I also understand. But that does not make it right and it does not mean the laws should be changed. In civilised community you can NOT have vigilante justice.
Homeowner fights off knife-wielding burglars, gets 30 months; burglar spared jail
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
I also understand. But that does not make it right and it does not mean the laws should be changed. In civilised community you can NOT have vigilante justice.
The barbarians have gathered, it would seem. Let's just mutilate people for stealing some sweets from a shop. Maybe bring back public hangings. Oohh, I know, random executions!
Good lord.
He took things into his own hand, used excessive force and violence to bring revenge on a fleeing criminal. He deserves his sentence.
That said, justice and revenge do not mix. People who think revenge = justice are deluded.
Edit: I see a lot of people are basing their reactions by placing themselves in the position of the sentenced, that is flawed.
That's not to say I wouldn't react the same way, but I would still be deserving of a 30 month jail sentence.
Good lord.
He took things into his own hand, used excessive force and violence to bring revenge on a fleeing criminal. He deserves his sentence.
That said, justice and revenge do not mix. People who think revenge = justice are deluded.
Edit: I see a lot of people are basing their reactions by placing themselves in the position of the sentenced, that is flawed.
That's not to say I wouldn't react the same way, but I would still be deserving of a 30 month jail sentence.
Quite amusing to see the number of people equating revenge with justice in this thread. That's a very primitive point of view.
EDIT: Beaten to it! ^
An eye for an eye is not the way forward. Lowering yourself to the level of the criminal makes you a worse person, if anything.
EDIT: Beaten to it! ^
An eye for an eye is not the way forward. Lowering yourself to the level of the criminal makes you a worse person, if anything.
Had he been holding a knife to them at time then fair enough, but he was running away. He posed no threat, should have just held him there until the police came.
Which is why he only got 2.5 years and not a lot longer. Diminished responsibilities doesn't mean none at all.
The subject heading is completely untrue. Either the OP is a liar or they didn't read the story they quoted and linked to. Either way, this thread is baseless propaganda.
Scenario 1:
A group of people hunting someone down and battering them with clubs until they're so brain-damaged that they're legally unfit to plea.
Scenario 2:
One person fighting off several armed people in defence of self and others.
I fail to see how anyone of sound mind would mistake one for the other.
Scenario 1:
A group of people hunting someone down and battering them with clubs until they're so brain-damaged that they're legally unfit to plea.
Scenario 2:
One person fighting off several armed people in defence of self and others.
I fail to see how anyone of sound mind would mistake one for the other.
Last edited:
This
Crikey Acid, are you a prosecution lawyer? All of the points you make are rational and intelligent. However, I'm assuming you are also human and must have some degree of sympathy for the guy? Please just try and imagine the emotions he was going through. Yes he broke the law and that I've not once disputed.
Why? Tony Martin planned and carried out a deliberate killing, shooting two people in the back as they ran away. Then he popped next door for a cup of tea, not bothering to tell his neighbour about the unimportant fact that he'd just shot someone, who was either already dead or bleeding to death at that moment.
This incident is more brutal, but the Tony Martin incident was far more cold-blooded and resulted in more serious injury (i.e. death).
I think they're comparable.
I think everyone in this thread has massive sympathy for the guy. Even the judge and senior policeman did.
But as said, he broke the law and he's got off with a very light sentence for GBH with intent.
imo they went too far, they deserve what they get... If they had chased him down and held him until police came, or at least you know punched him once or twice then I would be on their side.
However panning someone over the head with cricket bats and metal poles when he presents no present danger (he was running away) is despicable.
However panning someone over the head with cricket bats and metal poles when he presents no present danger (he was running away) is despicable.
yes, but people are saying he shouldn't be charged or the law should be changed. I have both sympathy for him and also realise the judge made the right decision.
The tony martin case ...
Didnt these 2 theives keep coming back time after time after time ... making the man a prisoner in his own home ???? The justice / police sysem let him down and therefor he had to take action
Action taken - no more theives in his premises
Blisssss
Didnt these 2 theives keep coming back time after time after time ... making the man a prisoner in his own home ???? The justice / police sysem let him down and therefor he had to take action
Action taken - no more theives in his premises
Blisssss
Scorza, you're not very good at picking these cases to pin your 'disgust' on. The chap beat someone to permanant injury long after any threat was over, that is not self defence by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, it's not even self defence in the US states with the strongest castle doctrine (eg Texas).
He was lucky to only get 30 months.
He was lucky to only get 30 months.
Its pretty easy to judge the guy from the safety of your own home, knowing that most of you have never been in such an awful situation, and I pray that you never will be. Do I think he took things too far? Without a doubt, but I would also argue that the 'victim' placed himself in this situation by committing the crime in the first place. Had he not been in the house, making vile threats against the mans family then things would not have escalated from there.