Youth Crime

Youth Killed trying to imitate stunt
16 year old facing abduction charges
Liverpodlian killing has a 15-year old suspect
BBC discussion on gangs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC Gangs

So what do we mean by the word gang?

It depends. Firstly a gang, from a policing perspective, means a group of people involved in crime. But a gang can also mean a group which provides emotional or psychological support to its members.

This is particularly important in relation to "wannabes" - teenagers on the fringes of offending who are seduced by some of the symbolism associated with gang culture.

Criminologists tend to say that most young people who break the law do so in a group environment. If you are emboldened by friends it becomes easier to think you can get away with it.

Professor Pitts found that 40% of the young people he came across in his research were "reluctant gangsters" - teens with no criminal record.

Some of these kids are scared of violent reprisals if they leave a gang or disagree with its aims. Affiliation becomes a form of reluctant protection for their family.

Are gangs a serious problem?

Some research is now pointing towards similarities between British gangs and the style of US gangs - namely the role of drug dealing.

The question is whether these changes mean that youth street crime is fundamentally changing from minor offending or anti-social behaviour to something more sinister and difficult to stop.

---

While this issue is not only UK related, I read about a teenage group (14-19) called 'Hardcore' who only disrupt peaceful people. Then there is also the teen groups who harass people in London. While I do not live in the UK, I have heard about this from people who have visited London or Britain.

I believe that a military draft or manual labor (decrease obesity?) should be more the order to decrease the time that they have to both people. While many of you might not agree with it, it is an issue.
What would you do, what have you thought about doing?

I also worry about the possibility that the impressionable youths could be persuaded to take on more radical ideals, either political or religious, and cause more damage and destruction.
There is a rise either in the reports of the teenage crimes, or are there more crimes being committed by teens, leading to a rise in reports. There is a problem and this only highlights the issue at hand. Youth crime and violence.

What are your thoughts?

With these idoits and the growing demographic crsis. I know Im going to be underskilled and overpaid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

What are your thoughts?

---

I was playing basketball a few years ago at a public park with guys 15-20 years younger then I was. There was a foul things got heated, I laughed. Now I wasnt in the heated argument, but I laughed, one of the kids threatens me and pushes me.

I tackle him, rest my knee on his chest and keep hitting him in the face over and over until he says (and I made him say this) "Please god deliver me from justice".

I beat that kid within an inch of his life, Im lucky I didnt go to jail again but you know what? I still play down there and they leave me alone and we play hard no problems.

The point? Youth crime and violence is often the result of not being firm and allowing for the turn the other cheek mentality. Its noble, but sadly cost ineffective. In my example that kid (I think he was 18 at the time, maybe 17) needed a lesson in humility and he got it.

My old man never hesitated to whip my ass and I turned out alright (albeit prone to violence from time to time), so not only do we have a culture of acceptable violence, but we have a forgiving nurturing culture for those who abuse others rights through crime.

Im a former hooligan, I ought to know.

Gangs are a problem in England amongst young people, I am only just nearly 21 so can sadly say I've been old enough to watch it all going on.

Kids seems to think it is cool to go around in these gangs, they all give themselves names and they love the "gangster" lifestyle. Alot of them are harmless but I can see why a big group of them would intimidate someone, it's no different to a big gang of fooball fans who no doubt are just there for the football and no danger, but it can be intimdating.

The gun and knife crimes are getting out of hand, alot of kids do carry weapons to protect themselves and slowly its just getting more dangerous.

I am glad I stuck well out of it, but its quite worrying now that kids who are hardly the best descision makers at the best of times are carrying guns around with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

[...]I tackle him, rest my knee on his chest and keep hitting him in the face over and over until he says (and I made him say this) "Please god deliver me from justice".

I beat that kid within an inch of his life, Im lucky I didnt go to jail again but you know what?

[...]

(albeit prone to violence from time to time)

[...]

Im a former hooligan, I ought to know.

---

~:eek: :damnmate:

I think it's not too bad that you beat him, but within an inch of his life for just pushing you? Are you serious?
It sounds a bit like at that moment you were more concerned about hurting him than teaching him a lesson. I've been a bit like that in primary school, but noone was seriously hurt back then.

I hope you don't/won't do that anymore. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

~:eek: :damnmate:

I think it's not too bad that you beat him, but within an inch of his life for just pushing you? Are you serious?
It sounds a bit like at that moment you were more concerned about hurting him than teaching him a lesson. I've been a bit like that in primary school, but noone was seriously hurt back then.

I hope you don't/won't do that anymore. ~:)

---

Well inch of his life is a bit of bluster. The initial blows were hard and strong and he bled, but after that it was just a few jabs to his head until he complyed.

I was concerned with hurting him, the situation was perfect. You see in situations like that I could have backed down, that would have been the adult thing to do, but would that have encouraged him to do the same, or reenforce the behavior?

The net result was, he had a reaction he didnt expect that completely pressed him and his logic.

Essentially someone pushed him back with twice the violent intent he was trying to muster. So do you think he will be encouraged to push people around again or think twice?

I suspect the later

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Essentially someone pushed him back with twice the violent intent he was trying to muster. So do you think he will be encouraged to push people around again or think twice?

---

He might be back carrying a gun.

I have seen this escalation of violence before.
Kids doing pranks on a guy's car by letting out the air of its tires.
The guy comes out a scares the kids away. Some older kids tries to bully the man. The man pulls out a hammer and whacks them.
Next day the car is a burned out heap of metal.

Oh this was in Glasgow in 1993 by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

He might be back carrying a gun.

---

Yes, or I could have had one in my car that day.

When one accepts the intoxication of violence, one rarely maps out the various paths of potential remuneration in the moment.

Shame on you Odin. You're acting like an American.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Shame on you Odin. You're acting like an American.

---

Maybe, but the situation meritted a spirited response and I am not above violence to obtain an objective.

However the example was given to illistrate the fact that at times, a firm hand, fear, and yes reciprical violence is necessary to thwart would be hooligans, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Maybe, but the situation meritted a spirited response and I am not above violence to obtain an objective.

However the example was given to illistrate the fact that at times, a firm hand, fear, and yes reciprical violence is necessary to thwart would be hooligans, in my opinion.

---

And that's exactly why I think you did the RIGHT thing. If more youths got their asses kicked once in a while, I believe that their punk attitudes would change. I miss the good old days when kids were spanked, people fought with their fists, and you could get a hooker for $10.

Moving on from Odin's sociopathic displays of assault on minors, I personally think that national service should be reintroduced, except for a small minority that would go to University.

Where a system exists where the risks of getting caught are low and penalties are toothless, there is no incentive for changing.

Spanking one's kids is slightly difference from pinning a person to the ground and punching them in the head as they pushed you.

~:smoking:

Weak politicians, scared police. And scared politicians and weak police. Socioloco's on the seat of the judge, psycholoco's on the seat of the prison warden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I personally think that national service should be reintroduced, except for a small minority that would go to University.

---

if national service was introduced it should be for everyone...

i would rather encourage community/sport initiatives etc, which are one of the few things that seem to work...

Quote:

---

Where a system exists where the risks of getting caught are low and penalties are toothless, there is no incentive for changing.

---

:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Moving on from Odin's sociopathic displays of assault on minors, I personally think that national service should be reintroduced, except for a small minority that would go to University.

Where a system exists where the risks of getting caught are low and penalties are toothless, there is no incentive for changing.

Spanking one's kids is slightly difference from pinning a person to the ground and punching them in the head as they pushed you.

~:smoking:

---

You left out that he chose to threaten me, nor did you ask what the threat was. When you presume others actions without taking in consideration the entire circumstance you reveal yourself as arrogant.

The point of my story is simple, one even the brilliant amongst the backroom should get (god knows there in abundance). Sometimes you must be able to match or surpase a hooligan in thier threats and actions (even if they are a minor) with equal violence.

If you dont they remain unchecked and you spend umptene resources on attempting to correct thier behavior, when fear is far more cost effect. Fear of living? no, but fear that you cant threaten to kill other peoples familes and not expect some sort of reprisal other then a visit from social services.

Well done I'd say. Always fun provocating people but please no booohooohooooo when actually it works.

There are few societies who view bodily harm acceptable responses to verbal abuse - regardless of type; nor do they allow citizens / subjects to become judge and jury.

my reposte is simple. Becoming a thug to battle thugs isn't a civilised thing to do. It is a further debasement of society.

And who do you decide to beat up? What age group deserves an impromptu thrashing?

I'm all for teh little buggers getting arrested and publically flogged, but that's not for you to do.

If you're going to go to Uni for a 6 year course, an extra year or so in the armed forces means you'll start work close to 25. And seeing as how I'd view National Service as a way of teaching discipline, those who have enough discipline to get into Uni are less in need of it.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

And seeing as how I'd view National Service as a way of teaching discipline, those who have enough discipline to get into Uni are less in need of it.

~:smoking:

---

Talking about discipline, when will you quit smoking? :grin:

:laugh4:

I only smoke online - better for my lungs that way... :skull:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

There are few societies who view bodily harm acceptable responses to verbal abuse - regardless of type; nor do they allow citizens / subjects to become judge and jury.

---

Agreed, I was wrong. I can defend myself and justify my action but legally I was wrong, morally and ethically? I'll stand pat.

Quote:

---

my reposte is simple. Becoming a thug to battle thugs isn't a civilised thing to do. It is a further debasement of society.

---

Okay rory, I'm big enough to make a concession on this point.

Quote:

---

And who do you decide to beat up? What age group deserves an impromptu thrashing?

---

Any age group who knows the signifigance, and has the capability to enact a threat of killing my children.

Quote:

---

I'm all for teh little buggers getting arrested and publically flogged, but that's not for you to do.

---

I'll concede this point too, but operating logically and making judgements of black and white, when seeing red isnt going to happen most times. I am not beating my chest here with pride over the matter, I gave a real life example, an alternative one I found effective.

Quote:

---

I tackle him, rest my knee on his chest and keep hitting him in the face over and over until he says (and I made him say this) "Please god deliver me from justice".

---

Amateur , you left yourself open:thumbsdown:
Keep on your feet .

Young Crime is not punished here. Some young guy rob a bank, he go to jail and in 9 hours is free again. Now, replying to the question in the thread. Yes, they are. hose guys must be in jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

my reposte is simple. Becoming a thug to battle thugs isn't a civilised thing to do. It is a further debasement of society.

---

So sitting around sipping tea and wondering what's to be done while the situation deteriorates is better?

I reject the notion that civilized people cannot use violence from time to time. I find it odd some seem to not consider society or civilization important enough to fight for, especially when the path they love so much of 'community dialogue' is not working.

CR

So, you see something happening. Littering perhaps. Understandably to defend society you go and beat them up. Some other person who wants to defend liberty and society sees you laying into an innocent person. They come to sort you out.

Obviously assaulting a stranger is more serious than littering so they decide to use a weapon. A decent scar will stop you from beating up random people.

Another freedom loving, society saving patriot sees you fending off a knife wielding attacker. Hmm, only one thing to do - best shoot him.

And what of the police when they see this utopia in the making? Explain they deserved it and that's that? Society without the rule of law... :inquisitive:

I agree that society is worth fighting for, but society needs to fight for survival, not tooled up vigilantes.

In the UK there are tenants of faith that are a tremendous problem:

1. People under 18 have no idea about right or wrong
2. Individual rights are above community rights
3. More rights for prisoners than prison officers
4. An expectation for unlimited forgiveness from society, but little penance from criinals
5. Everyone knows their rights, no-one enforces the concurrent obligations

But even so, i don't feel getting a pool cue and a hockey helmet is going to make England better; some areas are purchasing private police that patrol only the areas that pay for them. IMO that is a civilised response to the failings of society.

~:smoking:

YOung criminals are nothing more than product of non stress education.
Children who did not experience punishmnet will never understand that some things are forbidden.
I alwamost laugh when hearing "child defenders" telling that punishing children is bad. Notice that when there were harsh punishments for children, there were no young criminals.
Sadly non stress educations seems to be still popular into UE. I hope it will be stopped in Poland. As soon as possible. Otherwise situation here will be like into Britain of France.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Amateur , you left yourself open:thumbsdown:
Keep on your feet .

---

Once again you have no idea what your talking about and 20 posts later your in to antagonize yet again.

What I dont fully understand is why the concept of cancer hasnt been applied to you? Clearly you offer nothing more then spiteful antagonism here, yet the mods allow you to continue.

Your a cancer, you should have been cut out and discarded long, long ago. Sadly I have to lower myself to reply to your attack in order to draw attention to your intent because of this ridiculous persona you have somehow accumulated here of actually having something to say.

I have been asked in PM by a member or two why my title is apathetic, its mainly due to the poor state of the board when a cancer like yourself isnt permantley removed.

The choice to beat the snot out of anyone who upsets you is not one allowed on this forum. It does not engender discipline. Equally, provoking others by offhand insults is also frowned on.

Further personal attacks from whichever direction will be punished. If a poster has a style that one finds irritating, put them on ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The choice to beat the snot out of anyone who upsets you is not one allowed on this forum. It does not engender discipline. Equally, provoking others by offhand insults is also frowned on.

Further personal attacks from whichever direction will be punished. If a poster has a style that one finds irritating, put them on ignore.

---

Thanks for the confirmation Banquo.

Quote:

---

Understandably to defend society you go and beat them up.

---

Strawman. I certainly wouldn't support that. It's in cases where a punk is harassing someone physically. Litterers you just call the hotline for littering (we have one in WA) and sit back while they get a hefty fine.

Quote:

---

In the UK there are tenants of faith that are a tremendous problem:

1. People under 18 have no idea about right or wrong
2. Individual rights are above community rights
3. More rights for prisoners than prison officers
4. An expectation for unlimited forgiveness from society, but little penance from criinals
5. Everyone knows their rights, no-one enforces the concurrent obligations

---

I agree, fixing those would probably help a lot.

CR

Quote:

---

Further personal attacks from whichever direction will be punished.

---

What personal attack ?
It was a comment on the wisdom of the action .
Since odin spoke as

Quote:

---

Im a former hooligan, I ought to know.

---

then he ought to know that the last position you would want to put yourself in during a confrontation is on your knees facing downwards .

Quote:

---

Keep on your feet .

---

preferably with one foot on the other fellas throat .

If that is considered a personal attack then......:dizzy2:

wow I didnt know so many badasses inhabited the polotics section of an internet gaming fourm

Quote:

---

wow I didnt know so many badasses inhabited the polotics section of an internet gaming fourm

---

its not badass , violence is sometimes needed , when it is needed make it quick and effective .
The problems arise when people start seeing red , thats when mistakes happen .

Quote:

---

Agreed, I was wrong. I can defend myself and justify my action but legally I was wrong, morally and ethically? I'll stand pat.

---

Nope legally you were right .

Quote:

---

I alwamost laugh when hearing "child defenders" telling that punishing children is bad. Notice that when there were harsh punishments for children, there were no young criminals.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Krook if they hung children for being criminals or deported them to Australia for commiting crimes would they be considered harsh punishments ?
If harsh punishments meant there were no young criminals then how come so many children were executed or transported ?
Were they wrongful convictions or something ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It's in cases where a punk is harassing someone physically.

---

The example was verbal harassment. I would include littering closer to verbal harassment than physical harassment.

In the UK, self defence is protecting oneself or one's family. To attack someone who is attacking a third party is already on dodgy ground, but to attack someone with excessive force (as pinning someone to the ground is) who was only offering verbal abuse is utterly illegal.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

The example was verbal harassment.

---

Was it ?
I read pushed as in actually pushed not verbaly pushed , perhaps I am incorrect , but if it was the former then that constitutes assault so self defense stands without question .

Quote:

---

In the UK, self defence is protecting oneself or one's family. To attack someone who is attacking a third party is already on dodgy ground, but to attack someone with excessive force (as pinning someone to the ground is) who was only offering verbal abuse is utterly illegal.

---

Third party dodgy ground ? Not really , it depends on the situation , though it can eventually come down to whether the judge is having a bad day or your brief is rubbish .
Excessive force is very difficult to quantify , but legally the nature of the verbal abuse can allow for the use of force in reaction to it .

"When reviewing cases involving assertions of self-defence or action in the prevention of crime/preservation of property, prosecutors should be aware of the balance to be struck:

* the public interest in promoting a responsible contribution on the part of citizens in preserving law and order; and
* in discouraging vigilantism and the use of violence generally."

Link

There. Seems nice and clear. How a brief could explain to a judge how physical abuse is a proportioned response to verbal abuse is interesting.

A cursory glance at the article will show how unlawful pinning someone to the floor is.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

A cursory glance at the article will show how unlawful pinning someone to the floor is.

---

A cursory glance or a longer glance ? neither will show the unlawfulness , that has to be initially determined by the police on a case by case basis , when they get stuck they ask the CPS , if they can agree that it might be able to be shown as unlawful then it goes to either the magistrates or a judge and jury , then they decide if it was lawful or can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was unlawful(if you are unsure always go for the second option , or did Blair abolish the choice over there now , if you lose the punishment is more severe but you have a much better chance with a judge and jury than with the magistrates ).

Quote:

---

How a brief could explain to a judge how physical abuse is a proportioned response to verbal abuse is interesting.

---

Two things you should never skimp on , an accountant or a brief , it is your briefs job to show that to the judge , a decent brief can turn the whole case on its head when it isn't clear cut or even when you are in the wrong .

Odin and Tribsey are right on the following account:
If another person assaults you; they physically touch you, you have the right to defend yourself.
When someone pushes you: they plant both hands on you chest and shoves, they are trying to hurt you.
If they just stand there and verbally abuses you, there is no need for violence. People should be able to keep their calm and listen to the ranting of the stupid.
Remember, swearing is the weak mind’s attempt to express itself forcibly.

A great King had as a rule to do nothing when his anger clouded his judgement. He waited until his heart had calmed and his mind was yet again clear to pass judgment to the situation.
But if your physical wellbeing is in imminent danger, you need to act.

I have no problems with and I don’t think the law has problems with you intervening with someone assaulting another. There are too many bystanders to youth violence these days.
The other day a 17 year old was beaten to a coma in my city. Eyewitnesses told that the youth gang that assaulted this kid jumped on his head repeatedly.
Eyewitnesses!!! They should have intervened way before someone jumped on this kid’s head.
The kid is now floating between life and death.

Quote:

---

If they just stand there and verbally abuses you, there is no need for violence. People should be able to keep their calm and listen to the ranting of the stupid.

---

Not quite , it all depends on the nature of the verbal abuse ,some threats of violence can be treated as an act of violence and you can plead self defense that way , though since you mention remaining calm in the face of ranting then a handy little trick is to say something very quietly to them that will make them swing . Its very good for convincing any witnessess present that you did nothing at all until actually attacked .

Let me be perfectly clear. I was pushed, my family was threatened with harm (perhaps bluster) during a physcial basketball game.

That kid is god dam lucky I restrained myself, at anytime I could have snapped his neck, you can choose to believe that or not. You bet your ass I see red when my children are threatened with death, and if that occassion arises again I would swiftly remove the threat physcially just like that time.

However, the point of my post wasnt to thump my chest and proclaim "bad ass" status, it was merely to point out that at times, a violent reaction is meritted and effective.

Unchecked would that situation have esculated? Would the threats have been fulfilled? Well they werent, and in life if your someone who chooses to turn your cheek when pushed and are able to draw upon some ethical morality in the heat of the moment, your a better person then I am.

Is there a smiley here with a middle finger? :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

You bet your ass I see red when my children are threatened with death

---

The problems arise when people start seeing red , thats when mistakes happen .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The problems arise when people start seeing red , thats when mistakes happen .

---

I see with a slight hint of pink, but I'm also hungover.