Businessman facing life imprisonment for tackling burglars
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Imagine the stress, the financial worry though, of having to get good council to protect yourself.. This should have never gone to prosecution. He should have been free from prosecution due to someone else stealing from his property. What a joke !
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,154
Some people in this thread need to wake up and get real, Can't believe anyone would think he deserves the "book?" throwing at him or that he was in the wrong..
Try putting yourself in his situation with the stress levels he was under against two burglars when they started laying into him with a piece of wood..
You mice never ever got angry ?
wondering if you have fish symbols prominently displayed somewhere " Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth." whilst letting everyone else take it off them afterwards... pass me a sick bucket .. Rant over !
Good on the guy and the Jury for letting him go..
Try putting yourself in his situation with the stress levels he was under against two burglars when they started laying into him with a piece of wood..
You mice never ever got angry ?
wondering if you have fish symbols prominently displayed somewhere " Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth." whilst letting everyone else take it off them afterwards... pass me a sick bucket .. Rant over !
Good on the guy and the Jury for letting him go..
You forget that many here clearly live a shelter life, especially in their ivory towers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
All crimes, ever? Or just the ones that aren't committed spontaneously? I bet you stick to exactly 70mph on the motorway.
Clearly you've never heard of the Occupier's Liability Act then, and clearly there are people in this thread who are massively ignorant of how the law actually works and think it should be overridden with their common sense, instinctual/personal moral values.
Whatever, it's all a capitalist outrage anyway. Really wish human beings could do without this excessive use of violence and primitive sense of possessiveness/ownership. If only there was enough to go around for everyone,....*starts singing Imagine by Lennon
On the other hand I guess you could argue that the victim who took matters into his own hands was acting as people would in an anarchistic society. All very interesting moral and sociological territory.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,154
It's a bit of an unfounded assumption to assert that people who disagree with the use of what many believe to be excessive force/view the situation differently must have grown up sheltered.
Unless of course you consider a rough part of Birmingham an ivory tower.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
As the law currently stands on what basis should it not have gone to prosecution? The CPS must have reviewed the facts and determined that there was a case to answer, a jury disagreed and found the man not guilty but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was wrong to bring the prosecution - even if the reason was to clarify the existing law. It's actually a pretty high bar when considering injuries caused to burglars via self-defence so the actual risk of prison is relatively low - probably not all that comforting for the chap but you've got to near as damnit murder the burglar without them presenting a threat before you're at risk of prison. You could also rightly say it's hardly a pleasant position for the defendant to be in to act effectively as a test case to clarify a point of law but sometimes that is unavoidable
"Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife."
Although I agree, just because someone views a situation differently to you doesn't automatically mean you can imply anything useful about their life or what caused them to come to that viewpoint. Taking an endpoint and attempting to extrapolate backwards with, at best, limited information leaves a distinct risk of being wrong.
How is that mentally unstable?
I'm completely aware of how unethical that is, I simply don't care.
Last edited:
If everyone acted the way this man acted, taking the law into their own hands, chasing down criminals and severely crippling them, it would only mean that criminals come better prepared next time. If the laws were written in such a way to reflect some of the views I've read in this thread "I'd put them down, I'd cripple them for life" etc. they would be laws by name only as in reality we'd just have anarchy.
Most Judge Dredd internet warriors that have commented so far don't bother considering how comfortable it is to live in the cushion of civilised society, which happens only due to the enforcement of laws. In order for that to work, the scum of the society must be protected just like the rest, it's as simple as that.
Ignore the laws and you get anarchy, you get mob mentality, mob trails, mob punishment and, most importantly, you get a situation where no one is safe anymore because you can never know when the mob will turn on you.
"When the chips are down, these...These civilized people...they'll eat each other."
Because the desire to torture people for theft I doubt correlates well with mental stability.
The desire is completely disconnected from morality, disproportionate to the given crime & if acted upon would be showing a willingness to risk severe imprisonment out of a desire to inflict pain on another.
Last edited:
The moral of the story, don't inform the police when you've fought off burglars. Just make sure they can't do it again and let them leave. Involving the police for such matters is usually a massive waste of time and may actively hinder you or have yourself arrested.
Don't think the burglars would admit to burglary if you let them go after you've fought them off.
Don't think the burglars would admit to burglary if you let them go after you've fought them off.
You'd be surprised.
Give them a good bumming, they're less likely to go to the police with that.
While I agree wit you I also agree with those that say anyone that commits a crime against another man relinquishes any right they once had as a citizen of that country.
Also, poor Woodhouse:
Can also understand that in the heat of the moment fight or flight decided on fight and adrenaline set in.
It would only correlate with mental instability if I was unable to recognize the disproportion, I can see it's disproportionate, cruel, and wrong. I'd do it anyway and wouldn't feel the least bit bad about it after. But I'm in control of that - it's not mental instability, no red haze, just conscious decision.
I'm a no half measures kind of guy, I'm completely unafraid to cause a great deal of pain to those who have wronged me - maybe you don't have the stones or you've never been so connected to your fellow humans eh?
There's no risk of imprisonment because there's no proof of the crime, who is going to believe an educated man with a good job and no priors waterboarded and beat a some scumbag burglar off the estate with a phone book for a couple of hours before phoning the police? No one.
Last edited:
But my home is my castle!!.
Chuck some boiling water (oil if you can afford it) at them from the battlements.
This is the shameful statement from the CPS following the laughably short trial:
Entirely unrepentant. With clowns like this as the main prosecuting authority it's no wonder that public trust in the criminal justice system is crumbling.
Entirely unrepentant. With clowns like this as the main prosecuting authority it's no wonder that public trust in the criminal justice system is crumbling.
Do you expect the CPS to apologise for every single case where the defendant is found not guilty or only the ones that you personally feel are unjustified?
I would put it down more to a headline hungry press and a lack of education about how the criminal justice system works rather than cases like this.