Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on December 13, 2004, 08:19:23 pm
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/13/peterson.case/index.html
yay! now maybe _JUST MAYBE_ everyone can finaly shutup about this stupid irrelevent crap!
if he'd have waited another four days he'd probly be walking free right now becase there wouldn't have been the two god damned year media orgasm over it.
if only this story would die with him, IF ONLY I knew that the day he died would be the last time I have to hear his name, I would be gleeful over the comeing execution, but I know better I know there not going to be done with this for a long time and the execution is just going to be the next phase in this slow news day filler material.
it's took them fcuking long enough.
-
you know this is going to appeal don't you?
-
I still want to know why this case has been made into such a big deal. It's not like this is the world's first murder or anything.
-
because he did it on Chistmas eve.
that's it.
Garagos (I choose you) also helped
-
or maybe "becase they could" would explain it.
-
let's just hope the guy who shanks him is some unknown random killer and not some other celebrity criminal
-
lets hang him off a 30-foot ledge tied to a rope that may be greater than or less than 30 feet long. then bet on whether he hits the ground or not. this way we can save social security or something.
-
Heh, it's like the Police in the UK, they aren;t the least bit interested if your house has been burgled unless (a) you are rich or (b) it makes the papers.
-
remind me again why you don't allow average citizens to own firearms?
-
cause that would be too dangerus :doubt:
-
It a famous case because Peterson had a beautiful wife, who was 8 months pregnate, and she went missing at first (before they knew she was dead) and he pretty much didn't give a ****, leading everyone to more or less know he was guilty, just in search of evidence to prove it.
-
and it took two go-dam-ned years to convict/sentence him, with
_every_
one knowing he did it and watching,
what the hell happens when no one is waching?
-
Eh? A trial is still a trial, whether or not he's innocent or guilty. Yeah, the media hype has been goddamn annoying, but the reason I see it takling so long is mostly due to Garragos' stalling, what with the incessant recasting of juries and such.
-
I say string him up by his balls and lower him slowly into a pool filled with hungry pirranas. :D
-
Despite the media frenzy and all that, I still don't know what its all about....
he killed someone right? Uhm, a small girl was it?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Despite the media frenzy and all that, I still don't know what its all about....
he killed someone right? Uhm, a small girl was it?
Oo; Have you been living under a rock? He killed his wife, who was eight months pregnant with their unborn son, tossed the wife into a lake to rot. His unborn son later washed up on shore, after the mother's body decomposed enough I would imagine. Sick, sick **** he was. Also, what seems to be a part of this, was that he was having an affair with his..hairdresser I believe at the time.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
remind me again why you don't allow average citizens to own firearms?
Probably the same reason we don't - because lots of guns in circulation means lots of gun crime. Check the figures for counrties where you can buy military grade assault rifles off the shelf, and places where .22s have complex liscencing arrangements..
-
Indeed.
However, you never know when the King of England could try to waltz into your house. That's why my dad keeps the MPK5 in a shoebox in our closet.
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Oo; Have you been living under a rock? He killed his wife, who was eight months pregnant with their unborn son, tossed the wife into a lake to rot. His unborn son later washed up on shore, after the mother's body decomposed enough I would imagine. Sick, sick **** he was. Also, what seems to be a part of this, was that he was having an affair with his..hairdresser I believe at the time.
One question - have you heard of Harold Shipman (or Fred/Rose West, or Roy Whiting, or Ian Huntley)? If not, why would it be any more likely that us people in other countries have heard of whoever this bloke is?
-
Rictor doesn't live in another country, he lives in Canada.
All of those names come up equally and desicively English either way, and kind of end at that for me.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Rictor doesn't live in another country, he lives in Canada.
All of those names come up equally and desicively English either way, and kind of end at that for me.
Canada is another country, y'know?
EDIT; oh, and;
Harold Shipman;
GP who killed elderly patients and forged their wills. onvicted of 15 murders, a later enquiry found him to have killed at least 215 other patients and maybe even more. Comitted suicide Jan 13 2003
Fred / Rose West;
responsible for the rape, torture & murder of 12 (+) young women. Also abused (molested) their own children. Fred West comitted suicide before he went to trial (Jan 95), Rose West is serving a life sentence (whole life).
(the latter 2 are probably closer in scale to the whole Patterson thing; single crimes with media coverage)
Roy Whiting;
Convicted of the murder of 7-year old Sarah Payne. Her dissapearance & subsequent discovery (of her body) sparked a massive media / public outcry. Life sentence.
Ian Huntley;
Convicted of the murders of 2 10 year old girls (Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman) in Soham; as above, this sparked a media frenzy at the time. His girlfriend Maxine Carr - the victims primary school teacher - was convicted of perverting the course of justice by giving Huntly a false alibi. Particularly noticeable is that both Huntly and Carr appeared on public TV appeals before the bodies of both girls were found. Life sentence.
I wouldn't really expect the latter 2 to be familiar outside the UK, but Shipman in particular is one of the worlds most prolific serial killers, so I'd be somewhat surprised if no-one had at least an inkling of who he was.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Harold Shipman;
GP who killed elderly patients and forged their wills. onvicted of 15 murders, a later enquiry found him to have killed at least 215 other patients and maybe even more. Comitted suicide Jan 13 2003
(http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/forum/images/headers/hlpheaderbaby.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Probably the same reason we don't - because lots of guns in circulation means lots of gun crime. Check the figures for counrties where you can buy military grade assault rifles off the shelf, and places where .22s have complex liscencing arrangements..
Not that I was to get off the topic of that bastard, but if you look at places where firearms are required to be owned by citizens, crime such as breakins and such are nonexistent, IIRC
Rictor: Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, dumped her body in the bay. Then he tried to blame it on a cult. He is also pretty emotionaless and even giggled during the proceedings. He had also been involved in numerous affairs.
I mean if he was innocent he would show some sort of distess about being found guilty.
-
I'm sorry - you think that forcing people to have guns is a good idea? Good grief.... :eek2:
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Not that I was to get off the topic of that bastard, but if you look at places where firearms are required to be owned by citizens, crime such as breakins and such are nonexistent, IIRC
Where?
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Not that I was to get off the topic of that bastard, but if you look at places where firearms are required to be owned by citizens, crime such as breakins and such are nonexistent, IIRC
what about crimes such as murder? Or suicides?
And what about places where guns are not compulsary but are legal and commonplace? Does the US have the lowest crime rate in the world now?
-
The US has a proportionally lower crime rate than the UK - burglars are a lot less likely to risk their lives getting shot while stealing people, or risk murdering people in their homes in the midst of a burglary, just for a few household appliances. On the downside, violent crime can be a lot higher, e.g. more murders.
All gun control does is keep guns as an exclusive resource for criminals who know how to use the black market for them, putting them at a distinct advantage over their unarmed victims
-
And legalisation of guns makes it easier for criminals (or wannabe criminals) to obtain guns and use them in lieu of less dangerous weapons such as chibs or knives... I don't see how widening access to a device designed to kill and maim could help reduce the number of victims of violent crime.
-
that's why I wish I could move to Japan... (though as a Gaijin I would be picked on.) :P It would be worth it.
-
About bloody time they came to this decision. Now I can finally, finally stop hearing about this bastard on TV.
-
well I'm glad to hear that the rest of the world was spaired this crap.
the best part of the thing was that his alaby was that he was 'fishing' (for a 12 ft fish in a 14 ft boat) in the bay that his wife and kid wased up in.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
I'm sorry - you think that forcing people to have guns is a good idea? Good grief.... :eek2:
I didn't say it was a good idea. I am just pointing something out. I think people should be allow to own weapons. I certainly don't think that a 50caliber sniper rifle should be purchased off the shelf. I think depending on the weapon, there should be an increasingly deeper background check that the purchased should pay for. That does bring up the question of why should a person have to pay to utilize one of the constitutional rights? I don't know that answer to that.
Originally posted by Janos
Where?
Source: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0794d.asp
A shining example of the former is Switzerland. Like America, Switzerland won its independence in a war fought by armed citizenry. Since independence in the 14th century, the Swiss have been required to keep and bear arms, and since 1515, have had a policy of armed neutrality. Its form of government is similar to the one set up by our founders — a weak central government exercising few, defined powers having to do mostly with external affairs and limited authority over internal matters at the canton (state) and local levels.
The Swiss boast that they have the weakest central government in the West. They feel a strong central government weakens citizen initiative and individual responsibility. I wonder where they got that idea!
A Swiss publication states, "The Swiss do not have an army, they are the army." The eighteenth-century economist Adam Smith considered Switzerland the only place where the whole body of the people were successfully drilled in militia skills. As far back as 1532, Machiavelli commented in his book The Prince , "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."
Gun ownership is a matter of community duty, for the Swiss consider national defense too important to be left to professional soldiers or those who join the army to learn civilian job skills.
-
Ah, I thought you were referring to Switzerland. The thing is, the Swiss are decent people. They have low crime rates because they respect each other's lives, privacy and property. In America (and now increasingly Britain), that respect isn't there. It's a cultural problem, not a question of everyone having weapons.
-
http://euc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/1/2/257 gives something else - granted, crime is low, but not unusually low.
-
I am sure this is biased but here:
Source:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a75857671c.htm
"The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998. With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish. There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired."
That is the last I have time for. I have 1 last final to take.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Not that I was to get off the topic of that bastard, but if you look at places where firearms are required to be owned by citizens, crime such as breakins and such are nonexistent, IIRC
Where as crimes such as shootings and murders are higher.
Funny that.
-
RE: Switzerland. If the Swiss get given guns as part of their national service, won't they also get given training and guidance on correct use? And also wouldn't that help stop the less mentally stable from getting a gun via that method? Furthermore, don't the Swiss get given rifles which are considerably harder to (for example) carry about and rob a bank with?
-
A Gun in the Home: Key Facts
* From 1990-1998, two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse murder victims were killed with guns.[6]
* Guns are the weapon of choice for troubled individuals who commit suicide. In 1999, firearms were used in 16,599 suicide deaths in America. Among young people under 20, one committed suicide with a gun every eight hours.[7]
* A gun in the home also increases the likelihood of an unintentional shooting, particularly among children. Unintentional shootings commonly occur when children find an adult's loaded handgun in a drawer or closet, and while playing with it shoot themselves, a sibling or a friend. The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined.[8]
*prepares for getting flamed*:nervous:
-
Best put in the source for [6], [7] and [8] before someone asks. Er, someone else.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Indeed.
However, you never know when the King of England could try to waltz into your house. That's why my dad keeps the MPK5 in a shoebox in our closet.
Well if he does, he'll be a zombie and I doubt if a sub-machine gun would really help. No matter how many police forces use it.
-
Unless he means the future King of England.
Prince Harry might turn up at your door with the munchies, and demand biscuits.
Then what do you do?
-
"**** man give me your crack marihuana ecstasyheroin weed or I'll pop your cap nigga"
-
Originally posted by Janos
"I'll pop your cap nigga"
:wtf:
Originally posted by aldo_14
Canada is another country, y'know?
You mean America Jr. ?
-
I guess one of the major prospects for the large media coverage in this particular murder, was that it represented the setting of a friggin' soap opera.
"A husband having an affair on his pregnant wife, chooses to commit murder on a lonely christmas eve."
Can we spell 1 hour of yawn-induced soap opera time here?
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
I'm sorry - you think that forcing people to have guns is a good idea? Good grief.... :eek2:
I remember a fun scenario.
Example A: Strict gun control
A guy with a gun, which he purchased on the black market, walks into a bar, points it at the bartender, and demands all the money in the cash register. Everyone else is armed with nothing more dangerous than a pocketknife.
Example B: Citizens are required to wear guns
The same guy walks into the same bar with the same gun, points it at the same bartender. Before he can so much as start to demand cash, three of the other patrons have pulled out their own handguns and are pointing them at the would-be aggressor.
Which situation do you think the criminal would rather be in?
-
Enter Example C: Citizens like guns
The Same Same Guy walks into the Same Same bar with the same same gun and points it at the same same bartender. Before he can so much as start to demand cash, three of the other patrons have pulled out their own handguns and are pointing them at the would-be bartender, who's now already been shot by a forth would-be patron, who would have made off with the cash from the register if it hadn't been for the fifth patron who shoots his kneecaps and runs off with the money. The would-be aggressor goes home and shoots himself in the face because he no longer has a place in life.
-
Example D:
The Same Guy just shoots the bartender at once.
... that position is a strawman.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
I remember a fun scenario.
Example A: Strict gun control
A guy with a gun, which he purchased on the black market, walks into a bar, points it at the bartender, and demands all the money in the cash register. Everyone else is armed with nothing more dangerous than a pocketknife.
Example B: Citizens are required to wear guns
The same guy walks into the same bar with the same gun, points it at the same bartender. Before he can so much as start to demand cash, three of the other patrons have pulled out their own handguns and are pointing them at the would-be aggressor.
Which situation do you think the criminal would rather be in?
Oooh...lemme think, succesful robbery versus possible bloodbath of robber, would be vigilante and innocent bystanders? Because you can't assume everyone in B would be able to control their fire, can you? And why would 3 people in a bar risk being shot to stop it being robbed? And surely you should be looking to minimise access to guns and remove that black market, rather than encouraging an arms race between civvies and criminals (i.e. criminal buys assualt rifle, smg because he needs to intimidation factor)?
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
I remember a fun scenario.
Example A: Strict gun control
A guy with a gun, which he purchased on the black market, walks into a bar, points it at the bartender, and demands all the money in the cash register. Everyone else is armed with nothing more dangerous than a pocketknife.
Example B: Citizens are required to wear guns
The same guy walks into the same bar with the same gun, points it at the same bartender. Before he can so much as start to demand cash, three of the other patrons have pulled out their own handguns and are pointing them at the would-be aggressor.
Which situation do you think the criminal would rather be in?
Example B (continued): The now highly dangerous situation is compounded by the fact that one of the three patrons decides to take matters into his own hands and opens fire. The original gunman is hit, and shoots the barman as he twitches from the pain. His friend/partner in crime sees this, and opens fire with his own weapon in the direction of the intervening patrons. A firefight breaks out, leaving several people dead and many others injured.
On another night, two drunk patrons get into an argument. It escalates, and the two men pull their guns. One (or possibly both) of the men is killed, and other customers are injured by stray shots - given that none of them try to intervene with their own weapons, causing more casualties.
I'm sorry - if you have a gun, then the chances are you'll use it. If you don't have a gun, you can't use it, so people don't get their brains blown out for no good reason. Your argument simply isn't sound. In example B, you could end up with tens of people dead or injured (if these guns are average "handguns" ie semi-automatics with 10-20 round magazines, that's a lot of bullets getting fired very quickly). In example A, the barman loses a night's takings. Boo-frickety-hoo. I know which I'd rather be in...
-
[q] such as chibs or knives[/q]
Chibs? How many foreign folk you think will follow that? (By foreign I mean anyone beyond Wishaw :D
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q] such as chibs or knives[/q]
Chibs? How many foreign folk you think will follow that? (By foreign I mean anyone beyond Wishaw :D
I'm educating them. Or annoying them.
I haven't decided which yet.