Businessman facing life imprisonment for tackling burglars

Zethor said:
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.
Click to expand...

You do realise that everyone is capable of such a thing? The sentence makes no sense, you want to effectively imprison the planets entire population.
 
Gammawolf said:
You do realise that everyone is capable of such a thing? The sentence makes no sense, you want to effectively imprison the planets entire population.
Click to expand...

It also makes me think that he was picked on at school.

The righteous violence of a man protecting his property against miscreants should be applauded. Only the weak would complain about such a thing.
 
pitchfork said:
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.
Click to expand...
Instability isn't just associated with reconsigning the flaw, the fact you would do it & not feel bad about it implies a potential mental disorder to which I'm referring to with the 'unstable element' - obviously it's subjective but people who commit crimes (like you are stated you would be more than willing, usually underestimate the chance of getting caught) illegally inflicting a large amount of pain onto another human being with little tangible benefit & outside of self-defence highlights in my view a lack of mental stability.

It's nothing about being afraid, just inflicting pain out of some twisted desire outside of self-defence don't require stones - just a huge deficit in character & moral fibre.
 
Last edited:
Zethor said:
He chased a 53 year old man, caught him and then proceeded to break three (!) of his limbs. The man is still in crutches one year later!

This wasn't self defense, Mr. Woodhouse deserves to be punished, burglaras are people too and they are protected by the law in the same way he is.
Click to expand...

Haha, if you're 53 and don't want your legs broken, don't go around nicking stuff. Occupational hazard.
 
RDM said:
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?
Click to expand...

Just the vindictive prosecutions that are unjustified.
 
elmarko said:
Instability isn't just associated with reconsigning the flaw, the fact you would do it & not feel bad about it implies a potential mental disorder to which I'm referring to with the 'unstable element' - obviously it's subjective but people who commit crimes (like you are stated you would be more than willing, usually underestimate the chance of getting caught) illegally inflicting a large amount of pain onto another human being with little tangible benefit & outside of self-defence highlights in my view a lack of mental stability.

It's nothing about being afraid, just inflicting pain out of some twisted desire outside of self-defence don't require stones - just a huge deficit in character & moral fibre.
Click to expand...
As I have said before, I don't recognize the laws in this country, they are barely worth the paper they are written on, so the fact the act is illegal really doesn't bear any relevance - I refuse to be controlled through fear by a set of blanket rules.

I have no deficit in character and moral fibre, both are subjective.

I mean the very fact you would let a burglar get away with their crimes points to a weak constitution, a soft heart and a lazy attitude "Oh we'll just pass this on down the line, let someone else decide the appropriate lesson for this mother****er". These people, who don't give a second thought to the pain they caused you, who took parts of your life away, who would probably have ****ed all over your house for a fiver, you want to hand them over to the police so they can go and do it again?

No, for the cost of 2 hours of their lives, you can make damn sure they think twice next time, you can convince them that their actions have consequences.
 
pitchfork said:
I mean the very fact you would let a burglar get away with their crimes points to a weak constitution, a soft heart and a lazy attitude "Oh we'll just pass this on down the line, let someone else decide the appropriate lesson for this mother****er". These people, who don't give a second thought to the pain they caused you, who took parts of your life away, who would probably have ****ed all over your house for a fiver, you want to hand them over to the police so they can go and do it again?
Click to expand...
What makes you think I'd leg a burglar get away with his crimes exactly?, I've never said such a thing.

I know I said you were mentally unstable, but I didn't think it included fabricating reality or hallucinations.

Just because I wouldn't go as far as torturing them for no reason other than enjoying the infliction of pain (or some bent sense of justice) or believe that the application for force should be appropriate for the crime or the imminent danger doesn't make a person toothless.

I've got involved in a number of physical disputes when it's appropriate, I just don't feel the need to use violence to solve problems when other more productive options exist.
 
Last edited:
Frightful Boar said:
It also makes me think that he was picked on at school.

The righteous violence of a man protecting his property against miscreants should be applauded. Only the weak would complain about such a thing.
Click to expand...

Ah, the trade mark of the internet warrior, ad hominem. Ironically, what you've just written says a lot more about the person behind Frightful Boar than the one behind Zethor. :)
 
How can you be rational about thieves constantly breaking into your business.

I have seen this happen to two separate businesses. Both constantly targeted by thieves to the point that they lost their business, their income, their ability to support their own families. One in particular was hit the hardest as it was his dads business that was passed down to him only for him to lose everything. Losing, or even the thought that you may lose a business can be an awful depressing experience.

I think a number of posters severely underestimate the effect that burglaries have on people.

Thieve's can potentially ruin peoples lives. Its never 'just' a theft.

Someone also earlier in the thread said something alone the lines of 'oh he would be insured...' Yes he would have been, and every time he makes a claim his insurance would go up. At an extreme level the insurance company would simply refuse to cover him. Many businesses would simply not claim, knowing that the premiums may rise above the level of what was originally stolen. Either way the victim still pays for the crime.

I am very happy he was found not guilty and believe that it was the correct outcome.
 
elmarko said:
What makes you think I'd leg a burglar get away with his crimes exactly?, I've never said such a thing.

I know I said you were mentally unstable, but I didn't think it included fabricating reality or hallucinations.
Click to expand...
Sadistic? Maybe. Practical? Definitely. But not mentally unstable.

You'd phone the police and send the burglar through the legal system, they'd be given some token punishment - ankle bracelet and community service, or maybe a short stint in prison. They'd come out and do it all over again.

Recidivism is over 90% in this country, by putting their punishment in the hands of the law you're essentially ensuring that it happens again, that's no punishment.

And there is no rehabilitation for these people sadly - if there was then vigilante measures would not be necessary.
 
Last edited:
pitchfork said:
Sadistic? Maybe. But not mentally unstable, I mean maybe I'm less emotional than most but that's full of perks.

You'd send the burglar to the legal system, they'd be given some token punishment - ankle bracelet and community service, or maybe a short stint in prison. They'd come out and do it all over again.

Recidivism is over 90% in this country, by putting their punishment in the hands of the law you're essentially ensuring that it happens again.
Click to expand...
But you clearly are emotional (rage, anger, lack of control, sociopathic tendencies, diminished empathy), your views are far from rational.

I'd be in favour of a longer sentenced focused on rehabilitation because that's what works - neither letting them off completely or snapping legs are likely to have the desired outcome.

My views are neither soft or hand, just a recognition of the reality in which we live & associated with a desire to actually resolve social problems.

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
How can you be rational about thieves constantly breaking into your business.
Click to expand...
I don't blame individual victims of crime for not being rational.

I wouldn't be rational if somebody killed my family say, but it doesn't mean that irrationality should be used to determine the law, this is the exact reason family members of victims are not allowed in the jury - being too close emotionally clouds in the individuals ability to be rational.
 
Last edited:
Actually all this kerfuffle back and forth... does no good I tell you.

He should have just killed them and buried their bodies on his farm. Nobody would be any wiser!







;-p
 
In situations like this, do you believe Kevin Green should also be made to pay for his medical bills on top of his £75 fine? He's clearly cost the tax payer more than the fine imposed from the NHS.

I believe he should.
 
£75 fine... that's less than most parking fines?!

So I guess the moral of the story is, if you're going to go on the rob, make sure you park correctly.

I reckon as a good general rule, the fine should cover all legal costs, plus 100x the value of what was stolen, paid directly to the victim.*

*Numbers plucked out of thin air :p
 
I do agree that a £75 fine for theft is pointless (actually achieving nothing), maybe some common ground many of us can all agree on!, to clarify neither do I believe they should just be 'let off' either.
 
The punishment for theft, or lack of it, should not have relationship with the punishment the businessman faces.

You can't chase someone half way down the street and beat the **** out of them and not expect some form punishment.

If they were in his home and confronted him, fair enough. If they attacked him at his business and were not retreating, fair enough. If they were trying to escape, not fair enough. Seems like an act of vengeance and serving punishment at your own discretion, which is not the way a civilised society behaves.
 
Craterloads said:
The punishment for theft, or lack of it, should not have relationship with the punishment the businessman faces.

You can't chase someone half way down the street and beat the **** out of them and not expect some form punishment.

If they were in his home and confronted him, fair enough. If they attacked him at his business and were not retreating, fair enough. If they were trying to escape, not fair enough. Seems like an act of vengeance and serving punishment at your own discretion, which is not the way a civilised society behaves.
Click to expand...

Read the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom