Thread: Justice?

A case has just happened in the UK where a business man has been sent to jail for attacking one of the burglars who tried to rob his home, tying his family up in the process. The burglar was actually released with a 2 year supervision order.

Businessman jailed for attacking intruder - who goes free - Telegraph

The reason I bring this up is the recent discussions about concealed carry and self defence, and that this sort of case seems to be the polar opposite to what happens in other countries.

The reason this guy has been jailed is that he chased the criminal down and then beat him up, whereas he "should" have let him escape. The argument is that this is vigilantism and should not be tolerated or encouraged, so people who do this should go to jail.

Personally I think the homeowner should have been exonerated and the criminal locked up. If you live outside the law you should not expect to recieve protection from it, and if you're burgling my house you should expect to get a clobbering.

Even the police dont agree with the sentancing. Chief Inspector Colin Seaton, of Thames Valley Police, said that whatever happened in the heat of the moment, he was sad to see the brothers convicted.

What I want to know is do you agree with the judges sentancing, or do you think that getting beaten up (or shot, as in the case of Tony Martin) is, and should be considered as, an occupational hazard of being a criminal?

I've added a poll at the top with just a simple yes/no, so please vote and then elaborate in the thread!

Originally Posted by Stubear

The reason this guy has been jailed is that he chased the criminal down and then beat him up, whereas he "should" have let him escape.

If you live outside the law you should not expect to recieve protection from it

I don't think any where is suggesting he should have let him escape. I think the point is he was running a way, it was three against one, they had him on the floor and proceeded to beat him half to death with cricket bats and what ever else they used. He would have been quite entitled hold him there, but the red mist fell, understandably, and they beat him half to death. I can completely understand it, but I can understand why he has been sent down as well.

Do I think the intruder should have gone to jail as well? Absolutely.

Tony Martin also shot a man who was running away.

Neither of those men were convicted on the basis of what they did to defend their home.

I think your last sentence, whilst I can understand the jist of it, is completely unrealistic in any country with a developed system of law. Criminals have had rights in this country for a long time.

Something similar happened not too long back. Oklahoma Women Shoots Intruder "Graveyard Dead"The only difference, Oklahoma law protects the homeowner.

Originally Posted by gregs656

Criminals have had rights in this country for a long time.

True, but should they have rights?

I've always thought that the law should protect you if you choose to live by it, but not if you dont. You cant go out there and break one law, get hurt, and then expect another law to protect you. Its the whole package or nothing. You cant pick and choose which laws you want to follow.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested in the points of view out there..!

Originally Posted by Stubear

True, but should they have rights?

of course. There should be absolutely no question that criminals deserve rights. I'm quite prepared to say I've broken the law, I have the points on my license to say I've been caught as well, I'm certain you have broken the law as well.

Also, I don't think that case is similar. She was defending her home, and used a reasonable amount of deadly force. This bloke was not sentenced based on what he did to defend his home, he was convicted of what was effectively the revenge.

This is one of those picky scenarios.. Had he chased him, and -one on one- beat the living hell out of him. No one would care... Since it was 3 on 1 with bats, that changes things.

Likewise. Were someone to attack you with a knife, if you have a knife and slash their hand -disarming them- if you proceed to stab back, even though they attacked you unprovoked, when you have an unfair advantage -after disarming them- you become an assaulter with lethal intent. Laws like that have logic, but it's an unfair logic.

However, if the guy you disarmed keeps trying to hit you, poke him a good one >.>

I think beating the burglar until half dead was needless and stupid although it is easy to understand the feelings of the homeowner.
I can understand the law as well. I think absolutely nobody has a right to kill someone for a revenge.
The burglar should have been sent to jail of course.

If I understand it correctly a jury convicted the homeowner rather than a judge alone ? If so that makes me wonder if there is more to it than can be gleaned from the article ? If an intruder held my loved ones at knife point threatening their lives he deserves worse than what he got IMO. The victim of the home invasion being a millionaire I would assume he will appeal the conviction and perhaps win on appeal or at least get the sentence suspended. I hope so anyway.

For me I think the issue is chasing the guy down. If someone comes in my home and threatens my person or my family, he's in for a bad experience. But once he leaves my house, persuing him for any reason other than merely detaining him or more positively indentifying him/pointing him out to authorities seems excessive to me. I will defend my family and property, but my rights to engage basically end at my property line.

If someone held a knife to my wife, & i then had a chance to tackle them, i'm not sure at what point i'd stop. They deserve everything you can throw at them in my opinion.
Christ, if someone did it to my dog even, i'd batter them.