Businessman facing life imprisonment for tackling burglars

[robfosters]

I'm all for the right to defend your home and people you love from intruders, but business premises are a different matter.

His home was not invaded in any way and him and his family were in no physical danger. The Police should have been called immediately, going down and beating them senseless is not acceptable in this situation.

Let the law deal with them. That's what they are their for. Also, the bloke is stupid as they could have ended up doing him if they had weapons.

 

[Freefaller]

Personally, from what I've read they are both guilty of different crimes - the jury thinks otherwise but as I've said earlier, I'm really not surprised.

If an individual decides to chase another down to perform a citizens arrest they should be willing to accept the consequences of those actions & the level of application of force they use.

Speaking form experience, I've been aware that every single time I've got involved I've risked a brush with the law (which is why I'm damn careful to ensure I don't over-step reasonable force).

It's very difficult to differentiate the two, but the level of severity of the injuries indicates otherwise - but as a society, in general we don't need vigilantism.

I agree the vigilantism shouldn't be promoted or endorsed - but at the same time getting justice for a crime (i.e. the guy that hit you) is important. If it means I have to sit on the person, and for whatever reason in the struggle the guy gets injured, I shouldn't face prosecution unless of course I went to town on them. Ideally you'd have witnesses who sees what happens, and help you catch the guy meaning less chance of injury - that would mitigate any repercussions.

What I don't like is that the system doesn't support people to defend, or act on crime. If I saw someone hit you, I wouldn't think about the repercussions of any legal impact on me, as I shouldn't have to as I am trying to bring the person to justice by stopping them.

I agree, beating the guy (and the evidence is easy to see - i.e. how many times a person was struck) is not on, but getting into a tussle, where he suddenly becomes aggressive towards me, and tries to hit me, just proves that he is showing complete disregard to the law or other people - if he gets injured then, I don't think any repercussions should be even contemplated.

 

[bitslice]

Why does being charged with burglary only warrant a £75 fine?

Even if he is only crutches he could still do some kind of community service,
I'm thinking replacement traffic cone on the M6.

 

[bitslice]

I'm all for the right to defend your home and people you love from intruders, but business premises are a different matter.

If you don't have a business to support you, you don't have a home, or probably a family after the wife gets bored of being poor.
It's not always thieves that ruin your business, governments do too

 

[rpg]

What an utterly stupid thing to say, but thanks for highlighting the level of public idiocy & emotional instability related to this kind of case.

What an utterly ridiculous response. Have you not read the vast majority of people's opinions on this thread? I love the way someone like you dismisses other people's opinions simply because you don't share them. Learn to accept people's feelings towards disgusting thieving wasters, and take your arrogance elsewhere.

My implication towards Zethor was that if he feels so terribly about this scumbag getting what he deserved, then he probably feels unwarranted and excessive compassion towards others who don't deserve it either.

I'm glad you weren't the judge, or else this innocent man would be going to prison. But thankfully you're not, and he won't be.

So get off your high horse.

 

[elmarko]

I agree the vigilantism shouldn't be promoted or endorsed - but at the same time getting justice for a crime (i.e. the guy that hit you) is important. If it means I have to sit on the person, and for whatever reason in the struggle the guy gets injured, I shouldn't face prosecution unless of course I went to town on them. Ideally you'd have witnesses who sees what happens, and help you catch the guy meaning less chance of injury - that would mitigate any repercussions.

What I don't like is that the system doesn't support people to defend, or act on crime. If I saw someone hit you, I wouldn't think about the repercussions of any legal impact on me, as I shouldn't have to as I am trying to bring the person to justice by stopping them.

I agree, beating the guy (and the evidence is easy to see - i.e. how many times a person was struck) is not on, but getting into a tussle, where he suddenly becomes aggressive towards me, and tries to hit me, just proves that he is showing complete disregard to the law or other people - if he gets injured then, I don't think any repercussions should be even contemplated.

I do understand your point & I agree in most cases.

But a key difference is you are not the type to continue beating them or use excessive force - accidentally causing injury to somebody while defending another is fine & will be hardly likely to get you in trouble with the law (I've done it in the past & the police congratulated me for going to the aid of somebody).

But all parties do need to take responsibility for the repercussions of those actions, if the end result is what is usually described as GBH then they should expect closer scrutiny from the law.

I'm completely in favour of genuine self-defence - even to the point that somebody could get killed (if it was done out of genuine fear - such as a home break-in, sleeping kids, bump into a stranger in the house at night with no idea of his intentions etc) - but this situation is very far removed from that.

The fact was at the time he was in no danger, decided to put himself in a position he may need to defend himself - then used (from what I've read) what I'd describe as excessive force to do it.

 

[dacads]

 

[elmarko]

What an utterly ridiculous response. Have you not read the vast majority of people's opinions on this thread? I love the way someone like you dismisses other people's opinions simply because you don't share them. Learn to accept people's feelings towards disgusting thieving wasters, and take your arrogance elsewhere.

I'm not dismissing them, (well, except idiots who start talking about wanting to kill burglars or implying that other people who don't share your idiotic views would allow paedophiles to roam free ... oh wait that was you...) - I just don't agree with them.

I'm sorry to break up your 'rage-fest'.

 

[Johno please?]

One of the burglars is still in crutches 10 months later,


I don't agree. Society should protect the rights of everyone, including those who choose a life of crime.

Awwww my heart bleeds!

I do not care for people who flaunt the law for their own gains.

Problem with our society is just that tbh

Exactly.

 

[pitchfork]

Because murder is worse than theft? (as you don't seem to be talking about self-defence here).

Can you not see how allowing murder for trespassing might be open for potential abuse.

"Hey, Pitchfork - come on over few a few beers!".

(Loads gun)

Murder is a broad term, lets say I killed a dictator who planned to massacre hundreds of people - Is that a worse crime than theft?

I can see the potential abuse but those kind of situations will always point to it, known friend/ acquaintance gets shot while trying to rob you? Highly suspect.

 

[sports_brah]

One of the burglars is still in crutches 10 months later, they were not small fractures. Anyone who is capable of such levels of violence should be in prison, no excuse. I'd rather have thieves running around freely than raging lunatics capable of such assaults.

I don't agree. Society should protect the rights of everyone, including those who choose a life of crime.

You chat such ****.

A friends family were attacked by burglars, they opened up the door and the dad was hit in the head with a hammer.

If you chose a life of burglary/robbery, you are stepping outside of the social convention, and therefore out of its protection as well.

Good on the guy for giving them a hiding. One of the chaps was 53 years old, probably caused decades of misery.

 

[RDM]

I'm completely in favour of genuine self-defence - even to the point that somebody could get killed (if it was done out of genuine fear - such as a home break-in, sleeping kids, bump into a stranger in the house at night with no idea of his intentions etc) - but this situation is very far removed from that.

The fact was at the time he was in no danger, decided to put himself in a position he may need to defend himself - then used (from what I've read) what I'd describe as excessive force to do it.

The law also allows you to use self defence for property as well as people, with that in mind it somewhat changes what and when it is acceptable to use force. You may not agree with being able to use force to defend your property but that is more ideological than anything else.

 

[Freefaller]

I do understand your point & I agree in most cases.

But a key difference is you are not the type to continue beating them or use excessive force - accidentally causing injury to somebody while defending another is fine & will be hardly likely to get you in trouble with the law (I've done it in the past & the police congratulated me for going to the aid of somebody).

But all parties do need to take responsibility for the repercussions of those actions, if the end result is what is usually described as GBH then they should expect closer scrutiny from the law.

I'm completely in favour of genuine self-defence - even to the point that somebody could get killed (if it was done out of genuine fear - such as a home break-in, sleeping kids, bump into a stranger in the house at night with no idea of his intentions etc) - but this situation is very far removed from that.

The fact was at the time he was in no danger, decided to put himself in a position he may need to defend himself - then used (from what I've read) what I'd describe as excessive force to do it.

Yes taking responsibility for ones actions is important - however whilst I do understand what you mean, I can't help but not feel too bad for the crooks in this case, for the sole reason that I think he has been a victim of crime on numerous occasions and undoubtedly felt that the legal system was impotent. Does it make it right? In the eyes of the law, no - and quite fairly too, however, as much as don't condone violence or eye for an eye sort of mentality, and believe that justice and legality should be applied evenly, there are times where the exceptions helps to make the rules.

 

[elmarko]

Murder is a broad term, lets say I killed a dictator who planned to massacre hundreds of people - Is that a worse crime than theft?

What does that have to do with anything?.

Are you saying that murdering a thief who is running away is comparable to murdering a dictator which is planning to massacre hundreds of people?.

Is this really your point?.

 

[sports_brah]

I do understand your point & I agree in most cases.

But a key difference is you are not the type to continue beating them or use excessive force - accidentally causing injury to somebody while defending another is fine & will be hardly likely to get you in trouble with the law (I've done it in the past & the police congratulated me for going to the aid of somebody).

But all parties do need to take responsibility for the repercussions of those actions, if the end result is what is usually described as GBH then they should expect closer scrutiny from the law.

I'm completely in favour of genuine self-defence - even to the point that somebody could get killed (if it was done out of genuine fear - such as a home break-in, sleeping kids, bump into a stranger in the house at night with no idea of his intentions etc) - but this situation is very far removed from that.

The fact was at the time he was in no danger, decided to put himself in a position he may need to defend himself - then used (from what I've read) what I'd describe as excessive force to do it.

Again, such a crock of rubbish. I believe you should be allowed to access, examine and defend your property, than feel that you're "playing yourself in danger".

The place was his, he heard an alarm, and he investigated. According to your logic he should have sat at home and waited for the possible arrival of police (useless at the best of times).

 

[anything I don't mind]

The way the law works without a state is that you are allowed to defend your property to any extent necessary but you are not allowed to sit and wait for people to enter your property so that you can beat them up and kill them.

Sufficient justification has to exist before force is used. If it can be proven that the person entering the property was not malicious then they are guilty of excessive force. Example would be someone jumping over the wall to fetch a ball. If they were beat up by the person who owns the property that would not be justified.

Just the same if someone walks across your front garden you do not immediately have the right to attack them in any way just because they are on your property, even if they are holding a weapon. It is only when sufficient evidence exists that their actions are malicious that force can be used.

It is a common misunderstanding where people think without a government but with private property laws, that property owners have the right to murder any trespassers. That is not correct. There are laws that allow trespassing, if the person is in danger, if the person is using the property to get to another property and his path is impinged by the property. The property owner first has to ascertain the motive of the trespasser before taking defensive force.

In this case noticing that they had a weapon and were looking to steal, is enough justification under common law to defend his property. If he was unaware of the trespassers he could have been at the other end of the weapon.

 

[elmarko]

The law also allows you to use self defence for property as well as people, with that in mind it somewhat changes what and when it is acceptable to use force. You may not agree with being able to use force to defend your property but that is more ideological than anything else.

I agree, but also the level of force applied when it is deemed acceptable is also a key aspect.

I'm not saying the use of force is always wrong, just public opinion on the matter is skewed irrationally in favour of excessive force due to the inability to be rational about the situation. Even to the point multiple posters have expressed a desire to be able to use unlimited amounts of force without repercussions.

Yes taking responsibility for ones actions is important - however whilst I do understand what you mean, I can't help but not feel too bad for the crooks in this case, for the sole reason that I think he has been a victim of crime on numerous occasions and undoubtedly felt that the legal system was impotent. Does it make it right? In the eyes of the law, no - and quite fairly too, however, as much as don't condone violence or eye for an eye sort of mentality, and believe that justice and legality should be applied evenly, there are times where the exceptions helps to make the rules.

The crooks are undoubtedly in the wrong I agree - but I don't believe this in any way should give immunity for the person who's property is stolen if the end result of the actions is the breaking of another law.

It's simply a risk taken when a person takes the law into his own hands, he didn't have to chase them - it wasn't a case of self-defence in the normal sense which allows potentially extreme physical response I don't believe.

 

[rpg]

I'm not dismissing them, (well, except idiots who start talking about wanting to kill burglars or implying that other people who don't share your idiotic views would allow paedophiles to roam free ... oh wait that was you...) - I just don't agree with them.

Wow, that was a long bracket!

I'm sorry to break up your 'rage-fest'.

No problem - at least you didn't break up Mr. Woodhouse's though, then we'd still have one more able-bodied scumbag roaming the woodlands in Wales!

 

[dowie]

So retarded

Self defence rules cover self defence not chasing someone down and dishing out a punishment beating or shooting someone in the back Tony Martin style...

There are plenty of people who've beaten the **** out of intruders and have been absolutely fine as far as the law is concerned...

 

[JonJ678]

The thought occurs that if the police had done anything about the previous, repeated break ins he might have had more faith calling 999.

If people have been robbing you over and over again and the police simply do not give a ****, eventually most people will stop calling 999.

No sympathy with the burglars and considerable annoyance with the police who were impotent to prevent the burglaries but quite happy to arrest the business owner.