More evidence that the law protects the criminals

Discussion in 'The Clubhouse Bar' started by Gavin, Jan 20, 2010.

  1. Gavin

    Gavin Guest

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bu...rts/8469850.stm



    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
    [/b]This is similar to what happened with Myleene Klass. A group of teenagers were trespassing on her garden, looking in through the windows, and scaring her daughter. Miss Klass then lifted up a knife and waved it at the group through the window. She was then told, by the police that she was not allowed to carry an offensive weapon in her own home. Seriously, what is the world coming to?
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. shtove

    shtove Guest

    I take the opposite view. Self defence is essential, but this guy went beyond the bounds. I think it's a simple concept but hard to judge when the circumstances are so distressing - as long as a jury has decided that way I'm content that justice has been done. The punishment is another matter.

    The UK had a big debate about this years ago, when Tony Martin shot a fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun and killed him. The idea was that a dead burglar doesn't burgle again, but in my view it was plain murder. He was charged with that offence and convicted, but he had it reduced to manslaughter on appeal - his defence was the laughable liberal excuse of reduced capacity.

    I think the Myleen Klass thing was just a bit of publicity. And I am in favour of people keeping guns to defend themselves - against the gubmint because their goons and bureaucrats are the biggest threat to liberty.
     
  4. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    If I caught an intruder in my house, they'd do well to walk again once I've finished with them.
     
  5. feicarsinn

    feicarsinn Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullitt @ Jan 20 2010, 07:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Agreed. Lots of hurls round the gaff, smack right in the head or kneecaps. No sympathy for scummers.
     
  6. MunsterMan

    MunsterMan Guest

    We are changing the law in Ireland soon that would make using "reasonable force" against intruders perfectly legal.
     
  7. bristol-iain

    bristol-iain Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jan 20 2010, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Admittedly permanently injuring the intruder is ott (although I'd hope that was unintentional) and the shotgun thing was murder but often violence is the only way, I'd highly doubt an intruder would respond well to "excuse me but would you mind putting my tv down and leaving the premises" (or words to that effect) so a frying pan to the noggin is acceptable to me.
     
  8. shtove

    shtove Guest

    What do you do when the scum is running away and therefore no longer an immediate threat to life and property?

    Go to the police. But that doesn't amount to much, so much better if you have a gun and are known to have a gun. That way the scum don't come near in the first place - unless they want to nick the gun. f***ing scum - you can't win!
     
  9. feicarsinn

    feicarsinn Guest

    Very hard to think " Well I suppose my property isn't in danger, better let the c*nt go."

    I'm quite liberal on the issue of people breaking into your gaff. Anything goes as long as you don't kill them.
     
  10. MunsterMan

    MunsterMan Guest

    The view in the US certainly seems to be a good burglar is a dead burglar, even one shot while fleeing the scene.

    There was a case here a few years ago of an elderly farmer shooting a Pikey who had been tormenting him for weeks while the Pikey was running away, the farmer walked over to the body on the ground and put another round in him, and got manslaughter if I recall correctly.

    Another side to the argument is if burglars expect to be met with force they will be more likely to use more excessive force themselves, but I have no problem with a Hurley to the back of an intruders head.
     
  11. Gavin

    Gavin Guest

    Shtove, to me it seems like you feel that it is ok for a burglar to tie up someone's family and tell them that he is going to kill them, but if someone comes in to help they are not allowed to use a lot of physical force as they might harm the intruder badly - maybe that is just me. IMO too many bad things happen in the world, to good people, but when good people try and protect their family and possessions they are not allowed.
    I remember reading an story in which a women called the police to tell them that an intruder was in her garage and she was scared. The police told her that they were too busy and couldn't send anyone for another two hours. The lady hung up and took matters into her own hands. Ten minutes later she called the police again to tell them not to worry because she had shot the intruder - the police came around straight away - strange that? The woman was arrested and she was charged.
    Perhaps I am too harsh, but in my view you should be able to use as much force as you want when you are in danger. It is also the same with people who have been found guilty of murder and robberies. If they are guilty of murder - death penalty, none of the 20-35 years in prision but only 15 if you are good.
     
  12. Olyy

    Olyy Guest

    I think reasonable force against an intruder should be (could be? im not sure) legal.
    If the burglar did attack him, and got hit with the cricket bat in the process, while not "acceptable", it's jusifiable. However this guy chase the guy down and beat him half to death.
    I'm really in two minds about it all, part of me thinks, good on him, they tied up/threatened to kill him and his family, but the other part thinks it went too far
     
  13. shtove

    shtove Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gavin @ Jan 21 2010, 08:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I agree, but only with as much force as we need to repel the threat. We all feel the temptation to use as much force as we want, but that's the Wild West.

    So a jury gets down to this question: where's the threat when the scum are running away? Nowhere, unless you fear future attacks. In this case there was fear of such attacks - not enough to justify a cricket bat beating, but just enough to excuse that reaction and mitigate the punishment. Seems just to me.
     
  14. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    We live in a world where if a burglar falls through an upstairs window and injures himself on your property, he can actually sue you. Crazy, but true - It's a Health and Safety loophole that means business have to spend thousands on replacing rooflights of factories into mansafe systems, even if the roof is asbestos and considered a "no-go" area.
     
  15. munster

    munster Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullitt @ Jan 20 2010, 09:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Ya I heard a while ago that a man broke into a house and fell on a knife and sued the owners thousands!!!
     
  16. Gavin

    Gavin Guest

    It gets to a point where if the criminals escape they can always come back and do the same again, where-as if you knock the tar out of them, they are not going to do it again.
     
  17. munster

    munster Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gavin @ Jan 20 2010, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Well if you have a gun theres no need to shoot them if you just shoot at them I think they get the message...
     
  18. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jan 20 2010, 07:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    As with a lot of these cases, when you've been held prisoner and had your family threatened, it kind of changes things and throws rationality out of the window.

    So when you break free and drive the attackers from your home and property, of course, the rational and sensible thing to do is to dial 999 like any civilian and call in the pros.

    However, if you've seen someone threaten violence against your own flesh and blood in a highly stressful environment such as a violent burgulary then all rational thought is clouded by red mist.

    And when the opportunity presents itself to chase the bad guy and deal your own brand of jusitice then naturally you're going to grab a cricket bat and beat his brains in. I would do the same primarily because I know I would be absolutely beside myself with rage and fury.

    Don't say I agree with it though but I can perfectly understand the actions of the man.

    Where this whole "mob justice" thing starts to take more sinister turn is when you have the likes of the Daily Mail congratulating Loyalist and Republican dissidents tarring and feathering suspected criminals. That it not only pro-active rather than reactive, it also encourages the public to call them rather than call the police.

    There was a fantastic program on Radio 4 about mob justice in Ulster and I've had the misfortune to see photos of women tarred and feathered for the crime of sleeping with British soldiers. Theres a limit and I think its at chasing the guy with a cricket bat and its not with shotguns, tar or feathers.
     
  19. stormer2010

    stormer2010 Guest

    IMO if someone comes into your home and has no respect for your rights and that of your family, they forfeit their own. Simple as that.

    But once outside and running away, I would say that some semblence of reasonability is called for. A cricket bat to the head while running is pretty reasonable IMO. A second go at him would have been one step too far.
     
  20. shtove

    shtove Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Jan 21 2010, 06:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    As with a lot of these cases, when you've been held prisoner and had your family threatened, it kind of changes things and throws rationality out of the window.

    So when you break free and drive the attackers from your home and property, of course, the rational and sensible thing to do is to dial 999 like any civilian and call in the pros.

    However, if you've seen someone threaten violence against your own flesh and blood in a highly stressful environment such as a violent burgulary then all rational thought is clouded by red mist.

    And when the opportunity presents itself to chase the bad guy and deal your own brand of jusitice then naturally you're going to grab a cricket bat and beat his brains in. I would do the same primarily because I know I would be absolutely beside myself with rage and fury.

    Don't say I agree with it though but I can perfectly understand the actions of the man.

    Where this whole "mob justice" thing starts to take more sinister turn is when you have the likes of the Daily Mail congratulating Loyalist and Republican dissidents tarring and feathering suspected criminals. That it not only pro-active rather than reactive, it also encourages the public to call them rather than call the police.

    There was a fantastic program on Radio 4 about mob justice in Ulster and I've had the misfortune to see photos of women tarred and feathered for the crime of sleeping with British soldiers. Theres a limit and I think its at chasing the guy with a cricket bat and its not with shotguns, tar or feathers.
    [/b][/quote]
    We don't disagree. But remember the mob used to be HM's security force in Norn Iron - thugs with badges. Not a glorious period in British history.
     
  21. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    No. No. I completely disagree with that point and as the son of someone who served at the height of the troubles that drives me insane.

    Various British governments and the civil service between 1950 and 1997 were frankly rubbish. At no point, even in parts under Thatcher's era were the British ever decisive or ever completely agreed that using....armed mobs was a credible tool for restoring order. Yes, there may have been a couple of voices but for the most part British decision making was frankly in paralysis and half the time they were being led around by the Ulster Unionists.

    At no point did the Government or the Army condone or back loyalist mobs. Never. I will argue that to the death with you.

    Heres a skeleton out of the cupboard, one of my Dad's friends? Sgt Michael Willetts of 3 PARA. He was at the front desk of the Springfield Road RUC station recording a complaint from a young catholic mother whose house had suffered damage from an early morning raid earlier that day. At that moment a youth threw a bomb into the building. He threw the mother and her kid into the corner and covered them and took the blast and saved their lives. When he was stretchered out of the building he was spat on and stoned.

    He died later that day.

    Did he approve of the mobs? No be bloody didn't. Did he think they were "HM's security force"? No he bloody didn't.

    People in Ulster have enough ghosts to deal with but I have a father whose life was irrevocably changed between 1968 and 1972 and because of the immature and childish actions of the two sides in Ulster and the shambolic way the British government handled itself he can't get those years back now so now he and his family have to deal with that and pick up the pieces.

    Sorry but that is quite a sore subject for me.
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page