manxy Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Eye for an eye well sorta kinda No problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 As Mutley says, "...sorta kinda.". It isn't an eye for an eye because the men received life sentences as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 As Mutley says, "...sorta kinda.". It isn't an eye for an eye because the men received life sentences as well. But that's what happened to the man I was explaining about earlier LDV. The man who got his house burgled, was twice affected as regards the eye for an eye situation. If the man was let off, then it was sort of even between them, although there was more than one person involved and other victims should have had the chance to hit him with the bat as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Wait a sec... some men raided his home, used force (violence) on his family, and threatened to kill members of the family if they didn't comply. It isn't eye for an eye when one of those men is battered round the head with a metal pipe. You can't really arrange an eye for an eye punishment in this instance. Moreover, the legal system would still not allow the homeowner from using violence himself and possibly meting out an eye for an eye. We live in a society where the State thinks it can only use violence against other people. It certainly isn't going to stand by and allow those it controls to compete with that assumed privilege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 There are many factors that need to be considered here including 1) Did he intend to cause him brain damage? - I doubt it 2)How rational could you be if someone broke into your home and threatened (directly or implied threats) you and/or your wife & kids - I doubt ANYONE could have the ability and the time to think clearly and act appropriately in such a charged situation. 3)How do you know if he is just a harmless thief or might kill you or any shades in between? - You just don't know and therefore have to assume the worst. 4)Does the thief give up his rights as soon as he breaks into your house? - I think so. This does not extend to breaking into anything else like your car, shed, garage etc. One thing is certain. He means business if he breaks into a house in the night. etc etc Imo, it was wrong for him to chase this thief down the road but quite understandable. There have been many stories over the years where intruders have tortured (often old and defenceless) householders to find out where their money is often escaping with a small amount. The victims are then scarred emotionally and physically for life. If I had the means handy, I would do all I could to stop that being a possibility in my house. Nobody should get away with killing intruders in this cause but I think appropriate force should be used at the first opportunity, you might not get another chance. If it happened to me, I would disable the intuder in such a way as PK describes even if it meant a stay up at Jurby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 Wait a sec... some men raided his home, used force (violence) on his family, and threatened to kill members of the family if they didn't comply. You sort of break the rules of engagement at that point though don't you? If you force your way into someones house and then use threats and violence against them you don't really expect a cup of tea and a slice of cake in return do you? You set the rules of engagement when you broke in and made threats and those rules are certainly not enshrined in law. You transgressed the law when you entered with the intention of harming another human being if you didn't get what you wanted. If someone responds to those threats (percieved or otherwise) and happens to be better at dishing out violence than you then tough shit I'm afraid. The whole ante was raised the minute that you (illegally) walked through the door with the purpose of using violence to gain profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 Nobody should get away with killing intruders in this cause but I think appropriate force should be used at the first opportunity, you might not get another chance. If it happened to me, I would disable the intuder in such a way as PK describes even if it meant a stay up at Jurby.Well people should get away with killing intruders in many instances. If you are in a situation where you have been threatened with having your life taken away and you recognise this to be a serious possibility then you must take any means to stop them, even if that means killing them. Does the thief give up his rights as soon as he breaks into your house? - I think so.What rights are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 I think that if he'd been a white middle class rotarian then the judge would have shaken his hand not given him 30 months. As Mollag inadvertently said - sounds like Taliban justice. Don't want those Asians and their "eye for an eye" mentality taking justice into their own hands now do we?Well he did chase after them through the street and then kept smacking this guy round the head enough to cause him brain damage. He was no longer protecting his family but was rather exacting revenge. I don't suppose any judge can determine a sentence without taking that into consideration. Haven't read the whole thread, but if it's true that this chap chased the guy down the road, then the sentence is just. No problem using reasonable force whilst on your own premises, but once your house is clear of the scumbag, you should leave it there. If you use reasonable force, no court is going to convict you of wrong doing. I do not have any sympathy for the burglar / robber in any way, and also have no issue with him getting mullered, but the law is the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 Dolce No, you can stop someone without killing them, should you choose. Occasionally someone might die from intervention due to some pre-existing disease or weakness but that aside, if you baseball bat someone's head until you kill them, that is never ever acceptable. Nor is chasing them down the road when they have left the property and the immediate danger has ceased. Detain them yes, but no more. Nobody knows how they might react to this type of situation until it happens but even in the heat of the moment, continued blows to someone's head with a weapon, long after they have stopped attacking, cannot be justified. What rights? er, um, let's see now... the right not to have both legs broken by the person whose house they have just defiled and all the other so-called human rights that modern society bestows on some thieving violent shits so they sometimes end up walking away scott-free whilst the person defending their home goes to jail. This is a general observation/opinion so don't go cherry picking parts of it or the case under discussion to ridicule it (the last sentence is not directed at anyone in particular); Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 No, you can stop someone without killing them, should you choose. Occasionally someone might die from intervention due to some pre-existing disease or weakness but that aside, if you baseball bat someone's head until you kill them, that is never ever acceptable. Nor is chasing them down the road when they have left the property and the immediate danger has ceased. Detain them yes, but no more. Nobody knows how they might react to this type of situation until it happens but even in the heat of the moment, continued blows to someone's head with a weapon, long after they have stopped attacking, cannot be justified. We're talking about hypothetical situations now. If somebody else enters someone's home and then threatens to kill that person or uses a lethal weapon to maintain your compliance then carte blanche to the victim. The person cannot afford to weigh up whether or not they will come out of something alive and cannot bank on some belief that they can restrain another person. If they can end that situation with the least harm to themselves then they should do that. But as you say, it is a completely different situation with the perpetrators running down the road and being chased. The only reason why the guy is getting banged up is because the legal system cannot allow its citizens to use force and violence, that's for the State to monopolise. I do think it is wrong for this man to be gaoled then. Very wrong. I think it unfairly offers the legal system recognition and support whilst ignoring that in some situations people are that scared, angry, humiliated, and frustrated that other personal values (as opposed to abiding by the law) come to the fore. Perhaps people in these situations cannot act as rational as we would wish them to. What rights? er, um, let's see now... the right not to have both legs broken by the person whose house they have just defiled and all the other so-called human rights that modern society bestows on some thieving violent shits so they sometimes end up walking away scott-free whilst the person defending their home goes to jail. This is a general observation/opinion so don't go cherry picking parts of it or the case under discussion to ridicule it (the last sentence is not directed at anyone in particular);I don't know about rights. They just make issue confusing and somewhat nonsensical. As far as I am aware though it isn't the case of their being some sort of rights that lie on the side of assailants in these circumstances. Isn't it rather that in legal terms the response to being burglarised has to be 'proportionate'. Frankly, I don't know how the law can expect a measured and sensible response to a situation where a stranger enters your home at night. I'd be that shit scared I wouldn't know what to do. Whose to say in such a situation that the actions I take are rational or irrational when I am put in a terrifying situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 On a similar, though less dramatic, theme:Myleene Klass warned by police after scaring off intruders with knife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 On a similar, though less dramatic, theme:Myleene Klass warned by police after scaring off intruders with knife Fantastic, what a wonderful legal system the UK has, a woman home alone with her young daughter waves a knife at intruders who try to break in through a window and she gets warned by the police that she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon" – even in her own home – was illegal. What a load of utter bollocks, you couldn't make that one up if you tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share Posted January 11, 2010 The youths approached the kitchen window, before attempting to break into her garden shed, prompting Miss Klass to wave a kitchen knife to scare them away. It's not just a shed it's a Marks and Spencer Shed mmmmmmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Cricket bat guy freed by the Court of Appeal Nice to see a bit of common sense. The conviction is upheld (message - you went a bit too far) but the custodial sentence is replaced (message - there were extraordinary mitigating circumstances). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aimeejulia Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 he didn't really need to hit him that hard really, the cricket bat broke in 3 places and left the guy with permanent brain damage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.