UPDATE: Victim Jailed for Resisting Burglar, Burglar Set Free

[Fox242]

Well...that is one opinionated judge. How can they seriously be jailed for protecting themselves. Those burglars could have killed them and the judge is more worried about their well being? Aye...What is this world coming to?

 

[Epitome]

Revenge for f*****g up their friend? Probably yes. Wouldn't have needed to worry about that though if they had shown some restraint. Also who are you to decide who lives or dies? No one has that right & if you think you do, you better hope you never find yourself judged by another person who thinks so because innocent or not you'd look pretty stupid!

Like I said in MY OP. I don't know how I'd react, It's a tough situation but they simply can't be allowed to get away with what is a crime. He was FLEEING. How much of a threat is a man that is fleeing? you are creating more danger for yourself & your family by antagonising the situation.

This is the exact thing that we pay the police for so we don't have to put ourselves in danger!

Be nice if the police would do their job once in a while then wouldnt it? Why was a 50 time offender allowed on the streets in teh first place? Where were the police when the mans children were at knifepoint? Where were they when they failed to apprehend the other two men dispite having one of hem in custody? The apprehension rates for burglary are laughable, why should teh public be forced to rely on a service that constantly fails them?

I dont have the right to decide who lives or dies but I know full weel that if somebody is in my home and is a threat to me and my family then I will hit him with the heaviest thing I can find and I will do it until he does not get back up again, if that means dead then ill square my actions with whoever does decide life or death when I meet him.

Yeah he was fleeing and no longer an immediate threat, given his criminal record I would say its a safe bet that the next family who would have been at his knifepoint should be rather grateful they will never have to go through the ordeal now, taht may be speculation but career criminals dont reform too often. Also why was the burgler allowed to walk? He suffered enough from teh homeowners actions? His actions were not taken into account when the homeowners beat him why should what the homeowner did have a bearing on his judgement.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Frankly if you condone beating someone to the point of brain damage irregardless of the crime then you are absolutley no better than the criminal, sounds like they got the guy down 2 on 1 and started to go to fucking town thats not brave, smart or just. You beat a guy to that point even under duress of stress, fear you have failed yourself we don't live in a middle fucking ages country you want to celibrate people beating each other to near death over crimes go to Saudi Arebia and do the genepool a favour.

Learn to spell and do the gene pool a favor.

Also, if you don't go to freaking town on the guys, you end up getting a knife in your face.

You are not a damned authority get over the Jack Bauer 24 vision you have in your mind this is real life, if we have people doing as they please over every petty crime we have anarchy. I have been held at knifepoint I most certainly did not rush the bastard after, nor if my family was held would I be stupid enough to put them in jeopardy by rushing in with another person, the two guys were fucking morons they took a huge gamble and put others at risk over what objects? You can replace what is robbed risking others lives is not any option a real man should take. And what threat 2 guys on one 50 year old guy who was on the ground they were enraged and pummelled him the courts decide his fate not a group of fucking punters.

And its 3 in the morning I could not give a fucking toss about your opinion on my grammar.

Want bad grammar? Fukc Yuo decypher that you tosser.

 

[Bad Neighbour]

Its not revenge, he must make sure this man who has proven a threat is neutralised, not just now but long term. The criminal in question had 50 priors, the police still havent caught either of the two men who were with him. There is a difference between unnecesssary violence and ensuring future safety, we had a case here in ireland where a man who had previously been burgled several times by the same group of people snapped one day and shot him, the man who was shot fled, the homeowner reloaded his gun and went down the street after him and finished the job. Appeals Court ruled self-defence because these men would have come back.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1215/nallyp.html

The problem there is the police failing to arrest the burgler and prosecute him before the man snapped (or perhaps the man failing to call them). The man is not in the right for chasing him and gunning him down and I don't give a damn what the verdict was. That could have been resolved without anyone getting killed.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Frankly if you condone beating someone to the point of brain damage irregardless of the crime then you are absolutley no better than the criminal, sounds like they got the guy down 2 on 1 and started to go to fucking town thats not brave, smart or just. You beat a guy to that point even under duress of stress, fear you have failed yourself we don't live in a middle fucking ages country you want to celibrate people beating each other to near death over crimes go to Saudi Arebia and do the genepool a favour.

Learn to spell and do the gene pool a favor.

Also, if you don't go to freaking town on the guys, you end up getting a knife in your face.

You are not a damned authority get over the Jack Bauer 24 vision you have in your mind this is real life, if we have people doing as they please over every petty crime we have anarchy. I have been held at knifepoint I most certainly did not rush the bastard after, nor if my family was held would I be stupid enough to put them in jeopardy by rushing in with another person, the two guys were fucking morons they took a huge gamble and put others at risk over what objects? You can replace what is robbed risking others lives is not any option a real man should take. And what threat 2 guys on one 50 year old guy who was on the ground they were enraged and pummelled him the courts decide his fate not a group of fucking punters.

And its 3 in the morning I could not give a fucking toss about your opinion on my grammar.

Want bad grammar? Fukc Yuo decypher that you tosser.

I lol'd.

Bottom line is, do what you need to in order to survive. If that involves beating a criminal in the face with a golf club, by all means, go for it. If you don't, he could get up and put a .45 in your ass.

...and the police won't be there to help you.

 

[FightThePower]

This thread reminds me of this little exchange:

 

[Epitome]

The problem there is the police failing to arrest the burgler and prosecute him before the man snapped (or perhaps the man failing to call them). The man is not in the right for chasing him and gunning him down and I don't give a damn what the verdict was. That could have been resolved without anyone getting killed.

Maybe but I like this resolution, now the next person will think before breaking in and stealing. In the rural areas of Ireland police response times are laughable, even when they do arrive they are unarmed, not the most useful individuals when dealing with crimes of this nature. Why the bleeding heart for criminals though, the fact is both of these men may be alive and well today if they hadnt pushed people to their limits. They made the choice to break in and threaten and steal, they should have to bear the actions that directly come about from it.

 

[Rancid0ffspring]

SNIP

Look, this is turning into an argument & I'm quickly losing interest. I don't know where these 50 previous crimes have come from I must have missed something. You go beat someone to death if they break into your house & I'm sure you'll feel really clever when you get carted off to prison.

We'll just have to agree that we do not agree

 

[Epitome]

SNIP

Look, this is turning into an argument & I'm quickly losing interest. I don't know where these 50 previous crimes have come from I must have missed something. You go beat someone to death if they break into your house & I'm sure you'll feel really clever when you get carted off to prison.

We'll just have to agree that we do not agree

The offender who was beaten in the OP's story had 50 priors thats where that comes from, im not trying to argue either i dont liek when debate degenerates, but when somebody if breaks into your house and you dont defend yourself I hope you get lucky and you and your family stay safe.

 

[TurtleBlob]

Is everybody missing the fact that these guys are getting 30 months?

30 friggin months!

That's two and a half years.

For what? Going "too far" in beating up someone who threatened your family. These guys shouldn't be getting jail at all, much less that kind of time. I agree that they should be punished but this is way too much.

Then again I come from Iceland, where jail time rarely goes above ten years. Like very rarely.

 

[iDayman]

No, I'm going to have to agree with the sentencing (Mostly)

They induced BRAIN in the creature (and as such may not be right in the head (which explains why it was set free))

There's giving a whooping, and then there's too much, especially when it comes to kicking a animal when it's down.
Maybe a reduction is in order for accused, maybe a year tops, but no more then that.


The moment the thing fell down it was not self defense, remember that.

[sup]Please not I never reffered to "it" (the thing with Drain Bammage (See what I did there?)) as human. As he is inhuman if he'd threaten to kill a family for money.[/sup]

Yes, I do see what you did there.
Nice one, man.

And in regards to the article: revenge through physical violence is for the weak, really.
Leave that up to the police. (See what I did THERE?)

 

[FoolKiller]

1. They should get jail time. Once he was no longer a threat, they should know better and call the cops.

2. The crook should get jail time for the actual home invasion and threatening with a weapon.

And finally, if you break into my home I would kill you as quickly as I could. I believe that when I am in danger the only action to take is to cause maximum damage with minimal effort. Can't have someone getting up and having a second chance to harm me. Evolutionarily speaking, that would be foolish.

 

[RN7]

What is with all of these crazy homeowner vs. burglar stuff happening in the UK?

And as far as I'm concerned, if someone physically threatens you and attempts to rob you on your property, that's a kill command right there. Just make sure they at least seem to be coming at you...

 

[manic_depressive13]

I find it rather shocking that so many people disagree with the judge's decision. I'm also wondering if half the people who commented even read the article. This wasn't self defence. This was a disgusting, violent beating. Yes, the family was robbed, but from what I can tell, no harm befell them. I'm sure it must be very traumatic to be held hostage and threatened, but to then beat an elderly man (he was in his 50's and that's pretty gaddamn old in my opinion) to the point of brain damage is just an extreme overreaction. How is robbery equivalent to, or deserving of, grievous bodily harm? I think people need to get their priorities straight and stop thinking "well they're trespassing on my property, so I can do whatever the hell I like to them"

 

[Epitome]

I find it rather shocking that so many people disagree with the judge's decision. I'm also wondering if half the people who commented even read the article. This wasn't self defence. This was a disgusting, violent beating. Yes, the family was robbed, but from what I can tell, no harm befell them. I'm sure it must be very traumatic to be held hostage and threatened, but to then beat an elderly man (he was in his 50's and that's pretty gaddamn old in my opinion) to the point of brain damage is just an extreme overreaction. How is robbery equivalent to, or deserving of, grievous bodily harm? I think people need to get their priorities straight and stop thinking "well they're trespassing on my property, so I can do whatever the hell I like to them"

Well he wont trespass again will he, a knife in the throat from a 50 year old will be just as effectove as a knife in the throat froma 20 year old. He held the mans kids and sick wife at knifepoint and looted the mans house, thats when he deserved GBH.

 

[Internet Kraken]

I am not trying to suggest that the criminal is the "good guy". There is no good guy in this situation. Both people did something horribly wrong. Of course I don't expect the victim to tolerate the actions of the criminal. But that doesn't excuse his behavior.

Your right he should have written him a strongly worded letter then phone the Victim support helpline and maybe filed a complaint with hsi local MP, that will solve the problem.

You seem to be suggesting that he has to take revenge. He doesn't. All he has to do is let the cops deal with this and move on with his life. He could have done that. Instead, he choose the path of unnecessary violence.

I can understand why the man did this. When in a temporary fit of anger and rage, people will do crazy thing. But you can't let people get away with these crimes because of it. Nobody ever profits from revenge.

Its not revenge, he must make sure this man who has proven a threat is neutralised, not just now but long term. The criminal in question had 50 priors, the police still havent caught either of the two men who were with him. There is a difference between unnecesssary violence and ensuring future safety, we had a case here in ireland where a man who had previously been burgled several times by the same group of people snapped one day and shot him, the man who was shot fled, the homeowner reloaded his gun and went down the street after him and finished the job. Appeals Court ruled self-defence because these men would have come back.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1215/nallyp.html

So this justifies him beating the man until he suffered brain damage? He couldn't just hold him down until the police arrived? That would have neutralized him as a threat. You can't honestly tell me that his actions were not excessive. He tried to kill this man. I can't believe that people think he should get off the hook just because the victim was also a criminal.

 

[Vredesbyrd67]

I'm starting to think, "hmm, maybe I shouldn't move to England after College after all..."

 

[Ph33nix]

i have a 12 gauge for a reason. so that there is only 1 side to these arguments.

 

[Epitome]

So this justifies him beating the man until he suffered brain damage? He couldn't just hold him down until the police arrived? That would have neutralized him as a threat. You can't honestly tell me that his actions were not excessive. He tried to kill this man. I can't believe that people think he should get off the hook just because the victim was also a criminal.

What if the man broke free? Its not that easy to restrain somebody you cant just hold the guy. I think they were excessive in the violence needed to take him down, but i dont think any violence in excess if the amount taken to put him down is criminal. They didnt try to kill him; you think that two men with bats couldnt finish the job before the police arrived if they wanted to? If they wanted to kill him he would have been killed, they clearly wanted him out of action which is reasonable. I dont believe the man who broke in and held women and children at knifepoint should go free while the men who were put in a position where they were forced to act are grossly overpunished. I concede that the violence was excessive but you should concede that the man wouldnt have been hurt if he wasnt trying to loot teh mans house while holding him and his family hostage? What if they had killed his wife or child? Would their reaction then be just?

 

[MikeOfThunder]

?If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting the criminal justice system take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.?

I'm sorry but the judge actually has a point. Granted a person should be able to defend their own home - but the robber was running away when he was attacked..

Yes i agree that he should (as well as the rest of the robbers) be sentanced for their attempted crime, but its not necessary to beat the living hell out of a fleeing person. A few revenge hits is understandable... but you dont get a cracked head with a defensive hit unless your going out to SERIOUSLY hurt them.