wtf, victim of burglary got jailed, while THE BURGLAR got away!

[QUOTE="tormentor313"]but cant you kill someone if they come onto your property? seabiscuit8686

[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"][QUOTE="tormentor313"]but cant you kill someone if they come onto your property? Luminouslight

Yeah, I don't know how anyone could defend the Burglar. Someone breaks into your house, ties up your family and threatens/ robs them/you? Ide think anyone would beat that burglar to death, whats wrong with the world?

Yeah, I don't know how anyone could defend the Burglar. Someone breaks into your house, ties up your family and threatens/ robs them/you? Ide think anyone would beat that burglar to death, whats wrong with the world?

Shmiity

i really hate how modern laws works. laws are meant to protect the good people from harm, it seems that nowdays it's to protect those with better lawyers and "correct" by technical rules, rather than logic. some argue that killing off the burglar is wrong, and i believe it is wrong, but then when you're put in a traumatising situation, rational thinking is severely affected, so it's possible that he attacked the burglar on the basis of instincts. i wont support the victim, but if the law actually works, the victim should have gotten merely a punishment of physchological sessions, and the actual criminal gets jail time, not otherwise. how are crimes going to be prevented when the laws protect them?

Permanent brain injury isn't exactly getting off scott free.

RearNakedChoke

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

[QUOTE="binpink"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Ya, I was talking about US/State law

Case involved a house that was not the primary residence (inherited it)
-kept getting robbed while owners away
-they set up a shotgun trap in a room (open door = boom)
-robber lost a leg
-they go to jail Law says life and limb > stuff

rawsavon

Yea that's the one! Some people scare me.

Yes...

What if some kids (age 12 or so) broke in for LULZ (like many boys do at that age)
-take out an adult leg = kid's torso

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Wow. Just wow. I guess I'll just chalk this one up to it being the UK.

I know where I live you would not find a jury of 12 to convict. We had an incident some years back where two women were working in a liquor store. The older woman (60ish) was behind the counter and the middle aged gal (40ish) was in the back room. Three pieces of human debris came in with a ball bat, hit the older gal knocking her to the floor. They proceeded to try to figure out how to get in the register, then finally decided to just pick it up and run out the door. As they are running out the door, the gal comes out of the back room with a shotgun and the older gal comes up off the floor with her pistol in hand. These two women waste all 3 of these pieces of crap as they are running out the door.

Verdict: Not Guilty. Justice was done, in my opinion. In fact, if it were up to me these women would get a medal for public service. No doubt if they had let these scumbags get away they would have victimized more law abiding citizens.

If you commit violence against innocent citizens, you forfeit your expectation to survive the experience.

rawsavon

Wrong. Link

You can't make blanket statements about law especially when dealing with the U.S.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Was going to post, but this summarized my thoughts. The law is clear...life > property -you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect you life, not stuff (shotgun trap court case for example)Ontain

Exactly, a competent lawyer could definitely prove this was a crime of passion, which is a legal defense in some places.

There was a case here in canada a few years back, some guy kept breaking into a families home, taking everything they could find and threatening to kill them, and they kept getting away. So one night the husband stayed up waiting for them, and by chance they came. Only this time he sat at the top of the stairs with a bat in his hands, he hit one of the guys and put him in a coma with severe brain damage - all with one hit. Guess what happened? He got put in jail for attempted murder and i think excessive force. Had he killed the man he most likely would have got off - thats the twisted part. Because here in canada, we can make our pedophiles, killers and career criminals regular joes and put them back into society with our screwed up justice system.

0diablo0

He doesn't get to break the law just because someone else did the same to him.

People up in this thread need to understand the line between self defense and and unnecessary violence, personally I would have done the same, but I know in my mind that I'm going to pay for it.

but cant you kill someone if they come onto your property? tormentor313

Mistakenly? Yes since it's careless behaviour beyond excuse to mistakenly attack a wrong person.

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

Mistakenly? Yes since it's careless behaviour beyond excuse to mistakenly attack a wrong person.

LJS9502_basic

I'm not sure vengeance is the case in this story though.

This is what the article says about the attack:

"Mr Hussain made a break for freedom by throwing a coffee table at his attackers. He and Tokeer chased the gang and brought Salem to the ground in a front garden.

Reading Crown Court heard how Mr Hussain and his brother then beat Salem while he lay on the ground, using a cricket bat, a pole and a hockey stick - leaving him with a fractured skull and brain damage following the 'sustained' attack."

How can you be so sure that this wasn't a crime of passion or that Mr. Hussain wasn't temporarily insane? The psychiatrist's take on the situation seems to support these ideas.

I can't believe what i've been reading. Following an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth philosophy is going to only bring more violence and more misery.

The man committed an act of brutal vengeance. Unnecessary as the robber presented no immediate threat to his family. The robber may have caused the family stress, etc, but he did not harm (as in pernemant brain damage) them as the two men did.

It appears that so many of you are vile animals. I am disgusted. And as one person stated earlier. I bloody will follow my moral code to the grave.

IAMTHEJOKER88

The robber tied up the man and his family. The only reason they weren't harmed was because the man got free and chased the robber off. You make it sound like the robber was making the family cupcakes when this crazed man turned into a werewolf and attacked him.

You can follow your moral code the grave, but I only pray you don't drag your friends and family with you.

And if criminals met greater resistence when commiting crimes there would be less crime.

I have a suggestion though, call it a comprimise. We'll give homeowners more rights to defend their familiy and property, and in exchange create a website where people like you can add your address as a no-defense home where criminals are free to rob and pillage and you can stick to your moral code. That way everyone gets what they want.

This is why we should just revert back to the tribal system. Justice being served by the leaders of the tribe.:P

[QUOTE="IAMTHEJOKER88"]

I can't believe what i've been reading. Following an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth philosophy is going to only bring more violence and more misery.

The man committed an act of brutal vengeance. Unnecessary as the robber presented no immediate threat to his family. The robber may have caused the family stress, etc, but he did not harm (as in pernemant brain damage) them as the two men did.

It appears that so many of you are vile animals. I am disgusted. And as one person stated earlier. I bloody will follow my moral code to the grave.

I_am_george

The robber tied up the man and his family. The only reason they weren't harmed was because the man got free and chased the robber off. You make it sound like the robber was making the family cupcakes when this crazed man turned into a werewolf and attacked him.

You can follow your moral code the grave, but I only pray you don't drag your friends and family with you.

And if criminals met greater resistence when commiting crimes there would be less crime.

I have a suggestion though, call it a comprimise. We'll give homeowners more rights to defend their familiy and property, and in exchange create a website where people like you can add your address as a no-defense home where criminals are free to rob and pillage and you can stick to your moral code. That way everyone gets what they want.

He chased him out of the house, and fractured the guy's skull in the front yard, while he was on the ground...Dark__Link