UPDATE: Victim Jailed for Resisting Burglar, Burglar Set Free

[JaredXE]

Also, what is "Necessary Force"? That seems to be bandied about when it comes to self-defense? Who decides how much force is appropriate? The Judge? Well, if the Judge was not there at the time and did not see/experience everything that was going on, then the judge is in no way qualified to decide how much force should have been used. No, the ONLY person who has the ability and right to decide how much force is appropriate when in the defense of himself or his family is the person doing the defending. If the burglar has a knife, then take a cricket bat to the fucker's head, because that is the minimum necessary force needed to ensure your family is forever safe from him again.


Side note: The MAXIMUM necessary force would be the complete de-atomization of the criminal in self-defense. I find that to be a bit extreme, and would have to warn the offender from ever doing that again, otherwise I would have to sentance him to some community service.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It was pointless revenge.

I think the revenge had a point. "Don't threaten my family with death, ************" would be the point. That is the sort of point that the criminal justice system should get across, and apparently didn't.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

"The man, a wealthy 53-year-old businessman, returned to his Buckinghamshire home from a trip to the mosque together with his wife, daughter and two sons to discover three men had broken into their home."

They were coming home from a Mosque? The judge is probably racist.

 

[Dudemeister]

Personally I don't think prison time is appropriate. Charge them the full cost of his medical bills maybe.

That wouldn't really work since we don't have medical bills but I do agree with you that something other than prison should have been used. A suspended sentence or community service maybe?

 

[Epitome]

On the other hand, if he was let off it would promote vigilantism & taking the law into your own hands. I can understand subduing the man & pinning him down after a couple of punches but if he was injured to the point where it can be ruled as GBH than something must be done.

Better that guy took the law into his hands than into the hands of the mentally incompetent judge who let him go. And what's wrong with vigilantism? Anything taken to excess is wrong, sure, but when you have police brutalizations and judges letting people get off on technicalities....well, crimes deserve to be answered, and sometimes that means going outside the law.

But the guy wouldn't have got off scott free if the fella & his brother hadn't pounded him half to death. Robbery is a serious crime but they are just material posessions once you cause injury that affects someones quality of life that is a much worse crime. So the state has to pay his hospital bill's & probably any dissability payments he'll get in the future. Which come out of YOUR pocket. The judge set a pretty harsh example on these guys & I feel bad for their situation. But they went too far & have been set an example of.
If vigilantism is allowed to happen it would just escalate & where would you draw the line?

Well if we talking about true vigilantism here as in bringing justice to criminals and only proven criminals liek in this instance, i wouldnt draw a line, if that guy had been killed by the bat tho the head I would be much happier his accomplices might not be so keen to rob the next house then. We are talking about criminals here, you cant apply the rules neatly to them because they operate outside the rules. Three men threatened a mans children at knifepoint, leaving him the ability to draw breath after that is merciful

 

[Nasti]

Moral of the story is quite simple, if you dont want to go to prison dont get burgled.

Seriously. Dont kick the shit through a person who isnt still trying to hurt you. Its hard not to get carried away in these situations for most people so sentrances shouldn't include prison unless if they guy is quite damaged.

 

[Rancid0ffspring]

On the other hand, if he was let off it would promote vigilantism & taking the law into your own hands. I can understand subduing the man & pinning him down after a couple of punches but if he was injured to the point where it can be ruled as GBH than something must be done.

Better that guy took the law into his hands than into the hands of the mentally incompetent judge who let him go. And what's wrong with vigilantism? Anything taken to excess is wrong, sure, but when you have police brutalizations and judges letting people get off on technicalities....well, crimes deserve to be answered, and sometimes that means going outside the law.

But the guy wouldn't have got off scott free if the fella & his brother hadn't pounded him half to death. Robbery is a serious crime but they are just material posessions once you cause injury that affects someones quality of life that is a much worse crime. So the state has to pay his hospital bill's & probably any dissability payments he'll get in the future. Which come out of YOUR pocket. The judge set a pretty harsh example on these guys & I feel bad for their situation. But they went too far & have been set an example of.
If vigilantism is allowed to happen it would just escalate & where would you draw the line?

Well if we talking about true vigilantism here as in bringing justice to criminals and only proven criminals like in this instance, i wouldnt draw a line, if that guy had been killed by the bat tho the head I would be much happier his accomplices might not be so keen to rob the next house then. We are talking about criminals here, you cant apply the rules neatly to them because they operate outside the rules. Three men threatened a mans children at knifepoint, leaving him the ability to draw breath after that is merciful

Or more likely come back looking for revenge & this time instead of threatening to kill just skip to the main show.
You say the rules cannot be applied neatly? WTF? These rules are there to stop this kind of thing from happening & should someone be stupid enough to break them, be punished for it. The owner of the house used excessive force & has created a burden on the state & in turn on us as taxpayers & is being punished for it.

I et what you are saying but like I said a line must be drawn

 

[Compatriot Block]

Huh. Never thought I'd see so many people defending men who threatened to kill children to rob a house.

Following this logic, if someone robs you at gunpoint, takes your wallet and throws away the gun, you should face charges if you catch him and beat him up.

Gah, it was CHILDREN threatened with DEATH. How anyone could fault a father for beating him, I don't understand.

 

[StercusCaput]

Thanks England, for setting the bar high in the 'who is most divorced from reality' legal system!

what are you going on about. America is far worse. We're the only counrty in the world where you can be sued for saving someones life.

Have you not heard of The Good Samaritan law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

 

[A Weary Exile]

I...I hate these people, I mean...how can someone...

God damn it justice system.

 

[Numb1lp]

Umm... The Judicial system in both our countries suck?

 

[Danpascooch]

Well the burglar should definitely have been jailed.

That said the "victims" should probably be jailed too, After all, they beat the shit out of a guy who was running away.

That's like having a guy punch you, and in "self-defense" knocking him out, tying him up in your basement, and growing a piece of bamboo through him.

You just can't do that crap.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Another dam case of the justice system being more benificial and on the criminals side, granted it wasnt really right that they beat the guy so badly. its just awful that they get such an awful sentance, when much worse crimes on occasion get a much lesser sentance, its just shoking.

a guy comes to me an tries to stab me or hurt my loved ones im going to make dam well sure that il hurt him before he hurts me, least to an extent that i can stop him long enough for the police to come.

Beating a 56 year old man, who is fleeing from the crime, to the point were he has suffered brain damage is ridiculous. Even if they were just trying to restrain him so the police could catch him, the amount of damage they did was completely unnecessary.

This man isn't being sent to jail because of self-defense. He is being sent to jail due to his vigilantism.

And the criminal is going free... why?

The fact is, one case of assault was armed and unprovoked, and one case was unarmed and provoked. The fact that the latter is going to jail while the former is going scot-free is just stupid.

Never said I thought the criminal going free was justified. I really don't get why he is getting such a light penalty.

 

[Nevyrmoore]

Huh. Never thought I'd see so many people defending men who threatened to kill children to rob a house.

Following this logic, if someone robs you at gunpoint, takes your wallet and throws away the gun, you should face charges if you catch him and beat him up.

Gah, it was CHILDREN threatened with DEATH. How anyone could fault a father for beating him, I don't understand.

Don't get me wrong, I'm don't particularly want to defend him. My personal thoughts on the matter are that the victim should be free to give him a shotgun mouthwash, or a lead enema.

I am, instead, playing devils advocate for the law. Because regardless of what we think, at the end of the day, the law reigns supreme. And if you wish to be a good citizen, then you have to follow the law, otherwise, in their eyes, you're no better than the criminals, even though the criminals find ways to make a mockery of the law.

Sad, but true.

 

[Dogstile]

I agree they were too violent when catching the guy, but letting him free? Is the judge INSANE!?!

 

[nolongerhere]

Also, what is "Necessary Force"? That seems to be bandied about when it comes to self-defense? Who decides how much force is appropriate? The Judge? Well, if the Judge was not there at the time and did not see/experience everything that was going on, then the judge is in no way qualified to decide how much force should have been used. No, the ONLY person who has the ability and right to decide how much force is appropriate when in the defense of himself or his family is the person doing the defending. If the burglar has a knife, then take a cricket bat to the fucker's head, because that is the minimum necessary force needed to ensure your family is forever safe from him again.


Side note: The MAXIMUM necessary force would be the complete de-atomization of the criminal in self-defense. I find that to be a bit extreme, and would have to warn the offender from ever doing that again, otherwise I would have to sentance him to some community service.

If he was still threatening the family with a knife, then a head shot would have been appropriate. The man was out of the house, pinned to the ground. If you have him in that position, you don't need to hit him in the head repeatedly. That's the point where a line is crossed.

 

[Beardon65]

Thanks England, for setting the bar high in the 'who is most divorced from reality' legal system!

Don't forget! Us Scottish and the Welsh are also affected by this kind of law.

This kind of thing wouldn't roll a thousand years ago. Somebody broke into your land, you could beat the shit out of him and set him on fire while the authorities watched and helped.

And that is why I live in Texas. Cause you could really do that crap. In fact, up in Brewster county, they will cage you up. They'll kill you slowly too. Ah Texas land of weapons and killing people on your property.

 

[nono195]

Self defense - Defense equal to the force being used against you and only if you feel your life is in threat. if the man is running away and gets knocked down and beaten to damn near death although justifiable and probably what i would do is no longer self defense its attempted-murder (*fixed murder to attempted sense he didn't die)

Are you even serious? You cant provoke people like this and expect the shit to not get beat out of you. If three men went into my house, threatened me with death, took my shit, I escaped, and one fell on my property damn straight I would teach him a lesson his skeletal system would never forget. It is the burglars fault for having the gall to continue to do this while an entire fucking family was in the house.

 

[Nouw]

GUILTY: Of being a dumb-ass court

OT: My statement above sums up my thoughts. A bit overdone but maybe they watch too many, you thought was dead movies or experiences?