I'm the victim

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:55 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546573/Im-victim-Shameless-thief-says-justice-let-victim-battered-cleared.html

Apparently our justice system has let this man down. He has suffered ten times as much as the man he was stealing from and it is wrong that the man he was stealing from is not being punished.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:22 pm

All I can say is,

Gonads, mantrap, job sorted.

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:16 pm

Doesn't this make you feel good for a change. I can't wait for the comrades to line up in defence of the thief as they love to do.

The Police should wise up they are not going to secure prosecutions except in highly unusual circumstances.

Diddums he's having bad dreams what about those he has burgled I have absolutely no doubt they have had many more as a result of his actions.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:33 pm

I love the bit about "he doesnt realize the effect he has had on me" from someone who obviously has not thought about his own impact.

I also rather suspect the man defending his property does realize what he did because he admits it sickens him. He is probably going to spend the rest of his life going over it and wondering if he could have reacted differently which is more than can be said for the thieves. The man defending did not want to do what he did and would not have done it if the other two had not chosen to break in and steal his stuff

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:19 pm

Yeah, if I were to be faced with the choice of losing a few cans of fuel or having three of my limbs broken, I know I would far rather have three broken limbs than lose some diesel!

Limbs heal over time. Lost fuel is something that can never truly be replaced -- at least not in your heart.

I think it's horrible that the man who rugby-tackled the thief claims to feel 'gutted and sickened' by the extent of the thief's injuries. I think he should have beheaded the thief and put the thief's head on a pike to warn others. Also, some believe that if you eat your enemy's heart, you gain their power. Might just be an old wive's tale, but no harm in trying, eh?

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:29 pm

Well in Ben good of you to live up to your bleeding heart liberal lefty reputation.

Do you think we should enshrine in our law the right of thieves to burgle unmolested and the right to beat up householders who impede their thieving without the householder resorting to self defence.

Clearly we who have actually paid $10 a gallon for that diesel are far too rich and deserve to have it stolen from us.

Indeed why doesn't the state demand we deliver the diesel to the thief and save them the trouble. The poor thief has to expend diesel in going to steal, better the working man expend his own fuel in delivering it to them. Perhaps we can put a few pounds in their gas meter whilst we are there and deliver a takeaway meal.

Yes that would be a much better solution.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:34 pm

Clarkson wrote:Well in Ben good of you to live p to your bleeding heart liberal lefty.

Do you think we should enshrine in our law the right of thieves to burgle unmolested and the right to beat up householders who impede their thieving without the householder resorting to self defence.

Clearly we who have actually paid $10 a gallon for that diesel are far too rich and deserve to have it stolen from us.

Indeed why doesn't the state demand we deliver the diesel to the thief and save them the trouble. The poor thief has to expend diesel in going to steal better the working man expend his own fuel.

Yes that would be a much better solution.

Yes, clearly because I don't think someone deserves to have three of their (presumably) four healthy limbs snapped for stealing goods, that means I support all theft -- probably because I despise the rich and want them to to suffer.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:35 pm

And you can always count on me to "live p to (my) bleeding heart liberal lefty."

Whatever that means ...

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:40 pm

Don't you know what a bleeding heart is??!!!

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:42 pm

Clarkson wrote:Don't you know what a bleeding heart is??!!!

Yes; have you ever heard of a grammatically correct sentence?

How about the false choice fallacy?

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:45 pm

OK my typing leaves much to be desired and Ive noticed I missed out the last word but you get the sentiment.

I trust you will be sueing me for offending you sensibilities with my carelessness.

In the States this burglar would get short shrift I presume particularly in some States like Arizona for example.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:47 pm

It doesn't matter where it happens; the outcome is the same -- someone is physically battered, in this case quite drastically, as punishment for theft. Sounds to me like backwards-ass Saudi Arabia values.

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:48 pm

Is the false choice fallacy like a loaded question elcited to trap you like "How often do you beat your wife"

I don't think what I posed in my first response was anything of the sort.

I merely stated that bleeding heart liberal lefties would leap to his defence and on cue you did.

I didn't make you!

by nicko Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:52 pm

w
ell said Clarkson,like you I knew someone would leap to his defence.

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:53 pm

I must add there were two thieves had he used minimal force he would have got battered himself as is more often the case here.

Had he got battered the offenders often get a smacked hand those who defend their property and themselves tend to be dealt with very severely by the law.

The disparity between the two approaches is breath taking and we RWers often call the Criminal Prosecution Service the Criminal Protection Service with good reason.

Once you engage with offenders I'm afraid its all in or get battered yourself. If you are suggesting we simply help them help themselves you really are a bleeding heart

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:53 pm

Clarkson wrote:Is the false choice fallacy like a loaded question elcited to trap you like "How often do you beat your wife"

I don't think what I posed in my first response was anything of the sort.

I merely stated that bleeding heart liberal lefties would leap to his defence and on cue you did.

I didn't make you!

No, you presented me with quite the false choice when you wrote:

"Do you think we should enshrine in our law the right of thieves to burgle unmolested and the right to beat up householders who impede their thieving without the householder resorting to self defence."

So according to you, I must either support the right to theft without punishment, or I must support thieves being severely harmed for their crimes. You're only giving me two options, whereas my actual position is that one should indeed be punished, but not by suffering physical violence, for stealing goods. And I believe you only do this because you're trying to demonize my political positions.

by Beekeeper Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:55 pm

Clarkson wrote:
Don't you know what a bleeding heart is??!!!

A heart ?

Isn't that something that was unfortunately left out when they created you, Drinky ?

Basketball

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:57 pm

A brain isn't that something they left out when they made you Cobber? :D :D

by ALLAKAKA Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:59 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Clarkson wrote:Is the false choice fallacy like a loaded question elcited to trap you like "How often do you beat your wife"

I don't think what I posed in my first response was anything of the sort.

I merely stated that bleeding heart liberal lefties would leap to his defence and on cue you did.

I didn't make you!

No, you presented me with quite the false choice when you wrote:

"Do you think we should enshrine in our law the right of thieves to burgle unmolested and the right to beat up householders who impede their thieving without the householder resorting to self defence."

So according to you, I must either support the right to theft without punishment, or I must support thieves being severely harmed for their crimes. You're only giving me two options, whereas my actual position is that one should indeed be punished, but not by suffering physical violence, for stealing goods. And I believe you only do this because you're trying to demonize my political positions.

Anybody forcefully entering my property with Gun or Knife will be dead and they can plead their victimhood in the hereafter to their hearts content.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:00 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Clarkson wrote:Is the false choice fallacy like a loaded question elcited to trap you like "How often do you beat your wife"

I don't think what I posed in my first response was anything of the sort.

I merely stated that bleeding heart liberal lefties would leap to his defence and on cue you did.

I didn't make you!

No, you presented me with quite the false choice when you wrote:

"Do you think we should enshrine in our law the right of thieves to burgle unmolested and the right to beat up householders who impede their thieving without the householder resorting to self defence."

So according to you, I must either support the right to theft without punishment, or I must support thieves being severely harmed for their crimes. You're only giving me two options, whereas my actual position is that one should indeed be punished, but not by suffering physical violence, for stealing goods. And I believe you only do this because you're trying to demonize my political positions.

Anybody forcefully entering my property with Gun or Knife will be dead and they can plead their victimhood in the hereafter to their hearts content.

Look out, folks, we've got a bad-ass on our hands!

by nicko Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:03 pm

Is it not true that in America a burglar can be shot legally by the house holder?

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:04 pm

Anyone entering Bens home can expect hugs and kisses it seems. That's OK by me Ben but I'm guessing if your home were broken into your bleeding heart might just harden up a bit.

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:06 pm

nicko wrote:Is it not true that in America a burglar can be shot legally by the house holder?

Or hugged and kissed to death by a liberal lefty. Give me the bullet any day. :D

by ALLAKAKA Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:07 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
ALLAKAKA wrote:

Anybody forcefully entering my property with Gun or Knife will be dead and they can plead their victimhood in the hereafter to their hearts content.

Look out, folks, we've got a bad-ass on our hands!

you object to my right to defend myself against attack in my own home ????????

Anybody who forcibly enters my home with violent intent runs that risk.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:10 pm

Clarkson wrote:Doesn't this make you feel good for a change. I can't wait for the comrades to line up in defence of the thief as they love to do.

The Police should wise up they are not going to secure prosecutions except in highly unusual circumstances.

Diddums he's having bad dreams what about those he has burgled I have absolutely no doubt they have had many more as a result of his actions.

Who's defending the thief Drinky?, what a really hateful attitude to have, as well as a political platform to try to score cheap points against the left.

Fell right on your tits there though didn't you?

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:08 pm

Sorry folks, but as far as I am concerned, the landowner should have the right to stake the intruder out...pour the fuel on him and light it....

IF someone is on someone-elses domestic property..engaging in theft, violence etc then all bets should be off. thieves, those who would do violence, and such like should lose ALL rights whilst in such a situation....

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:18 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
ALLAKAKA wrote:

Anybody forcefully entering my property with Gun or Knife will be dead and they can plead their victimhood in the hereafter to their hearts content.

Look out, folks, we've got a bad-ass on our hands!

you object to my right to defend myself against attack in my own home ????????

Anybody who forcibly enters my home with violent intent runs that risk.

No, I just find it quite comical how far you go to make sure people think you're a tough guy Smile

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:20 pm

Clarkson wrote:Anyone entering Bens home can expect hugs and kisses it seems. That's OK by me Ben but I'm guessing if your home were broken into your bleeding heart might just harden up a bit.

So the thief broke into a house to steal diesel fuel? What was the idiot doing storing fuel in his house?

Wait, he didn't keep it in his house? So we're actually not talking about anything resembling having your personal dwelling broken into by an intruder?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:25 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
ALLAKAKA wrote:

you object to my right to defend myself against attack in my own home ????????

Anybody who forcibly enters my home with violent intent runs that risk.

No, I just find it quite comical how far you go to make sure people think you're a tough guy

Not - very - tough RW talk eh?!!

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:25 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:It doesn't matter where it happens; the outcome is the same -- someone is physically battered, in this case quite drastically, as punishment for theft. Sounds to me like backwards-ass Saudi Arabia values.

wrong,,,,,sounds to me like someone finally had enough of being the victim of theft and more than likely getting no help whatsoever from the police and decided, finally to deal with the issue himself

Mr Woodhouse, 44, has been battling a spate of crime at his company - and sprang into action when his alarm rang after midnight as the thieves were stealing diesel.

Mr Woodhouse grabbed a fence post one was carrying as a weapon - and used it to fight back against them.

the poor love can't go fishing,,,,awwww, tragic

you think he didn't deserve it??

I love it,,,,,,,hope he likes his nice red and green leg casts,,,,,maybe he will set a trend,,,,,,hopefully,,,,

maybe, just maybe,, he might learn to keep his vile, thieving hands off stuff that doesn't belong to him

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:26 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Clarkson wrote:Anyone entering Bens home can expect hugs and kisses it seems. That's OK by me Ben but I'm guessing if your home were broken into your bleeding heart might just harden up a bit.

So the thief broke into a house to steal diesel fuel? What was the idiot doing storing fuel in his house?

Wait, he didn't keep it in his house? So we're actually not talking about anything resembling having your personal dwelling broken into by an intruder?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

hardly relevant

if you worked your guts out trying to make a living and some thieving bastard simply thought he could come along and help himself maybe you would understand more

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:32 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Sorry folks, but as far as I am concerned, the landowner should have the right to stake the intruder out...pour the fuel on him and light it....

IF someone is on someone-elses domestic property..engaging in theft, violence etc then all bets should be off. thieves, those who would do violence, and such like should lose ALL rights whilst in such a situation....

No need for such violence. Stake him out, yes - on the front lawn, naked, to be laughed at by all passers-by. That'd be my idea of retribution.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:37 pm

Two broken legs and a broken arm!

Oh dear, what a shame, never mind

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:40 pm

NemsAgain wrote:Two broken legs and a broken arm!

Oh dear, what a shame, never mind

That a girl nemsie

cheers

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:41 pm

I've been the victim of robbery before; I once had property worth hundreds of dollars taken by a thief (we're talking two digital cameras, an iPod, a PSP with several games, about a half-dozen DVDs, etc.). Of course I was angry. I would want the thief to be caught and punished by the criminal justice system, not to have his or her limbs broken.

If you think people should suffer physical violence for stealing property, you've got something wrong with you. Let the punishment fit the crime? That would be restitution, not having three of your four limbs broken.

The fuck is wrong with you people?

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:43 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:I've been the victim of robbery before; I once had property worth hundreds of dollars taken by a thief (we're talking two digital cameras, an iPod, a PSP with several games, about a half-dozen DVDs, etc.). Of course I was angry. I would want the thief to be caught and punished by the criminal justice system, not to have his or her limbs broken.

If you think people should suffer physical violence for stealing property, you've got something wrong with you. Let the punishment fit the crime? That would be restitution, not having three of your four limbs broken.

The fuck is wrong with you people?

The thief should count himself lucky it didnt happen in America he would have been shot

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:44 pm

Look did the guy defending his property go out to break 3 limbs? NO.

He had a burglar alarm go off at his place of business where theft had already cost him tens of thousands of pounds so he drove to it UNARMED presumably to try and scare and/or catch the people doing the stealing.

When he got there he was faced with 2 adult males one of whom was armed committing a crime - he had no-one else with him to support or look out for him and no idea when the police were going to arrive.

What do we think happened next? Do we think the armed burglars faced with an unarmed man just started to run away only to be viciously attacked? Or do we think the burglars threatened the man expecting him to run scared only to have him fight back?

Now tell me how many of us if we found ourselves in a fight with 2 criminals one of which had a weapon would be skilled enough to use just the right amount of force to restrain them without actually doing them any damage?

Finally having got into a fight with 2 criminals and finding one incapacitated with the other running away carrying some of what they had been stealing is not the natural reaction to chase and restrain? Please note that with the second burglar that is exactly what this guy did - he chased and restrained by lying on top of.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:46 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:I've been the victim of robbery before; I once had property worth hundreds of dollars taken by a thief (we're talking two digital cameras, an iPod, a PSP with several games, about a half-dozen DVDs, etc.). Of course I was angry. I would want the thief to be caught and punished by the criminal justice system, not to have his or her limbs broken.

If you think people should suffer physical violence for stealing property, you've got something wrong with you. Let the punishment fit the crime? That would be restitution, not having three of your four limbs broken.

The fuck is wrong with you people?

What the fuck is wrong with them is that they understand than an ordinary unarmed person threatened by 2 criminals one of whom is armed does not have the skills to defend themselves and restrain both without hurting them.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:46 pm

NemsAgain wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I've been the victim of robbery before; I once had property worth hundreds of dollars taken by a thief (we're talking two digital cameras, an iPod, a PSP with several games, about a half-dozen DVDs, etc.). Of course I was angry. I would want the thief to be caught and punished by the criminal justice system, not to have his or her limbs broken.

If you think people should suffer physical violence for stealing property, you've got something wrong with you. Let the punishment fit the crime? That would be restitution, not having three of your four limbs broken.

The fuck is wrong with you people?

The thief should count himself lucky it didnt happen in America he would have been shot

It did happen in America; I'm American and it happened to me, here.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:48 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:I've been the victim of robbery before; I once had property worth hundreds of dollars taken by a thief (we're talking two digital cameras, an iPod, a PSP with several games, about a half-dozen DVDs, etc.). Of course I was angry. I would want the thief to be caught and punished by the criminal justice system, not to have his or her limbs broken.

Good for you ben, but have you had your livelihood threatened with theft on a continual basis. this guy had an alarm go off which meant he had to go check it out and just happened to catch them, tooled up and having stolen (yet again). I think he just flipped and had enough. He took the weapon off the thief, it's not as if he went down there tooled up himself is it??

If you think people should suffer physical violence for stealing property, you've got something wrong with you. Let the punishment fit the crime? That would be restitution, not having three of your four limbs broken.

except that it doesn't ben. don't know what it's like round your way but over here fuck all gets done for victims. the police don't want to know as they are way too busy chasing online trolls saying nasty comments to be bothered with theft.

The fuck is wrong with you people?

um,,,,possibly our justice system,,,,,,just a thought

this guy works hard and never went to court for anything in his life and feels terrible about all this. Frankly, i don't see why he should

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:49 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
NemsAgain wrote:

The thief should count himself lucky it didnt happen in America he would have been shot

It did happen in America; I'm American and it happened to me, here.

What did you do when you confronted the thief Ben?

by ALLAKAKA Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:50 pm

The mistake many people make when overpowering violent intruders is the Law,if you injure them in an upstairs room throw them out of a window , the injuries occurred when they were escaping , Same if you have a high garden fence, throw them over any injures then occured off your property while they were escaping.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:51 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:I've been the victim of robbery before; I once had property worth hundreds of dollars taken by a thief (we're talking two digital cameras, an iPod, a PSP with several games, about a half-dozen DVDs, etc.). Of course I was angry. I would want the thief to be caught and punished by the criminal justice system, not to have his or her limbs broken.

because the "criminal justice" system in britain, as well as america is broken thats why...it doesnt do "justice" it applies "tarrifs" . Justice in britain went down hill the moment we followed Americas lead on this...

restitution is NOT either justice (in may cases) OR punishment.. In britain any compensatory claim and damages you may get are strictly limited and there is no such thing as "punitive damages"...they are considered "fines" and grabbed by the GOVT.

If you think people should suffer physical violence for stealing property, you've got something wrong with you. (why?) Let the punishment fit the crime? That would be restitution, not having three of your four limbs broken.

The fuck is wrong with you people?

We are becoming pi55ed off with the law that is supposed to protect us being subverted mitigated and got around by the dregs of society.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:51 pm

Sorry folks, you can argue all you want, but at the end of the day you're saying you're in favor of causing serious bodily harm to someone over property. Property is, I understand, what some of you worship, but it's not worth hurting people over. Stuff is not as important as people.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:52 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:

The mistake many people make when overpowering violent intruders is the Law,if you injure them in an upstairs room throw them out of a window , the injuries occurred when they were escaping , Same if you have a high garden fence, throw them over any injures then occured off your property while they were escaping.

and dont forget...if you "accidently "off" them.....stick em in the neighbours wheely bin.....it then becomes HIS problem....

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:55 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sorry folks, you can argue all you want, but at the end of the day you're saying you're in favor of causing serious bodily harm to someone over property. Property is, I understand, what some of you worship, but it's not worth hurting people over. Stuff is not as important as people.

Not a case of worshiping...i have worked for what I have...why should some useless, pointles,s waste of oxygen to55 pot be able to steal that with relative impunity....???
and sorry Ben if it offends you...but this kind of trash dont count as "people"...they dont even make the level of my dogs...or even ferrets....

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:57 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Sorry folks, you can argue all you want, but at the end of the day you're saying you're in favor of causing serious bodily harm to someone over property. Property is, I understand, what some of you worship, but it's not worth hurting people over. Stuff is not as important as people.
Not a case of worshiping...i have worked for what I have...why should some useless, pointles,s waste of oxygen to55 pot be able to steal that with relative impunity....???
and sorry Ben if it offends you...but this kind of trash dont count as "people"...they dont even make the level of my dogs...or even ferrets....

Poor Bugger - he wont be able to claim compo either

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:57 pm

in fact they probably dont count as much as my gold fish....that has more brains and a better character....

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:58 pm

NemsAgain wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:
Not a case of worshiping...i have worked for what I have...why should some useless, pointles,s waste of oxygen to55 pot be able to steal that with relative impunity....???
and sorry Ben if it offends you...but this kind of trash dont count as "people"...they dont even make the level of my dogs...or even ferrets....

Poor Bugger - he wont be able to claim compo either

Awww...stop it nems...you'll have me weeping for him yet .......NOT

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:59 pm

or do you mean the owner????

by Sponsored content