monza. I think all of my suggestions would be viewed as very old fashioned - things like parenting, respect, manners and (national?) pride don't really hit the spot these days. And like some, I've (my family) have been on the receiving end of the knives and guns sh!te - anger and bitterness can cloud good judgment I suppose..........

So, if legislation won't work, then maybe we bring back the birch, the stocks, capital punishment or best of all, the victim (or victim's family) get to choose the punishment - basically scare the sh!t out of those that want to harm others by establishing a proven history of firm, unwavering punishment.

Oops, did I just rant? I must get off my eye for an eye soapbox ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. I was speaking to a mate of mine from Glasgow about something similar the other day and he was saying that although Glasgow has been pretty bad in terms of violence for a long time it used to be kept between the various gangs etc. that were around at the time, and everyone else was left alone. Now it is not and I think it is that change - the more random acts - that worries people.

That's kinda what I meant Milly. Wish I could use so few words ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do Americans constantly bring this up. They dont seem to understand that back then it would have been nearly impossible for the British Empire to wage any kind of war with the Americans due to the large distance between the two. If England was closer to America then the result would have been very different.

Vietnam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now