Think twice before announcing that party on Youtube

[DeadPoolX 9]

If that had happened in my home, I'd have shot each and every one of the little bastards.

wow.

killing confused stupid 16 year olds is the best solution to solving teenage angst.

wow again!

your comment wowed me more than the actual story.

it's all a moot point as this took place in england and there, it's illegal to own a firearm.

maybe that's what emboldened these kids eh?

he said "if that had happened in my home"

i hope you're being sarcastic re: emboldened.

not really - i'm hoping some brits would weigh in on what caused this to occur.

as for what deadpool said, i'm in the same boat with him - that event would come to a screeching halt real quick here.

i wish for both of you to have really rebel teenager kids. and when they screw up, my advice is to shoot them. mmk? that'll teach them!

There's a difference between teenagers who're merely acting "rebellious" and teenagers who've gone "berserk."

If the teenagers in the story were merely acting rebellious, then there wouldn't have been much of a problem. Last time I checked, being a rebellious teen included (but was not limited to) sneaking out of your parents house, drinking alcohol, having parties at your parents' place when they were away, sneaking in clubs (when you're underage) and other such activities.

I've never heard of so-called rebellious teenagers actually storming someone's house, shattering the windows, pushing in the doors, and assaulting the family members. This includes breaking the nose of the father (and giving him two black eyes) and, in the case of one of the children, causing damage so severe, he had to be air-lifted to a hospital with possible spinal injuries. The 100 (or more) teenagers who wreaked havoc on that house and it's owners did this, not to show any form of rebellion or protest, but to cause chaos and destruction. They succeeded in their goals.

Now honestly, you tell me: if you had that many crazy, out-of-control teenagers (all of whom obviously didn't give a damn about you or your family) descend on your home, what would you do? Stand there, cowering in the corner and hope no one notices you? Point at them and tell them that "if they don't stop, you'll call their parents" or something similar? I'd like to see you try it. In a situation like that, where you're met, head-on with force and no way to escape it, the only way to respond is with force. It'll be the only thing they'll take notice of and/or understand.

Oh, and by the way... if I ever do have kids, and one of them does anything this stupid, I'd be surprised if he (or she) doesn't get shot. You can't expect to break into someone's home, literally trash the place and beat on them and their family and walk away as if nothing happened. At least not in the United States.

Edited October 15, 2007 by DeadPoolX

[FVA 0]

If that had happened in my home, I'd have shot each and every one of the little bastards.

wow.

killing confused stupid 16 year olds is the best solution to solving teenage angst.

wow again!

your comment wowed me more than the actual story.

it's all a moot point as this took place in england and there, it's illegal to own a firearm.

maybe that's what emboldened these kids eh?

he said "if that had happened in my home"

i hope you're being sarcastic re: emboldened.

not really - i'm hoping some brits would weigh in on what caused this to occur.

as for what deadpool said, i'm in the same boat with him - that event would come to a screeching halt real quick here.

i wish for both of you to have really rebel teenager kids. and when they screw up, my advice is to shoot them. mmk? that'll teach them!

Now honestly, you tell me: if you had that many crazy, out-of-control teenagers (all of whom obviously didn't give a damn about you or your family) descend on your home, what would you do?

i would walk away, call the police and then sue everybody involved in breaking my windows. they're teenagers? sue the parents.

the article says that "hell broke loose" when the father pushed one of the teenagers, no? if he wouldn't have responded with violence, no hell would've broken loose.

i wouldn't shoot anyone for some broken windows and a ruined party. it's just me and my foreign conception that no property is more important than a life, especially a 16 year old life.

but eh...you people in US can shoot your neighbors kids for breaking your windows and crashing your parties. i understand, it's your "constitutional right".

i'm done with this subject. i know i can't make you see my point of view, but i can see yours, and i know we'll never agree. it was not nice talking to you.

Edited October 15, 2007 by FVA

[DeadPoolX 9]

If that had happened in my home, I'd have shot each and every one of the little bastards.

wow.

killing confused stupid 16 year olds is the best solution to solving teenage angst.

wow again!

your comment wowed me more than the actual story.

it's all a moot point as this took place in england and there, it's illegal to own a firearm.

maybe that's what emboldened these kids eh?

he said "if that had happened in my home"

i hope you're being sarcastic re: emboldened.

not really - i'm hoping some brits would weigh in on what caused this to occur.

as for what deadpool said, i'm in the same boat with him - that event would come to a screeching halt real quick here.

i wish for both of you to have really rebel teenager kids. and when they screw up, my advice is to shoot them. mmk? that'll teach them!

Now honestly, you tell me: if you had that many crazy, out-of-control teenagers (all of whom obviously didn't give a damn about you or your family) descend on your home, what would you do?

i would walk away, call the police and then sue everybody involved in breaking my windows. they're teenagers? sue the parents.

the article says that "hell broke loose" when the father pushed one of the teenagers, no? if he wouldn't have responded with violence, no hell would've broken loose.

i wouldn't shoot anyone for some broken windows and a ruined party. it's just me and my foreign conception that no property is more important than a life, especially a 16 year old life.

but eh...you people in US can shoot your neighbors kids for breaking your windows and crashing your parties. i understand, it's your "constitutional right".

i'm done with this subject. i know i can't make you see my point of view, but i can see yours, and i know we'll never agree. it was not nice talking to you.

Interesting response. Let's break this down, one-by-one, shall we?

You said you'd "walk away, call the police and then sue everyone involved" (meaning the parents) for damaging your property, correct? That's a good idea. I like it. Theoretically, it should work. The only problem is that you have over a hundred crazy teenagers running loose, all over your home, completely trashing the place and beating the living daylights out of you and your family. Suing them is something you can do after the fact and while it is a good idea, you need to do something to stop the psychotic behavior right away before you or your family gets killed. If that means killing one or two or more of the neighbor's kids, then so be it; better them than you or your spouse and children.

The article did not say "all hell broke loose when the father pushed one of the teenagers." That's a very cute spin on the report, but it's inaccurate. What the article does say -- and please take note of this -- is that one of the teenagers was "right up in the father's face, swearing at him, so the father pushed him back." In response, the teenager punched the father. Now you can twist that any which way you want, but the truth of the matter is, the teenager was purposefully antagonizing the father. You can't expect to get right up into someone's face and start screaming foul language at them (especially after you've broken into their home and started wrecking the place) and assume they won't at least attempt to shove you back.

No one would be shooting anyone merely for "some broken windows and a ruined party." What part of "endangered life" are you having difficulty understanding? The family's 18 year-old son, Stephen, was so badly beaten, he was air-lifted to a hospital for possible spinal injuries and the father received a broken nose along with two black eyes. That seems like a little more than "a few broken windows and a ruined party" to me. When someone puts my life or the life of my loved ones in that sort of danger, I will do anything possible to stop it -- including firearms.

"You people" in the U.S.? It sounds like to me you have some sort of issue with Americans. I suppose that should hardly surprise me, considering the way you're responding to this situation. I just find it sad that someone who's here, supposedly to because they wish to marry an American (one of "those people" in the U.S.) and eventually live in the United States, feels that way about their future/current spouse's countrymen.

This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Whether or not I had the right in this country to use a firearm is moot. If I didn't have access to a gun, I'd use someone other weapon. As I said before, I would do anything to protect my family. Even the legality of my method is flexible, given the situation and that my life and the life of my family, would be at stake. I'd rather be alive to face a judge and jury later on than see any member of my family seriously wounded or killed due to something such as this.

I can see your point-of-view just fine. I don't agree with it, and I don't have to; we can, after all, "agree to disagree" as the old saying goes. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy talking with me. I rather enjoyed our conversation. I'm always up for a debate.

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

i would walk away, call the police and then sue everybody involved in breaking my windows. they're teenagers? sue the parents.

the article says that "hell broke loose" when the father pushed one of the teenagers, no? if he wouldn't have responded with violence, no hell would've broken loose.

i wouldn't shoot anyone for some broken windows and a ruined party. it's just me and my foreign conception that no property is more important than a life, especially a 16 year old life.

but eh...you people in US can shoot your neighbors kids for breaking your windows and crashing your parties. i understand, it's your "constitutional right".

i'm done with this subject. i know i can't make you see my point of view, but i can see yours, and i know we'll never agree. it was not nice talking to you.

Interesting response. Let's break this down, one-by-one, shall we?

You said you'd "walk away, call the police and then sue everyone involved" (meaning the parents) for damaging your property, correct? That's a good idea. I like it. Theoretically, it should work. The only problem is that you have over a hundred crazy teenagers running loose, all over your home, completely trashing the place and beating the living daylights out of you and your family. Suing them is something you can do after the fact and while it is a good idea, you need to do something to stop the psychotic behavior right away before you or your family gets killed. If that means killing one or two or more of the neighbor's kids, then so be it; better them than you or your spouse and children.

The article did not say "all hell broke loose when the father pushed one of the teenagers." That's a very cute spin on the report, but it's inaccurate. What the article does say -- and please take note of this -- is that one of the teenagers was "right up in the father's face, swearing at him, so the father pushed him back." In response, the teenager punched the father. Now you can twist that any which way you want, but the truth of the matter is, the teenager was purposefully antagonizing the father. You can't expect to get right up into someone's face and start screaming foul language at them (especially after you've broken into their home and started wrecking the place) and assume they won't at least attempt to shove you back.

No one would be shooting anyone merely for "some broken windows and a ruined party." What part of "endangered life" are you having difficulty understanding? The family's 18 year-old son, Stephen, was so badly beaten, he was air-lifted to a hospital for possible spinal injuries and the father received a broken nose along with two black eyes. That seems like a little more than "a few broken windows and a ruined party" to me. When someone puts my life or the life of my loved ones in that sort of danger, I will do anything possible to stop it -- including firearms.

"You people" in the U.S.? It sounds like to me you have some sort of issue with Americans. I suppose that should hardly surprise me, considering the way you're responding to this situation. I just find it sad that someone who's here, supposedly to because they wish to marry an American (one of "those people" in the U.S.) and eventually live in the United States, feels that way about their future/current spouse's countrymen.

This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Whether or not I had the right in this country to use a firearm is moot. If I didn't have access to a gun, I'd use someone other weapon. As I said before, I would do anything to protect my family. Even the legality of my method is flexible, given the situation and that my life and the life of my family, would be at stake. I'd rather be alive to face a judge and jury later on than see any member of my family seriously wounded or killed due to something such as this.

I can see your point-of-view just fine. I don't agree with it, and I don't have to; we can, after all, "agree to disagree" as the old saying goes. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy talking with me. I rather enjoyed our conversation. I'm always up for a debate.

not really - i'm hoping some brits would weigh in on what caused this to occur.

as for what deadpool said, i'm in the same boat with him - that event would come to a screeching halt real quick here.

i wish for both of you to have really rebel teenager kids. and when they screw up, my advice is to shoot them. mmk? that'll teach them!

i wish you had a clue ####### you were talking about. you're about 18 years late with that statement

[NavarreMan 10]

We should introduce the posters in the current thread to the posters in this thread Ted Nugent - 2nd Amendment

It's Clockwork Orange all over again!

[Nessa 23]

not really - i'm hoping some brits would weigh in on what caused this to occur.

as for what deadpool said, i'm in the same boat with him - that event would come to a screeching halt real quick here.

i wish for both of you to have really rebel teenager kids. and when they screw up, my advice is to shoot them. mmk? that'll teach them!

i wish you had a clue ####### you were talking about. you're about 18 years late with that statement

[eric&gen 0]

Wow.

If that had happened in my home, I'd have shot each and every one of the little bastards. If their parents had a problem with it (and I'm sure they would), I'd tell them to next time keep their mongrels on a good, strong leash! If you break into my house and assault my family, I'll be damned if you leave my property in anything other than a hearse.

Hope you like prison food lol.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wow this is like a real life Straw Dogs

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

Wow.

If that had happened in my home, I'd have shot each and every one of the little bastards. If their parents had a problem with it (and I'm sure they would), I'd tell them to next time keep their mongrels on a good, strong leash! If you break into my house and assault my family, I'll be damned if you leave my property in anything other than a hearse.

Hope you like prison food lol.

you're not familiar with the castle law, are you?

[natty bumppo 297]

i would walk away, call the police and then sue everybody involved in breaking my windows. they're teenagers? sue the parents.

the article says that "hell broke loose" when the father pushed one of the teenagers, no? if he wouldn't have responded with violence, no hell would've broken loose.

i wouldn't shoot anyone for some broken windows and a ruined party. it's just me and my foreign conception that no property is more important than a life, especially a 16 year old life.

but eh...you people in US can shoot your neighbors kids for breaking your windows and crashing your parties. i understand, it's your "constitutional right".

i'm done with this subject. i know i can't make you see my point of view, but i can see yours, and i know we'll never agree. it was not nice talking to you.

IF you could walk away ... IF everybody cooperated and provided you with their name (calling/ business card).

OR ... if you were lucky enough to be conscious ... call for help (obviously the neighbors didn't) ... consider that at the sound of the first police siren ... the kids leave without leaving their "calling cards" so you don't know how to contact them ... to sue them.

Meanwhile ... the kids are celebrating on your liquor ... and you are not trying to stop them ...

"More than 100 uninvited teenagers descended on the family house, stole whisky and champagne".

[Nessa 23]

what is castle law?

[natty bumppo 297]

what is castle law?

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. Within the legal paradigm, therefore, it functions as a type of justifiable homicide.

Castle Law

Edited October 15, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

what is castle law?

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. Within the legal paradigm, therefore, it functions as a type of justifiable homicide.

Castle Law

That's not an absolute in English law. You can still be jailed for murder/manslaughter/great bodily harm if your defence of your home is deemed to utilise unreasonable and excessive force. Typically that translates to stabbing an intruder 50 times in the back as they're trying to climb out of a window, or if you shoot someone (farmers can still own shotguns) who is running away.

The person has to pose a direct threat to you and your family (as in this case).

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

what is castle law?

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. Within the legal paradigm, therefore, it functions as a type of justifiable homicide.

Castle Law

That's not an absolute in English law. You can still be jailed for murder/manslaughter/great bodily harm if your defence of your home is deemed to utilise unreasonable and excessive force. Typically that translates to stabbing an intruder 50 times in the back as they're trying to climb out of a window, or if you shoot someone (farmers can still own shotguns) who is running away.

The person has to pose a direct threat to you and your family (as in this case).

if they are in your house, that's a given.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

what is castle law?

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. Within the legal paradigm, therefore, it functions as a type of justifiable homicide.

Castle Law

That's not an absolute in English law. You can still be jailed for murder/manslaughter/great bodily harm if your defence of your home is deemed to utilise unreasonable and excessive force. Typically that translates to stabbing an intruder 50 times in the back as they're trying to climb out of a window, or if you shoot someone (farmers can still own shotguns) who is running away.

The person has to pose a direct threat to you and your family (as in this case).

if they are in your house, that's a given.

They have to be physically attacking you or your family. But its all determined on a subjective definition of reasonable force. If they're trying to get away you're supposed to let them.