This Government have created a " monster " society of ferel thugs, be it knife crime culture,or ferel gang culture, or the ability to spend your whole life on the benefit gravy train, with hot and cold running benefits.
The " decent " man and woman now do not stand a chance, as law abiding taxpayers.
This artical is not just a one off now, and try and imagine this happening to YOU, as it could happen to anyone of us tommorow.
Here is a guy who seems a decent kind of guy, doing what I would have thought most if us would do, and look how he is treated. The ferel thug nowadays has the upper hand, what with soft punishments when caught, but as always the decent person gets treated like a leper.
How has this been allowed to happen fgs? This leftie New Labour have destroyed the Britain that I grew up in. Yes there were problems years ago but in my view nothing like the sort we have now. Gun crime was unheard of years ago, and whilst people used to carry knives, now it is the " norm " to carry one in inner city Britain.
What has it come to when a person gets treated like this, because he dared to do something? The ferel toad who commited this crime, will have probation officers galore, and social workers there to protect them but.....where is the help for people like this guy?
We used to be called Great Britain, but now it is grim Britain, or broken Britain. What have this Government done to this once great country?
Beware of ever taking the law into your own hands, or daring to protect your property or your family, for to do so could have you in court or at worse prison, whilst the very scumbag ferel, jobless scroungers who want to TAKE what is not theirs by force, get away even if they are caught.....what a joke but remember it coulde happen to any of us.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Is this what we want from \" new Labour \"?
Utter bilge I'm afraid Kenty, this "decent" man survived a terrible incident and had he beaten the criminal off by throwing the coffee table at him and then restraining him (cos bear in mind, it was one alone then, the others had fled) with the other people who came to help and he was prosecuted then indeed it would be a shabby way to treat him.
I defend the right of anybody to defend their family and home against scum who break in.
However, "defend" is a key word. It isn't a case of "defending" anything when you get a lone criminal and a group of you attack him with a baseball bat, iron bars and god knows what else, fracturing their skull. That wasn't in defence. That was an act of revenge, probably carried out when the adrenaline was pumping and rational thought had been suspended. That doesn't excuse it however. So yes, The police are right to prosecute, if he'd hit the robber once on his own with a bat, fair enough. The fact he did it as the robber was fleeing, repeatedly, with several of his friends and family joining in to beat the living crap out of him, no, that isn't defence, that isn't an erosion of our rights.
So according to your rationale Kenty, should someone break into my house, I would be within my rights and be a "loyal, honest decent citizen" if I trapped them with my friends and beat them with golf clubs, baseball bats and iron bars? So if I can do this with burglars in the name of protection, why can't I beat up a convicted drug dealer or drink driver or someone who speeds?
The law is there to protect everybody Mr K. Otherwise society breaks down. There have been many instances when somebody has been prosecuted unfairly in situations like this and I can understand the outrage that follows. This however is not one of them in my view. This changed from an act of defending his family, to the systematic, brutal attempted manslaughter / murder of someone and for that they should be prosecuted, not lauded. As indeed should the thugs and his accomplices for what they did.
If you believe two wrongs can make a right and a natural sense of justice, then its easy to see why the world is so fucked up.
I defend the right of anybody to defend their family and home against scum who break in.
However, "defend" is a key word. It isn't a case of "defending" anything when you get a lone criminal and a group of you attack him with a baseball bat, iron bars and god knows what else, fracturing their skull. That wasn't in defence. That was an act of revenge, probably carried out when the adrenaline was pumping and rational thought had been suspended. That doesn't excuse it however. So yes, The police are right to prosecute, if he'd hit the robber once on his own with a bat, fair enough. The fact he did it as the robber was fleeing, repeatedly, with several of his friends and family joining in to beat the living crap out of him, no, that isn't defence, that isn't an erosion of our rights.
So according to your rationale Kenty, should someone break into my house, I would be within my rights and be a "loyal, honest decent citizen" if I trapped them with my friends and beat them with golf clubs, baseball bats and iron bars? So if I can do this with burglars in the name of protection, why can't I beat up a convicted drug dealer or drink driver or someone who speeds?
The law is there to protect everybody Mr K. Otherwise society breaks down. There have been many instances when somebody has been prosecuted unfairly in situations like this and I can understand the outrage that follows. This however is not one of them in my view. This changed from an act of defending his family, to the systematic, brutal attempted manslaughter / murder of someone and for that they should be prosecuted, not lauded. As indeed should the thugs and his accomplices for what they did.
If you believe two wrongs can make a right and a natural sense of justice, then its easy to see why the world is so fucked up.
The Government has promised that people who fight back against burglars will find the law is on their side, so long as they do not use excessive or disproportionate violence.
Neighbours in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, then saw several men beating him with weapons including a cricket bat and a metal pole. He was left with injuries including a fractured skull and bruising on the brain.
Hussain denied attacking Salem, claiming it was a group of local youths. But a jury at Reading Crown Court found him guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent.
If this man had stayed within the law he wouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place...by doing what he did with the aid of his son's he played right into the hands of the person who was robbing his house,he then made matters worse by lying in court that it wasn't him but a group of local youths...and this is suppose to be a person of good character.
Neighbours in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, then saw several men beating him with weapons including a cricket bat and a metal pole. He was left with injuries including a fractured skull and bruising on the brain.
Hussain denied attacking Salem, claiming it was a group of local youths. But a jury at Reading Crown Court found him guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent.
If this man had stayed within the law he wouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place...by doing what he did with the aid of his son's he played right into the hands of the person who was robbing his house,he then made matters worse by lying in court that it wasn't him but a group of local youths...and this is suppose to be a person of good character.
In my view and it is my view....IF somebody decides to break into a house with the intention to rob and possibly maim the occupants, then in MY opinion by the fact that person has entered your home, then that person is fair game.
The fact the law is sooooooooo vague as in what is "reasonable force",it leads people to be confused.
IF somebody broke into my home and my family were there, believe me I would have no qualms about doing WHATEVER it would take to protect both myself and my family, but also my home.
If in the course of me doing that I was to kill him, then I am sorry had he not have been there in the first place, no incident would ever have happened.
American states have it right in that IF somebody breaks into your house, you have a right to protect it, and if that means you blow his arse off with a gun, then the law says that is acceptable. Maybe that kind of justice should be brought in over here.
Remember the Tony Martin case? A guy who was robbed by two ferel scumbags, with convictions longer than the river Thames. Look what happened to that guy by the so called " law " of the land.
Reasonable force can mean anything to anyone, and until we have much clearer guidelines, IF YOU was in this situation tonight, would you do any different, and if not how would one react? How can you say how you would react unless you are put in that situation of complete fear, and the fear your family will be hurt. For me I would do anything I could to protect that, but would no doubt have to face the courts for my actions, but believe me I would not lose a seconds sleep if the robber was either killed or seriously injured. My main concerns would be my family and my safety and wellbeing, at that point in time.
The fact the law is sooooooooo vague as in what is "reasonable force",it leads people to be confused.
IF somebody broke into my home and my family were there, believe me I would have no qualms about doing WHATEVER it would take to protect both myself and my family, but also my home.
If in the course of me doing that I was to kill him, then I am sorry had he not have been there in the first place, no incident would ever have happened.
American states have it right in that IF somebody breaks into your house, you have a right to protect it, and if that means you blow his arse off with a gun, then the law says that is acceptable. Maybe that kind of justice should be brought in over here.
Remember the Tony Martin case? A guy who was robbed by two ferel scumbags, with convictions longer than the river Thames. Look what happened to that guy by the so called " law " of the land.
Reasonable force can mean anything to anyone, and until we have much clearer guidelines, IF YOU was in this situation tonight, would you do any different, and if not how would one react? How can you say how you would react unless you are put in that situation of complete fear, and the fear your family will be hurt. For me I would do anything I could to protect that, but would no doubt have to face the courts for my actions, but believe me I would not lose a seconds sleep if the robber was either killed or seriously injured. My main concerns would be my family and my safety and wellbeing, at that point in time.
Quote by kentswingers777
In my view and it is my view....IF somebody decides to break into a house with the intention to rob and possibly maim the occupants, then in MY opinion by the fact that person has entered your home, then that person is fair game.
The fact the law is sooooooooo vague as in what is "reasonable force",it leads people to be confused.
The law isn't vague,if you've knocked an intruder to the ground and he is no longer a threat,would you continue to batter him black and blue?
If an intruder is running away from your house,would you shoot him in the back?
IF somebody broke into my home and my family were there, believe me I would have no qualms about doing WHATEVER it would take to protect both myself and my family, but also my home.
I would also do whatever it takes,so long as i use no more force than nessessary
If in the course of me doing that I was to kill him, then I am sorry had he not have been there in the first place, no incident would ever have happened.
American states have it right in that IF somebody breaks into your house, you have a right to protect it, and if that means you blow his arse off with a gun, then the law says that is acceptable. Maybe that kind of justice should be brought in over here.
Thankfully we are not America!
Remember the Tony Martin case? A guy who was robbed by two ferel scumbags, with convictions longer than the river Thames. Look what happened to that guy by the so called " law " of the land.
You love that word Ferel don't you?
Reasonable force can mean anything to anyone, and until we have much clearer guidelines, IF YOU was in this situation tonight, would you do any different, and if not how would one react? How can you say how you would react unless you are put in that situation of complete fear, and the fear your family will be hurt. For me I would do anything I could to protect that, but would no doubt have to face the courts for my actions, but believe me I would not lose a seconds sleep if the robber was either killed or seriously injured. My main concerns would be my family and my safety and wellbeing, at that point in time.
Reasonable force??
Well kicking seven colours of shit out of them when they were no longer a threat 10 minutes earlier,would be couldn't unreasonable force!
Sex God
Well, let's break out the kalasnikovs then. There are a few feral children playing football in my street. It's terrible, actually PLAYING, making a noise and everything. They think it's fun - but the police have declared my village a no-go zone cos these 7 year-olds are out there ENJOYING themselves - it's disgusting!!
Kill them, kill them ALLLLLLLLLLLL.
Kill them, kill them ALLLLLLLLLLLL.
Yep, I'm with Flower & Kent on this one, too - at least, I feel that's the way it should be... but it's not.
The police arrested the victim - the real victim, as prescribed by the laws of the land. The fact that in my opinion, the law is absolutely wrong in these cases, makes no difference. If we decide to ignore the laws we disagree with, there would be anarchy.
The police arrested the victim - the real victim, as prescribed by the laws of the land. The fact that in my opinion, the law is absolutely wrong in these cases, makes no difference. If we decide to ignore the laws we disagree with, there would be anarchy.
" Tough on crime....tough on the causes of crime ".
Remember that?
In THEIR world of posh dinners and nice houses, in nice locations, most of the people who make the laws of this country, are so far away from reality it is laughable.
As I have already said earlier....what is reasonable force?
The people who think it was right for this guy to be charged consider this.....IF you was put in a situation of utter fear when confronted in YOUR house with a raider carrying a knife, would you really really be thinking about what is " reasonable force "??
Or would you be so afraid for your own and families safety, with adrenalin pumping through your veins, that you would not just want to stop him in his tracks.....instantly? What happens if you do nothing?
Sorry put me or my family in that situation, and I think out of fear alone I would try and kill them. I would then happily face the consequences of my actions, which will always be a damn sight worse than the perpetrators.
I would have no social workers knocking on my cell offering help, oh no....that would be left for the person who entered my home.
Remember that?
In THEIR world of posh dinners and nice houses, in nice locations, most of the people who make the laws of this country, are so far away from reality it is laughable.
As I have already said earlier....what is reasonable force?
The people who think it was right for this guy to be charged consider this.....IF you was put in a situation of utter fear when confronted in YOUR house with a raider carrying a knife, would you really really be thinking about what is " reasonable force "??
Or would you be so afraid for your own and families safety, with adrenalin pumping through your veins, that you would not just want to stop him in his tracks.....instantly? What happens if you do nothing?
Sorry put me or my family in that situation, and I think out of fear alone I would try and kill them. I would then happily face the consequences of my actions, which will always be a damn sight worse than the perpetrators.
I would have no social workers knocking on my cell offering help, oh no....that would be left for the person who entered my home.
Quote by kentswingers777
I would have no social workers knocking on my cell offering help, oh no....that would be left for the person who entered my home.
Kent, social workers help all sorts of people. Not just criminals. My family has been helped enormously by them. They help people from all walks of society, yes, including you if you needed help.
Quote by Cherrytree
I would have no social workers knocking on my cell offering help, oh no....that would be left for the person who entered my home.
Kent, social workers help all sorts of people. Not just criminals. My family has been helped enormously by them. They help people from all walks of society, yes, including you if you needed help.
Going on from my own experience Cherry which I am not going into on here, I would except nothing from them at all.
That is all I am going to say on that matter.
Quote by Cherrytree
I would have no social workers knocking on my cell offering help, oh no....that would be left for the person who entered my home.
Kent, social workers help all sorts of people. Not just criminals. My family has been helped enormously by them. They help people from all walks of society, yes, including you if you needed help.
:thumbup:
their scope is a lot wider that many tabloid readers may realise.
lp
, an explanation.
The aforementioned Mr Martin shot the offender in the back when he was running away, with an unlicenced firearm.
Had the weapon been legally held, and the offender/s had been in the act of entering the property at the time, then he would not have been convicted.
You have the right to defend yourself and your property using reasonable force, which does not extend to beating someone with weapons after they have been successfully repelled from your house.
Politically-inspired rhetoric is ok by me: there is a point-of-view that all criminals would be better dead then anything else...to which, in some respects, I agree. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.
We could have a limited return to the death penalty, particularly apt in this case, to one of the offences for which death was the penalty in 1808:
Or maybe we could return to just pre-1832:
And the word is feral.
The aforementioned Mr Martin shot the offender in the back when he was running away, with an unlicenced firearm.
Had the weapon been legally held, and the offender/s had been in the act of entering the property at the time, then he would not have been convicted.
You have the right to defend yourself and your property using reasonable force, which does not extend to beating someone with weapons after they have been successfully repelled from your house.
Mr Price said that when the Hussains fought with Salem inside the house: 'They were acting entirely lawfully in defence of themselves and their families.
'If they had stopped there, they would not be where they are now. But they did not.'
He said witnesses had told of seeing three or four Asian men encircling Salem in a garden, ' kicking and stamping on him as he lay there' for several minutes.
Politically-inspired rhetoric is ok by me: there is a point-of-view that all criminals would be better dead then anything else...to which, in some respects, I agree. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.
We could have a limited return to the death penalty, particularly apt in this case, to one of the offences for which death was the penalty in 1808:
"strong evidence of malice" in children aged 7-14 years of age
Or maybe we could return to just pre-1832:
Between 1832-34 Parliament abolished the death penalty for shoplifting goods worth five shillings or lessEach case is different, which is why we have courts.
And the word is feral.
Quote by flower411
Taking entirely different scenarios and lumping them together to argue against somebody elses point is bizarre !!
There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between defending your home against attackers who have broken into your house and threatened your family and a speeding motorist or drug dealer on the street !!!
How on earth did you make that connection ?? They are totally different things :shock:
I can see Resonances point here quite clearly. His analogy is quite correct. The OP had already suggested that the Burglars had forfeited their human rights by breaking into someones house and once repelled still had no rights left, therefore to give them a "punishment beating" was still OK!!!
That is an absolutely crazy notion! to offer restraint until the police arrive is one thing but to call a couple of mates round then proceed to beat them with bars, clubs and bats is entirely a different matter.
Reasonable force was not used in this case and I hope the punishment reflects the crime.
The comparison could be drawn against punishment beatings handed out by the IRA to criminals in their controlled areas.
Sorry but the analogy is not correct. The householder obviously did overstep the mark but his house had been broken into, he did not go looking for burglars vigilante style, as would be the case in looking for convicted drug dealers or sppeeding motorists on the street.
It's very easy just to say that the culprit should be restrained until the police arrive but something quite different to have to deal with that situation for real.
It's very easy just to say that the culprit should be restrained until the police arrive but something quite different to have to deal with that situation for real.
Sex God
we was out stasbbing up drug dealers last night... one of them in his house had thees like shelves and stuff fill up wiv all sorts ov drugs this old lady comes in wiv a latter and gives it to the lady in the front room like and he gives her a brown botl full of tablets we fink it was ekstsy so i nifed him in the neck it's the only fing this scum understanda
The line is that needs to be crossed is the threshold of the house. If inside your house and you feel a threat to you or your family then reasonable force can be anything up to including killing them if this was reasonable. What is reasonable to kill them? An actual or fear of death to you or your family. If they have a gun/knife and are entering then thats an actual threat.
Once they are thrown out of the house and you close the door then there is no further threat. If you take it upon yourself to leave the safety of your house and go "dish out" some of your own justice then you have just crossed the line of looking after your family and become a vigilante who wants to hurt someone for their own gratification.
Should this upstanding person be in court? In my mind yes. Going off what has been reported then he has changed from protector to vigilante. The courts dispense justice, not anyone else.
To get out of going to court, keep the intruder in the house and dispense your justice there. That way you could commit perjury and swear he was still a threat to your family and hope that the jury buys it.
Dave_Notts
Once they are thrown out of the house and you close the door then there is no further threat. If you take it upon yourself to leave the safety of your house and go "dish out" some of your own justice then you have just crossed the line of looking after your family and become a vigilante who wants to hurt someone for their own gratification.
Should this upstanding person be in court? In my mind yes. Going off what has been reported then he has changed from protector to vigilante. The courts dispense justice, not anyone else.
To get out of going to court, keep the intruder in the house and dispense your justice there. That way you could commit perjury and swear he was still a threat to your family and hope that the jury buys it.
Dave_Notts
It looks highly likely, given the beating the alleged burglar sustained, that the householder will be jailed . The appeal will release him/them.
However: the beating was not given within the boundaries of the burgled premises but in another persons garden.
Note the quote from another version:
And another story quoted witnesses to the beating hearing the accused saying:
Probably we are not getting a complete story here.
Reasonable force does not mean chasing a person into another garden and beating that person nearly to death with improvised weapons and fists.
However: the beating was not given within the boundaries of the burgled premises but in another persons garden.
Note the quote from another version:
Other residents in Desborough Park Road who saw the attack all of them without exception remarked on its apparent ferocity
And another story quoted witnesses to the beating hearing the accused saying:
who sent you ?
Probably we are not getting a complete story here.
Reasonable force does not mean chasing a person into another garden and beating that person nearly to death with improvised weapons and fists.
Quote by flower411
The line is that needs to be crossed is the threshold of the house. If inside your house and you feel a threat to you or your family then reasonable force can be anything up to including killing them if this was reasonable. What is reasonable to kill them? An actual or fear of death to you or your family. If they have a gun/knife and are entering then thats an actual threat.
Once they are thrown out of the house and you close the door then there is no further threat. If you take it upon yourself to leave the safety of your house and go "dish out" some of your own justice then you have just crossed the line of looking after your family and become a vigilante who wants to hurt someone for their own gratification.
Should this upstanding person be in court? In my mind yes. Going off what has been reported then he has changed from protector to vigilante. The courts dispense justice, not anyone else.
To get out of going to court, keep the intruder in the house and dispense your justice there. That way you could commit perjury and swear he was still a threat to your family and hope that the jury buys it.
Dave_Notts
Sorry Dave ...I hate to pick holes ....as you`ve kinda agreed with the sentiment of my post
But the courts don`t dispense justice at all !! They sentence according to the whims of out of touch judges and the law !!!
Not "justice" at all
Feel free to pick holes
So they do dispense justice then? :lol: Even though it isn't perfect, I would prefer the system we have where there are checks and balances rather than nothing at all
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
The line is that needs to be crossed is the threshold of the house. If inside your house and you feel a threat to you or your family then reasonable force can be anything up to including killing them if this was reasonable. What is reasonable to kill them? An actual or fear of death to you or your family. If they have a gun/knife and are entering then thats an actual threat.
Once they are thrown out of the house and you close the door then there is no further threat. If you take it upon yourself to leave the safety of your house and go "dish out" some of your own justice then you have just crossed the line of looking after your family and become a vigilante who wants to hurt someone for their own gratification.
Should this upstanding person be in court? In my mind yes. Going off what has been reported then he has changed from protector to vigilante. The courts dispense justice, not anyone else.
To get out of going to court, keep the intruder in the house and dispense your justice there. That way you could commit perjury and swear he was still a threat to your family and hope that the jury buys it.
Dave_Notts
Sorry Dave ...I hate to pick holes ....as you`ve kinda agreed with the sentiment of my post
But the courts don`t dispense justice at all !! They sentence according to the whims of out of touch judges and the law !!!
Not "justice" at all
Feel free to pick holes
So they do dispense justice then? :lol: Even though it isn't perfect, I would prefer the system we have where there are checks and balances rather than nothing at all
Dave_Notts
Ermm Davey.
I would rather the shit be kicked out of them, because lets be fair here these scumbags are not afraid of the police or the justice system but.....they would be shit scared if this house owner and family battered them, which is exactly what they deserved and got.
I would not rely on the law or the courts to deal out tough sentences to people like this, 50 hours community service is the likely outcome for burglary and threats.
Rough justice I would call it, and these thugs did not get what they deserved, the punishment should have been another ten minutes of punishment from the family.....they won't probably think of doing it again for a while.
Until the law hands out the proper sentences to criminals and not namby pamby the little shits,then this will happen again.
In the same year, 2000, 10,227 offenders were sentenced for burglary in a
dwelling in the Crown Court. Of these, 20% received a community sentence and 77%
immediate custody. The detailed breakdown is as follows (again, figures have been
rounded):
Sentencing: Burglary. Maximum sentence.
Burglary for theft. 10 years.
Burglary with violence/etc. 14 years.
For a domestic burglary displaying most of the features of the standard
domestic burglary described in paragraph 18 above (theft of electrical goods
and / or personal items, damage caused by the break-in, some turmoil in the
house and some trauma to the victim), but committed by a first-time
domestic burglar, the starting point should be a custodial sentence of 9 months
Funnily enough, the "victim" in the case for this thread could face a lesser sentence than the burglary victims who chose to violently apprehend him !
If they had killed him they would be looking at life, the only sentence a court can award for murder.
I think DaveNotts has summed up quite beautifully my idea of what constitues a threat to my family. Someone in my house with a knife or a weapon, yes I feel I have a right to defend my family (that is a key word) in an appropriate way. However once that person is not attacking me, but making moves to get away from me, then the threat surely has been eliminated?
Oh, I can hear it now "What if he comes back? I won't take the chance." So you'd kill someone trying to flee from you rather than let the police deal with it?
Also the logic doesn't follow, most people who break into houses to do whatever, usually are tooled up. Many have one or more accomplices. Yet apparently, all we need to do is leap out of bed in our underpants and attack a group of armed men with our bare hands and underpants, kill them all all in the name of justice... Where do you live? Is it a town filled with retired superheroes and former SAS soldiers?
This machismo talk of "beating shite out of them" is just absolute tosh I'm afraid. Serial offenders tend to be prepared and able to look after themselves, certainly when armed and having the element of surprise. I wouldn't fancy my chances against anyone with a weapon, which is not to say I wouldn't try, just that I don't think I am the UK equivalent of John Rambo or Spiderman.
Also, lets say the burglar isn't armed and alone. That evens things up considerably. So, in that case do you really need to batter him or kill him to have justice meted out? Especially if you have other people in the house who can help you out? Let's not forget many people have partners who are pretty handy themselves (there's a few ladies on here I wouldn't like to annoy for fear of a jaw-shattering right hook).
Just because people are guilty of a crime against you, does not absolve you of being guilty of a crime against them. That way lies anarchy in my view.
If you battle an intruder and he is armed and he wants to kill you and in the battle you kill him. Fair enough. That to me is just tough shit on him and good fortune (or skill) on your behalf.
If you scare off an intruder, chase them down, pick up weapons, call your friends and then beat them to a pulp as an act of revenge for what they did. Then you are no better than they are and I think you deserve to face the consequences of your actions, albeit when placed in context of being a potential victim initially. That isn't someone defending their family, that is someone seeking their revenge and there is a big difference between the two.
As for my analogy not standing up, where is the line? If justice is to be decided by the victim upon a whim, then what is stopping other victims from doing the same? Why can't a victim kill their ? A burglar victim kill the burglar? A shop owner kill a shop lifter? A librarian shoot someone for bringing their book back a day overdue? It may well be "justice" as they see it. You might not agree, but if justice is to be decided individually and entirely arbitrarily then you can justify any action taken against any "crime" from your own perspective. That's kind of what I meant by the analogy. Justice cannot be subjective depending on one persons view, society doesn't work that way. Otherwise you can mete out your own brand of justice to the perpetrator in any way you see fit. You can't simply state "crimes against my family" are the only ones that count. Crimes, regardless of what they are, usually affect a family somewhere along the line.
Oh, I can hear it now "What if he comes back? I won't take the chance." So you'd kill someone trying to flee from you rather than let the police deal with it?
Also the logic doesn't follow, most people who break into houses to do whatever, usually are tooled up. Many have one or more accomplices. Yet apparently, all we need to do is leap out of bed in our underpants and attack a group of armed men with our bare hands and underpants, kill them all all in the name of justice... Where do you live? Is it a town filled with retired superheroes and former SAS soldiers?
This machismo talk of "beating shite out of them" is just absolute tosh I'm afraid. Serial offenders tend to be prepared and able to look after themselves, certainly when armed and having the element of surprise. I wouldn't fancy my chances against anyone with a weapon, which is not to say I wouldn't try, just that I don't think I am the UK equivalent of John Rambo or Spiderman.
Also, lets say the burglar isn't armed and alone. That evens things up considerably. So, in that case do you really need to batter him or kill him to have justice meted out? Especially if you have other people in the house who can help you out? Let's not forget many people have partners who are pretty handy themselves (there's a few ladies on here I wouldn't like to annoy for fear of a jaw-shattering right hook).
Just because people are guilty of a crime against you, does not absolve you of being guilty of a crime against them. That way lies anarchy in my view.
If you battle an intruder and he is armed and he wants to kill you and in the battle you kill him. Fair enough. That to me is just tough shit on him and good fortune (or skill) on your behalf.
If you scare off an intruder, chase them down, pick up weapons, call your friends and then beat them to a pulp as an act of revenge for what they did. Then you are no better than they are and I think you deserve to face the consequences of your actions, albeit when placed in context of being a potential victim initially. That isn't someone defending their family, that is someone seeking their revenge and there is a big difference between the two.
As for my analogy not standing up, where is the line? If justice is to be decided by the victim upon a whim, then what is stopping other victims from doing the same? Why can't a victim kill their ? A burglar victim kill the burglar? A shop owner kill a shop lifter? A librarian shoot someone for bringing their book back a day overdue? It may well be "justice" as they see it. You might not agree, but if justice is to be decided individually and entirely arbitrarily then you can justify any action taken against any "crime" from your own perspective. That's kind of what I meant by the analogy. Justice cannot be subjective depending on one persons view, society doesn't work that way. Otherwise you can mete out your own brand of justice to the perpetrator in any way you see fit. You can't simply state "crimes against my family" are the only ones that count. Crimes, regardless of what they are, usually affect a family somewhere along the line.
I didn't "move away" from the original post, I took that original point of why I didn't think the "hero" who did this was anything of the sort and validated my reasons why and to do that I pointed out what I feel to be the flawed logic behind the reasoning that he is in some way heroically fighting the criminals and the system, rather than a criminal himself. A kind of domino effect if you will.
The bit you highlighted Flower was an obvious light hearted attempt to keep this debate good natured and amusing, rather than an actual statement of a proposed reality. However the underlying argument still, I feel, is credible and links in with the OP. To me that is as worthy of mentioning as the notion of beating someone to within an inch of their life because you feel it is personally justified and because you have no trust in the powers that be.
Incidentally, pointing out subjective appraisals of my posts, in no way endorses your own views. I try to comment on the situation at hand in my own way Flower.
I shall try to keep my posts 100% on tack and as humourless as possible from here on in.
So to summarise, I agree with DaveNotts really, he said it better than me.
The bit you highlighted Flower was an obvious light hearted attempt to keep this debate good natured and amusing, rather than an actual statement of a proposed reality. However the underlying argument still, I feel, is credible and links in with the OP. To me that is as worthy of mentioning as the notion of beating someone to within an inch of their life because you feel it is personally justified and because you have no trust in the powers that be.
Incidentally, pointing out subjective appraisals of my posts, in no way endorses your own views. I try to comment on the situation at hand in my own way Flower.
I shall try to keep my posts 100% on tack and as humourless as possible from here on in.
So to summarise, I agree with DaveNotts really, he said it better than me.
Sex God
I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the AUP that says "thou shalt stick to the orginal point or else".
If the conversation develops it may well wander gradually away from the OP. And thank goodness for that.
If we always stuck to the OP then either the threads would fizzle out after about 2 pages or they would degenerate into a few people repeating their points in more and more personal and points scoring ways until everyone else gives up reading it.
If the conversation develops it may well wander gradually away from the OP. And thank goodness for that.
If we always stuck to the OP then either the threads would fizzle out after about 2 pages or they would degenerate into a few people repeating their points in more and more personal and points scoring ways until everyone else gives up reading it.
Agreed Foxy.
On here it is sometimes like real life where the original point can sometimes be left behind.
I am sorry Res....whilst I can understand what you are saying, I do not agree with all of it.
I have no faith in the justice system to bring someone to justice for robbing someone. We hear all the time about soft sentences, whilst the " victim " suffers not just because of the robbery, but also for a long time afterwards.
The fear of being in the house, the fear of entering the house, just the fear of it all.
I hope that when they were giving him a kicking, he was feeling the same kind of fear, they must have felt, when they realised they were being robbed by some feckless and ferel lowlife.
In my opinion he got what he deserved, and it matters not to me, if it happens in the house, or in their garden, or half way down the street.
Maybe next time, and there will be a next time,he may think twice before entering someones house.
But what's the betting eh that the " victim " will get a harsher punishment than the villain....now that would not suprise me at all,and they say " crime don't pay "......yeah right.
Still I can understand about the taking the law into ones own hand and all that but....I believe that when you enter my house with the intention to rob me, and are tooled up and prepared to use what they have to hurt me or my family, then they will pay if I catch them be it in the house or anywhere else. I cannot understand why anyone would think differently and if they do to be so naive to think the law will make the criminal pay for their crimes.
On here it is sometimes like real life where the original point can sometimes be left behind.
I am sorry Res....whilst I can understand what you are saying, I do not agree with all of it.
I have no faith in the justice system to bring someone to justice for robbing someone. We hear all the time about soft sentences, whilst the " victim " suffers not just because of the robbery, but also for a long time afterwards.
The fear of being in the house, the fear of entering the house, just the fear of it all.
I hope that when they were giving him a kicking, he was feeling the same kind of fear, they must have felt, when they realised they were being robbed by some feckless and ferel lowlife.
In my opinion he got what he deserved, and it matters not to me, if it happens in the house, or in their garden, or half way down the street.
Maybe next time, and there will be a next time,he may think twice before entering someones house.
But what's the betting eh that the " victim " will get a harsher punishment than the villain....now that would not suprise me at all,and they say " crime don't pay "......yeah right.
Still I can understand about the taking the law into ones own hand and all that but....I believe that when you enter my house with the intention to rob me, and are tooled up and prepared to use what they have to hurt me or my family, then they will pay if I catch them be it in the house or anywhere else. I cannot understand why anyone would think differently and if they do to be so naive to think the law will make the criminal pay for their crimes.
