Thread: Justice?

Originally Posted by gregs656

In any over-policed state, even the innocent have a lot to worry about.

The UK court just demonstrated to me that it is a wrongly-policed state. The article said that the intruder who was beaten is a criminal with more than 50 convictions! Unless they are all parking tickets and library fines, this guy should have been locked up long before this burglary occurred.

I don't like the poll options.
I'd prefer a poll like this:

The intruder has the right to be beaten by
A. The cops
B. The victims
C. Both

I choose C

If I was feeling nice, maybe I'd ask for whoever has not sinned to throw the first stone. But if someone threw it, I'd join in

What I think we are seeing is a "system" to keep the masses confused and scared. "Criminal Justice System". Think that one over.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I am on the fence on this one. Part of me understands that holding a man down and beating him senseless long after he passed out is a bad thing to do. On the other hand I can't help but think 'Well, what did you expect?'

In case of a 'harmless' burglar who wanted to take off as soon as he was found out, I'd support a reprimand of the homeowner (because no threat was involved and no property taken).

However, as soon as they raised the stakes by physically threatening his family, they had it coming. It would still be against the law, but a classification as a provoked assault / assault induced temporary insanity would be in order for the homeowner. And he would have likely gotten that in Belgium (with a decent lawyer).

They were the ones physically threatening his family.
They were the ones taking serious action to bring the homeowner in a red rage.
They should be the ones taking the blame. Whenever in doubt, blame should go to the known criminal with a rep sheet of 50 offenses who had it coming.

Live by the sword; Die by the sword.
Personally, I would think congratulations were in order.

This is probably one of the few times Bruno and I will see eye to eye almost exactly. HE is right that when he tied and help up the family at knife point, he was "living by the sword". I think the men who beat up the animal should be given metals. Were it my family tied up at knife point, I would have gone to jail because I would have hunted him down like the animal he was and put a bullet in him if I had my gun. The difference between me these guys is that I probably would have finished him off because I would have lost emotional control. Even with sticks or cricket paddles they could have killed him if they desired.
The burglar was not a human, he is no better than a rabid dog, and in the south where I am from you deal with rabid animals by killing them. Why anyone thinks this guy deserved anything other than what he got is beyond me. He would never be "rehabilitated" and its a shame that the taxpayers of England have to spend 1000's of pounds to incarcerate this animal. Human rights should be reserved for humans, not criminals and thieves murderers. The law abiding citizens rights do not stop at the property line and yes vengeance in this scenario in my mind equalled justice. There was no difference.
The government should give these men metals and congratulate them on saving the next set of victims.

While I'm not for concealed carry... I'm not for an ultra-liberal justice system either... I remember one of my friends got held at gunpoint in a park, a year ago... he disarmed the guy and beat him senseless to teach him a lesson... but never called the police. I sure would have at least shot both his legs, so he remembers.

But I think the keyword in this are "teaching a lesson", not permanently marking outside of an indirect threat.

To be quite honest, if it were me in the homeowner's shoes, I'd have killed the scum. Anyone touches my wife or children and they deserve what's coming to them (and I am blatantly aware that counts as premeditation, I don't care).
If our country had a proper tariff for crimes rather than the joke we have at present, 3 years for a paedophile? then it's possible there would be less criminals out there.
But who knows, just my two penneth.

James

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

The UK court just demonstrated to me that it is a wrongly-policed state. The article said that the intruder who was beaten is a criminal with more than 50 convictions! Unless they are all parking tickets and library fines, this guy should have been locked up long before this burglary occurred.

He should be locked up now.

How on earth did you recall i had written that, good shout.

Originally Posted by treydampier

Even with sticks or cricket paddles

What the hell's a cricket paddle?

Originally Posted by ben.mid

What the hell's a cricket paddle?

it's a tiny paddle that parent crickets use to discipline their children..... lol

Seriously, cricket is a game played with a bat (or paddle) and ball.

Beating someone who is already restrained is an act of a sociopath. This judgment is actually the act of the justice system performing it's intended function: protecting society from sociopaths. If the criminal had still posed a threat, the man would have been perfectly within in his right to sneak up behind him and knock his head off with a bat. Surrounding a man and beating him as he lay on the ground with cricket bats as has been described in this thread... no offense, but if you consider that justified by anything, see a psychiatrist... that's a benchmark for mental illness.

The fact that the intruder got parole is another issue entirely and really only clouds the issue of this poll.


A tiger would eat you if you encountered it in the wild. Does that justify going on safari and shooting it from your car? The qualifier for self defense is an immediate threat. It was not come to lightly. Push that envelope even slightly and the world descends purely into vigilantism. It isn't slippery slope, it's immediate cliff-edge. A lot of people have mentioned things along the line of "I'd be ****ed off and do this too." That's a rational decision taken with the consciousness that you are the violent offender, which you weigh against the consequences of that action. That doesn't make it justified. In fact it acknowledges how it is unjustified and simply veto's that rational with simple rage. And now to bring the issue I've already dismissed into it... do you really think this criminal would have gotten parole with 50 offenses on record if the guy that turned him over HADN'T nearly killed him? More than his own consequences, the husband most certainly didn't consider that his actions would create sympathy for this dangerous felon and thereby risk his going free. His rage has put society as a whole at risk because he is unable to control himself. He belongs in jail.

Originally Posted by IanS

Beating someone who is already restrained is an act of a sociopath.

Maybe they were CIA ?