I'm the victim

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:55 am

First topic message reminder :

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 6:00 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.

Nobody has said they are in favour of causing serious harm over property everyone has said they are in favour of it being recognized when someone is defending themselves and their property.

If you walked into somewhere you owned and were confronted with 2 individuals stealing your stuff one of which was armed what would you do?

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:01 pm

grumpy old git wrote:or do you mean the owner????

No I meant the thief cant claim for his injuries!
The poor owner will have got naff all except higher insurance premiums

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:02 pm

sphinx 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.

Nobody has said they are in favour of causing serious harm over property everyone has said they are in favour of it being recognized when someone is defending themselves and their property.

If you walked into somewhere you owned and were confronted with 2 individuals stealing your stuff one of which was armed what would you do?

I did

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:03 pm

In 2007, Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas killed two people by shooting them with a shotgun from behind as they tried to steal $2,000 of his neighbor's property:

One vital piece of evidence is certain to be the audiotape of Mr. Horn’s 911 calls. In a low, calm and steady voice, he said he saw the men breaking in and asked: “I’ve got a shotgun; do you want me to stop them?”

The Pasadena emergency operator responded: “Nope. Don’t do that. Ain’t no property worth shooting somebody over, O.K.?”

Mr. Horn said: “But hurry up, man. Catch these guys will you? Cause, I ain’t going to let them go.”

Mr. Horn then said he would get his shotgun.

The operator said, “No, no.” But Mr. Horn said: “I can’t take a chance of getting killed over this, O.K.? I’m going to shoot.”

The operator told him not to go out with a gun because officers would be arriving.

“O.K.,” Mr. Horn said. “But I have a right to protect myself too, sir,” adding, “The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it.”

The operator said, “You’re going to get yourself shot.” But Mr. Horn replied, “You want to make a bet? I’m going to kill them.”

Moments later he said, “Well here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going.”

Then he said: “Move, you’re dead.”

There were two quick explosions, then a third, and the 911 call ended.

“I had no choice,” Mr. Horn said when he called 911 back. “They came in the front yard with me, man.”

Captain Corbett said that a plainclothes officer had pulled up just in time to see Mr. Horn pointing his shotgun at both men across his front yard, that Mr. Ortiz had at one point started to run in a way that took him closer to Mr. Horn, and that both men “received gunfire from the rear.”

Hailed as a hero by the right, Horn would be interviewed later and said he certainly did not feel like a hero now. Even Glenn Beck conceded that property was not worth human life. I have to ask, is it that different that the thief in this case "only" got three limbs broken, instead of killed?

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:03 pm

sphinx 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.

Nobody has said they are in favour of causing serious harm over property everyone has said they are in favour of it being recognized when someone is defending themselves and their property.

If you walked into somewhere you owned and were confronted with 2 individuals stealing your stuff one of which was armed what would you do?

Call the police.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:04 pm

sphinx 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.

Nobody has said they are in favour of causing serious harm over property everyone has said they are in favour of it being recognized when someone is defending themselves and their property.

If you walked into somewhere you owned and were confronted with 2 individuals stealing your stuff one of which was armed what would you do?

...well we earlier had the threat of a Kaka karate chop! Laughing

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:05 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx 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.

Nobody has said they are in favour of causing serious harm over property everyone has said they are in favour of it being recognized when someone is defending themselves and their property.

If you walked into somewhere you owned and were confronted with 2 individuals stealing your stuff one of which was armed what would you do?

...well we earlier had the threat of a Kaka karate chop!

Ooh, I've heard that's like getting lashed with a wet noodle! :D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:06 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Nobody has said they are in favour of causing serious harm over property everyone has said they are in favour of it being recognized when someone is defending themselves and their property.

If you walked into somewhere you owned and were confronted with 2 individuals stealing your stuff one of which was armed what would you do?

Call the police.

and then wait untill the next day before they bothered to send even one of our wonderful "plastic policemen" THAT is going to do a great deal of good.....

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:07 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Nobody has said they are in favour of causing serious harm over property everyone has said they are in favour of it being recognized when someone is defending themselves and their property.

If you walked into somewhere you owned and were confronted with 2 individuals stealing your stuff one of which was armed what would you do?

Call the police.

The police are on the way - you dont know how long they are going to take. You are between the criminals and the exit. What do you do?

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:08 pm

What would Doctor Who do?

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:09 pm

"plastic policeman2...a PCSO....police community support officer....a civi with a bit of blue on him, with sod all powers and even less clue as to what to do....about as much use in a crisis as a concrete parachute....though some are female and quite decorative....

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:21 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Call the police.

The police are on the way - you dont know how long they are going to take. You are between the criminals and the exit. What do you do?

..well in that case he is making his way for the door and is only interested in escaping,why challenge him as he may well have a knife, which could end your life...

All for the sake of some possessions!..

..you can replace the stolen gear,but not your life, and where would your kids be without a mother?

Only if the robber goes to attack you then do all you can to defend yourself, this advice should Keep you safe and sound...choose life! Smile

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:24 pm

FFS I didn't really think you were a bleeding heart until now Ben. There were two of them one of them armed, be real you can't pussy foot around tapping them lightly whilst admonishing them for being naughty boys..

Likewise you can't just let yourself be robbed over and over again in case you hurt somebody.

What is it with you guys do you think no one should be allowed to own property?? Boy were you born in the wrong country!!!

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:25 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Call the police.

and then wait untill the next day before they bothered to send even one of our wonderful "plastic policemen" THAT is going to do a great deal of good.....

Theft of fuel from a commercial premises? Might not have even been crimed. Although they may have given him a crime number for insurance, doubtful they would have attended.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:30 pm

Clarkson wrote:What is it with you guys do you think no one should be allowed to own property?? Boy were you born in the wrong country!!!

I didn't say no one should be allowed to own property, or that theft should go unpunished. You're really bad at this, you know?

::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll::

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:30 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

The police are on the way - you dont know how long they are going to take. You are between the criminals and the exit. What do you do?

..well in that case he is making his way for the door and is only interested in escaping,why challenge him as he may well have a knife, which could end your life...

All for the sake of some possessions!..

..you can replace the stolen gear,but not your life, and where would your kids be without a mother?

Only if the robber goes to attack you then do all you can to defend yourself, this advice should Keep you safe and sound...choose life!

Actually you cannot necessarily replace stolen gear. If it is a business that has had multiple losses to break ins insurance companies can and do withdraw cover.

So you have lost multiple items to thieves.
None of the thieves have ever been caught.
You are not covered for stuff stolen.
You may be looking at loosing the business it has taken 20 years to build because you cannot afford to replace what is stolen.
There are two thieves carrying your property in front of you.
The police are on their way.
What do you do?

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:31 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

The police are on the way - you dont know how long they are going to take. You are between the criminals and the exit. What do you do?

..well in that case he is making his way for the door and is only interested in escaping,why challenge him as he may well have a knife, which could end your life...

All for the sake of some possessions!..

..you can replace the stolen gear,but not your life, and where would your kids be without a mother?

Only if the robber goes to attack you then do all you can to defend yourself, this advice should Keep you safe and sound...choose life!

Actually you cannot necessarily replace stolen gear. If it is a business that has had multiple losses to break ins insurance companies can and do withdraw cover.

So you have lost multiple items to thieves.
None of the thieves have ever been caught.
You are not covered for stuff stolen.
You may be looking at loosing the business it has taken 20 years to build because you cannot afford to replace what is stolen.
There are two thieves carrying your property in front of you.
The police are on their way.
What do you do?

Obviously it would be worse to lose your life than your wealth ...

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:34 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

..well in that case he is making his way for the door and is only interested in escaping,why challenge him as he may well have a knife, which could end your life...

All for the sake of some possessions!..

..you can replace the stolen gear,but not your life, and where would your kids be without a mother?

Only if the robber goes to attack you then do all you can to defend yourself, this advice should Keep you safe and sound...choose life!

Actually you cannot necessarily replace stolen gear. If it is a business that has had multiple losses to break ins insurance companies can and do withdraw cover.

So you have lost multiple items to thieves.
None of the thieves have ever been caught.
You are not covered for stuff stolen.
You may be looking at loosing the business it has taken 20 years to build because you cannot afford to replace what is stolen.
There are two thieves carrying your property in front of you.
The police are on their way.
What do you do?

I've told you what I would do Sphinx, tackle them if they came for me, but if they were leaving with nobody hurt, then I would call the cops as they were leaving anyway, I would not jeopardise my life or that of my kids.

What is more important to you Sphinx...your possessions or your life?

I just don't go for the hero thing when it can cost one their life...

So your possessions or your life Sphinx?

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:36 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Actually you cannot necessarily replace stolen gear. If it is a business that has had multiple losses to break ins insurance companies can and do withdraw cover.

So you have lost multiple items to thieves.
None of the thieves have ever been caught.
You are not covered for stuff stolen.
You may be looking at loosing the business it has taken 20 years to build because you cannot afford to replace what is stolen.
There are two thieves carrying your property in front of you.
The police are on their way.
What do you do?

I've told you what I would do Sphinx, tackle them if they came for me, but if they were leaving with nobody hurt, then I would call the cops as they were leaving anyway, I would not jeopardise my life or that of my kids.

What is more important to you Sphinx...your possessions or your life?

I just don't go for the hero thing when it can cost one their life...

So your possessions or your life Sphinx?

No one knows how they would react in that situation. Until you have faced it you cant know.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:37 pm

God, don't you see, JD? Property is God, you must be willing to die, or to kill, for its glory!!!!!

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:38 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Clarkson wrote:What is it with you guys do you think no one should be allowed to own property?? Boy were you born in the wrong country!!!

I didn't say no one should be allowed to own property, or that theft should go unpunished. You're really bad at this, you know?

::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll::

No ben you are not getting it. This man did not go after the thieves after the fact to punish them. He was confronted with them in the act and tried to stop them escaping. He was facing a weapon and was both frightened for his own safety and spitting angry as well. He did not think "I am going to break this mans limbs" and intentionally try to do that - he got into a fight trying to stop them.

Minimal force is a legal concept - the average person has got no idea of what damage they can do in a fight or of how to increase or decrease to achieve the correct outcome. Ordinary people are thinking fuck if I dont fight this guy is going to kill me. Ordinary people like the guy in the story just want to "knock the guy out" enough to stop them until the police get there - but have no idea how to do that. I mean would you know how to incapacitate someone for five or ten minutes without permanently hurting them?

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:38 pm

So the worm has a knife does he JD???

oh dear...I hope for his sake he really knows how to use it...cos if he dont....his life expectancy is even shorter than if he does, not by much......but......

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:40 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

I didn't say no one should be allowed to own property, or that theft should go unpunished. You're really bad at this, you know?

::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll::

No ben you are not getting it. This man did not go after the thieves after the fact to punish them. He was confronted with them in the act and tried to stop them escaping. He was facing a weapon and was both frightened for his own safety and spitting angry as well. He did not think "I am going to break this mans limbs" and intentionally try to do that - he got into a fight trying to stop them.

Minimal force is a legal concept - the average person has got no idea of what damage they can do in a fight or of how to increase or decrease to achieve the correct outcome. Ordinary people are thinking fuck if I dont fight this guy is going to kill me. Ordinary people like the guy in the story just want to "knock the guy out" enough to stop them until the police get there - but have no idea how to do that. I mean would you know how to incapacitate someone for five or ten minutes without permanently hurting them?

quite right sphinx.....whack em....and keep whacking them till they stop moving...that way they are no longer dangerous.....

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:42 pm

I find it pretty tough to feel sorry for this guy, he can't walk his dogs or go fishing and has nightmares???!! Perhaps he will think twice about doing it again.

As for excessive force I would imagine the business owner was scared stiff facing two criminals. I doubt very much he intended to cause the injuries he did, it's very easy to judge in hindsight

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:43 pm

Really, how is chasing somebody down who's carrying cans of fuel and catching them in a "rugby tackle" self-defense?

Don't tell me I'm the only-fucking-one who read the story yet AGAIN!!

"Unemployed Kevin Green, 53, suffered two broken legs and a broken arm when landscape gardener Andrew Woodhouse attacked him and his son-in-law as they fled his business premises.
Green and Tim Cross, 32, had stolen diesel from Mr Woodhouse's tyre yard, prompting the father-of-five to chase the pair and perform a citizen's arrest."

::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll::

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:45 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Clarkson wrote:What is it with you guys do you think no one should be allowed to own property?? Boy were you born in the wrong country!!!

I didn't say no one should be allowed to own property, or that theft should go unpunished. You're really bad at this, you know?

::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll::

No ben you are not getting it. This man did not go after the thieves after the fact to punish them. He was confronted with them in the act and tried to stop them escaping. He was facing a weapon and was both frightened for his own safety and spitting angry as well.

Lies!

Unemployed Kevin Green, 53, suffered two broken legs and a broken arm when landscape gardener Andrew Woodhouse attacked him and his son-in-law as they fled his business premises.
Green and Tim Cross, 32, had stolen diesel from Mr Woodhouse's tyre yard, prompting the father-of-five to chase the pair and perform a citizen's arrest.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:46 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Actually you cannot necessarily replace stolen gear. If it is a business that has had multiple losses to break ins insurance companies can and do withdraw cover.

So you have lost multiple items to thieves.
None of the thieves have ever been caught.
You are not covered for stuff stolen.
You may be looking at loosing the business it has taken 20 years to build because you cannot afford to replace what is stolen.
There are two thieves carrying your property in front of you.
The police are on their way.
What do you do?

I've told you what I would do Sphinx, tackle them if they came for me, but if they were leaving with nobody hurt, then I would call the cops as they were leaving anyway, I would not jeopardise my life or that of my kids.

What is more important to you Sphinx...your possessions or your life?

I just don't go for the hero thing when it can cost one their life...

So your possessions or your life Sphinx?

If I have got someone stealing from me and I have the police on the way I am not going to stand there and do nothing while they run past me JD.

You have a business - you are presumably building it to hand on to your children - its your childrens inheritance. Now imagine if you have had a series of thefts from that business. Nobody has been caught. Nothing has been recovered. Your insurance has been stopped. The costs of the thefts are threatening to destroy the business because without insurance you have to pay for them yourself. The alarm goes off - you go to the business, you are facing the thieves, the police are on the way - are you going to let those thieves run past you with some more of your stuff that you will have to pay for without doing anything to stop them or make them leave the stuff behind.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:48 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.

Agreed, but that wasn't the case here was it? There were two robbers against one property owner. One of the robbers grabbed a fence post and went to attack him, but

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

Clear case of self-defence I'd say.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:49 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No ben you are not getting it. This man did not go after the thieves after the fact to punish them. He was confronted with them in the act and tried to stop them escaping. He was facing a weapon and was both frightened for his own safety and spitting angry as well.

Lies!

Unemployed Kevin Green, 53, suffered two broken legs and a broken arm when landscape gardener Andrew Woodhouse attacked him and his son-in-law as they fled his business premises.
Green and Tim Cross, 32, had stolen diesel from Mr Woodhouse's tyre yard, prompting the father-of-five to chase the pair and perform a citizen's arrest.

He tried to stop the thief ben - every weekend thousands of people are rugby tackled with no damage done. They are not done to hurt people they are done to stop people running. You see a thief running you want to stop them how are you going to do so?

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:49 pm

In this country burglars even when caught are let straight back onto the streets. The can be given 50 sentences in court none custodial.

The Rule of Law is being broken down by liberal lefties concerned about criminals and oblivious to the harm done to victims.

A jury of 12 me and women spoke for common sense he got a good hiding but he wont be burgling anyone again. Rough justice but real justice.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:50 pm

In this guy's case, you've probably raised horrible little monsters who believe property is worth more than human well-being. So you obviously sacrifice yourself, because they're going to be a hell of a lot more broken up about losing that sweet, sweet money than about losing their father.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:51 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No ben you are not getting it. This man did not go after the thieves after the fact to punish them. He was confronted with them in the act and tried to stop them escaping. He was facing a weapon and was both frightened for his own safety and spitting angry as well.

Lies!

Unemployed Kevin Green, 53, suffered two broken legs and a broken arm when landscape gardener Andrew Woodhouse attacked him and his son-in-law as they fled his business premises.
Green and Tim Cross, 32, had stolen diesel from Mr Woodhouse's tyre yard, prompting the father-of-five to chase the pair and perform a citizen's arrest.

He tried to stop the thief ben - every weekend thousands of people are rugby tackled with no damage done. They are not done to hurt people they are done to stop people running. You see a thief running you want to stop them how are you going to do so?

So first it was a "confrontation" in which the guy had no choice, now you're willing to admit he didn't have to give chase?

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:54 pm

Too much hard talk on here, you just can't beat a real street fight...with no weapons of course.

by nicko Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:54 pm

are you for real ben,i think you should get out more and sample real life, you come across as a typical left wing socialist.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:57 pm

Do I hear the use of emotives, the appeal to the heartstrings as argument???
Like everything else there is doubless a risk...its up to the individual to assess that for themselves...

as to the thieves...why the sympathy, surely they should expect that and possibly worse as an "occupational hazard"

as to justice...yes it was due justice and it sends one more small signal to the rubbish out there that WE, ordinary, hard working folk are getting pi55ed off with them and the lack of state support in these matters and hey LOOK you lumps of excrement....THIS IS WHAT CAN, and WILL happen to you ...sooner or later....

by ALLAKAKA Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:59 pm

[quote="Ben_Reilly"]

sphinx wrote:

No ben you are not getting it. This man did not go after the thieves after the fact to punish them. He was confronted with them in the act and tried to stop them escaping. He was facing a weapon and was both frightened for his own safety and spitting angry as well.

Lies!

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

It is always poetic justice when the weapons they use are turned against them.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:01 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

He tried to stop the thief ben - every weekend thousands of people are rugby tackled with no damage done. They are not done to hurt people they are done to stop people running. You see a thief running you want to stop them how are you going to do so?

So first it was a "confrontation" in which the guy had no choice, now you're willing to admit he didn't have to give chase?

Sphinx usually has a backup plan Laughing

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:02 pm

get didge here...he'll call the army ://?roflmao?/:

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:02 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Do I hear the use of emotives, the appeal to the heartstrings as argument???
Like everything else there is doubless a risk...its up to the individual to assess that for themselves...

as to the thieves...why the sympathy, surely they should expect that and possibly worse as an "occupational hazard"

as to justice...yes it was due justice and it sends one more small signal to the rubbish out there that WE, ordinary, hard working folk are getting pi55ed off with them and the lack of state support in these matters and hey LOOK you lumps of excrement....THIS IS WHAT CAN, and WILL happen to you ...sooner or later....

I misjudged you mate thought you were a left leaning poster until this thread.

It isn't property per se Ben its having your home and business violated by scum who think they owe the world nothing!!!!

You are feeling sorry for scum who would have trashed the owner without a second thought. Presumably that would have offended ones sensibilities a little less. A would be capitalist defends his property is a beast a theif who beats up a property owner is a poor misunderstood miscreant.

There is an orchestra of violins playing at the moment.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:03 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

He tried to stop the thief ben - every weekend thousands of people are rugby tackled with no damage done. They are not done to hurt people they are done to stop people running. You see a thief running you want to stop them how are you going to do so?

So first it was a "confrontation" in which the guy had no choice, now you're willing to admit he didn't have to give chase?

Of course he did not have to give chase - he had every right to stand there and cry before finding the money to cover the latest losses. Every victim of crime has the choice do nothing to help themselves.

Some of us happen to think that victims should have the choice to try and stop the criminals - which is where reasonable force comes in.

The jury concluded that in this case this mans actions were consistent with reasonable force.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:06 pm

Clarkson wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:Do I hear the use of emotives, the appeal to the heartstrings as argument???
Like everything else there is doubless a risk...its up to the individual to assess that for themselves...

as to the thieves...why the sympathy, surely they should expect that and possibly worse as an "occupational hazard"

as to justice...yes it was due justice and it sends one more small signal to the rubbish out there that WE, ordinary, hard working folk are getting pi55ed off with them and the lack of state support in these matters and hey LOOK you lumps of excrement....THIS IS WHAT CAN, and WILL happen to you ...sooner or later....

I misjudged you mate thought you were a left leaning poster until this thread.

you never could decide where I sit on the political spectrum drinky me old mucker

It isn't property per se Ben its having your home and business violated by scum who think they owe the world nothing!!!!

You are feeling sorry for scum who would have trashed the owner without a second thought. Presumably that would have offended ones sensibilities a little less. A would be capitalist defends his property is a beast a theif who beats up a property owner is a poor misunderstood miscreant.

There is an orchestra of violins playing at the moment.

by ALLAKAKA Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:12 pm

I don't think Ben fully understands the justice system we are now stuck with in the UK , in the States its three strikes and out , in the UK some of these scumbags can have a HUNDRED convictions and still carry on getting probation and slaps on the legs.

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:17 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:I don't think Ben fully understands the justice system we are now stuck with in the UK , in the States its three strikes and out , in the UK some of these scumbags can have a HUNDRED convictions and still carry on getting probation and slaps on the legs.

Precisely!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:25 pm

The three-strikes-and-you're-out program has not served us well; it's left us with a very large percentage of our population, more than one of every 100 Americans, behind bars. Many of them for non-violent offenses (may I remind everyone that theft is a non-violent offense?).

I'm not going to carry on repeating that I don't believe theft should go unpunished; I've made it abundantly clear that I support criminal punishment for thieves, but not corporal punishment, nor vigilante justice. If you have a problem with ineffectual law enforcement, I say you should focus on fixing that first.

I honestly do sympathize more with someone who has three broken limbs than with someone who has lost a bit of their property; all the abuse you can hurl at me won't change my mind on this. Sorry -- I've always been this way. I knew a guy who tackled and injured a homeless man who was trying to shoplift $2 worth of food; I feel far more sympathy for the would-be thief in that case, too. I think people who cheer for the physical punishment of thieves are ugly-natured and bloodthirsty.

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:33 pm

Many aggravated burglaries are carried out in the UK also with no custodial sentences.

The worm has turned. We have so few prison places courtesy of the last govt we cannot lock up really dangerous criminals. Meanwhile the CPS tries to lock up this guy protecting his property.

It amazing to note despite the last govt growing the population hugely it actually cut prison places.

The Rule o Law breaks down if the punishments aren't there and victims feel unprotected.

That s the outcome of softy bleeding heart liberals controlling policy.

Forgive me Ben I don't want your type of person looking after our safety scum would run rings around you.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:45 pm

Clarkson wrote:Many aggravated burglaries are carried out in the UK also with no custodial sentences.

The worm has turned. We have so few prison places courtesy of the last govt we cannot lock up really dangerous criminals. Meanwhile the CPS tries to lock up this guy protecting his property.

It amazing to note despite the last govt growing the population hugely it actually cut prison places.

The Rule o Law breaks down if the punishments aren't there and victims feel unprotected.

That s the outcome of softy bleeding heart liberals controlling policy.

Forgive me Ben I don't want your type of person looking after our safety scum would run rings around you.

You are totally forgiven, and I encourage you to continue to advocate that the solution to a policing problem is for fuel thieves to get Batmanned into local hospitals with multiple bone fractures. I'm sure millions will flock to your banner.

by Clarkson Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:16 pm

I will always supporter victim not the perpetrator of crime.

A jury has heard the detail and found him not guilty.

The number of householders being prosecuted protecting their homes have caused a lot of concern here. The CPS have sought serious sentences for householders when repeat criminals have been dealt with leniently. You have to challenge their motives and logic.

It's not on comrade people are sick of it.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:18 pm

Clarkson wrote:I will always supporter victim not the perpetrator of crime.

A jury has heard the detail and found him not guilty.

The number of householders being prosecuted protecting their homes have caused a lot of concern here. The CPS have sought serious sentences for householders when repeat criminals have been dealt with leniently. You have to challenge their motives and logic.

It's not on comrade people are sick of it.

People are sick of it.
That little worm will think twice before he goes on the rob again

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:20 pm

Well if we believe him he wont be able to rob again because he is too scared to leave the house.

Sounds like a result to me.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:22 pm

Some vigilantes, interesting

by Sponsored content