Burglar who will burgle no longer
- Thread starter clippedgull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Falkor
Banned
- Jun 3, 2011
- 5,673
*sigh*
why the sigh, his scum, had it coming break into some ones house against the persons will then ya got it coming.
There's another thread on here just about the death penalty: Death Penalty. It was posts just like this that made me set it up. The basic question - what crimes do you think mean the person deserves death? I'll have a guess though... you think people should die for:
Murder - probably
Burglary - obviously, you say so above
Shoplifting - no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me
Drink driving? Speeding? - Again, wouldn't surprise me if you think all guilty parties should be lined up and shot.
Come and let us know
Northstandite
New member
- Jun 6, 2011
- 1,260
As 4 thugs are breaking into your home, there is no time for intellectual theorising in judging the circumstances or determining the %age probability that they won't kill.
Instinct, shock and fear would take over. Just picture that unexpected moment happening to you, your family and your home!
Because I've tried to make arguments throughout this thread about why it might not be wise to have a society where people are allowed to take the law into their own hands and kill people, even if they have had their houses broken into. There will be some circumstances in which this may be justified, others where it is not. I'm not going to repeat all the points again.
Despite all the reasoned arguments that several people have outlined, you and others have made no attempt to engage with the arguments, resorting instead to: 'scum, had it coming'. Presumably you either haven't read the whole thread, or you aren't able to make rational arguments to support your opinion, yet state your opinion anyway.
Either way, I felt a sigh was appropriate.
Simply by saying there's 4 of them, and that they're thugs, is taking this debate away from the general picture and making it specific. What if it's one teenager who's a complete f***ing coward but is desperate for some cash, so figures he'll jump in an open window and nick a watch quickly?
Obviously you can't make the law something like "if there's more than X of them you can kill them", so the answer has to be to treat every circumstance individually as it happens.
Personally, I'm quite impressed if you think you can kill 4 thugs to be honest. If there were four of them in my house there's no way I'd go down and take them on, armed or otherwise.
sydney
tinky ****in winky
if i wake up in the small hours and find some fucker fumbling around in my hallway , they are f***ing getting it....end of....!!!
As has been argued many times above, no-one is suggesting homeowners should sit and theorise when a burglar is in their house.
Nor is anyone saying that homeowners should not have the right to defend themselves.
Nor is anyone saying that it's not extremely frightening to have someone break into your house, and that this will affect how you react.
But that doesn't mean that it is necessarily acceptable for a homeowner to kill a burglar. It will depend on the circumstances, one important factor of which is whether the homeowner was in fear of his/her life etc.
Northstandite
New member
- Jun 6, 2011
- 1,260
Did I say I "think I can kill 4 thugs". Never get into trouble and have no criminal record, thanks.
Even if I want more cash or wealth, I don't steal. Strange that.
The 4 thugs point, and yes I'll stick with the term thugs, (a few pointers .... 4 of them, balaclavas, forcing way into house, criminal records), is that, that exacerbated the fear for the family inside.
Staying upstairs is completely understandible, as is, in that shocked and fearful moment, grabbing something.
Let's see if the 'stabber' is convicted for the killing. Unless there is something we've not been told yet, I bet English Law will ultimately give the correct ending of, No.
Falkor
Banned
- Jun 3, 2011
- 5,673
There's another thread on here just about the death penalty: Death Penalty. It was posts just like this that made me set it up. The basic question - what crimes do you think mean the person deserves death? I'll have a guess though... you think people should die for:
Murder - probably
Burglary - obviously, you say so above
Shoplifting - no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me
Drink driving? Speeding? - Again, wouldn't surprise me if you think all guilty parties should be lined up and shot.
Come and let us know
There are a few things i think the death penalty should be brought back for, but burglary is not one of them.
What i do think is that if you break into some one PRIVATE PROPERTY then ya have to pay the consequences on the other side, 9/10 he would have got away fine this time he got his just deserts. I dont think the bloke should be done for murder, if anything its manslaughter any way.
I just think if someone is in my property i fell threatend, as anyone would do at the early hours of the morning with some guy trying to rob it let alone 4 people, then ya have the right to defend it, why should ya stand by and let them steal ya stuff then call the police who will do f*** all anyway (yes i have been burgled).
I have a 3 year old boy i know for a fact if i caught a man in my place and my son was staying with me, i would do everything in my power to make sure that man was not a threat, if that means killing him then i will have to live with that for the rest of my life.
Bit of confusion here maybe (on my part, not yours). I was (and have been) talking about the general case, what should the law say, rather than this specific case.
Again, if it was kill or be killed, then I agree that no is the correct ending. But we have no idea - IMHO we don't know enough about the stabbing at all to make a call either way.
Northstandite
New member
- Jun 6, 2011
- 1,260
A knife wouldn't be my choice if I had to grab something & I wouldn't want to stab anyone or anything. Can't imagine it.
In the heat of the moment in that Manchester home, did anyone really want to kill, or was it shock/fear/anger?
Of course you would do everything in your power. That isn't the point I'm arguing with.
There is a massive difference between doing what's necessary to protect yourself (and your son) and a burglar deserving to die. On the previous page you made the latter assertion - which is why I made the comparison to the death penalty.
Needing to kill someone for you or your son's protection, and wanting to kill someone as punishment are NOT the same thing. Linking the two is confusing the argument.
Kill the dirty f***ing wankers
Surrey_Albion
New member
Can't argue with a well supported and evidenced post like that.
I think you will see my slighlty synacal reply just before the bit you quoted, sorry if it was too dry for you, I live it everyday more to the point can you argue anything to say the countrys not a mess??
Also does the point that we are arguing about wether a burgular deserved some sort of punishment for constantly breaking the law as the law are obviously powerless to prevent him to stop re-offending hence he was out on bail and obviosly has no respect for his fellow man or the law of the land
Falkor
Banned
- Jun 3, 2011
- 5,673
see my view is if a man enters my property and is trying to rob from me, and of course anyone in that situation would be fearing for there live, then i think i have the right to defend it, and if sadly that meant killing the man trying to rob me then thats something im going to have to live with.
Well what scale are you measuring it on?
If you want to compare to the rest of the world, then a quick list:
We have universal healthcare; 164/196 countries don't. You have electricity in your house; most of the world doesn't. You have running water in your home; most of the world doesn't. Unemployment in the UK is 7.7%; the world average is 14.2%, or 97% in Zimbabwe if you want to get to extremes.
If you want to just compare us to the "Western World" - 44,800 people a year in the US die because they don't have access to any healthcare, and unemployment is 9.1%. Countries in Europe have economies so bad they've needed bailing out.
Look at the world outside these borders and you will see that actually, we're FAR from a mess.
NOBODY has argued that a burglar didn't deserve "some sort of punishment". People are talking about whether committing burglary means you deserve to die.
I already agreed in my last post that if you need to kill an intruder to protect your life or your family, then obviously the law should protect you.
My point was that if you don't need to kill them, then don't kill them. And the presence of an intruder doesn't automatically mean you need to kill them.
I think most people would agree with you on this. As you say, defending yourself when fearing for your life is one thing. I'd say that relishing the prospect of dishing out punishment to someone who'd broken in, as some on here have implied, is a more worrying attitude.
I'd certainly agree with you that if I ended up killing someone while defending myself then I'd have to live with that, and I expect it wouldn't be easy.
NMH
Banned
Exactly, completely agree with this.
Adrenaline mixed with fear and anger *might* kick in, or perhaps complete loss of control out of impulse (might have been what happened in the case in question). You can't rationalize because you have not got time. You might feel it's him or me.
Cameron is only copying the US model on this. As long as the intruder falls inside the property, you can say you felt your life was under threat. If he falls in the garden - drag the body back in. You then only have to say you feared for your life