More that we both agreed SDB was a cock :thumb:

He was, wasn't he? :lol1:

agreed. all they have to do is put this up:
http://www.michayluk.com/signs/armed%20response.jpg
outside their house. It is considered sufficent warning to any toerag who wants to break in that they will get shot if caught by the property owner.
I reckon the police would be knocking on your door faster than you could say "ECHR" if someone in the UK were to put a sign up like that.
astraboy.

Got a hi-res scan of that Astraboy? :lol1:

Thankfully

Cobblers! He chased the potential murderer out of his house & down the street where he caught up with him. He didn't track him down like an Apache Indian ...

TX.

this has happened more that once in the USA -- often with someone returning home drunk, climbs in thru the wrong window - bang, dead

and the shooter will usually get acquitted

Or Aunty Mylene waves a knife at you

Sadly we are in a situation where the judge or the courts seems to place a higher regard to the criminals human rights rather than the victim and his family's rights.

The 'brain damaged' individual has already been caught breaking the law since this case. Perhaps said gent didnt hit him hard enough.

There needs to be a significant deterrent to comitting crime, currently there isnt any.

you are spot on!

So you don't agree that you should be able to shoot on sight someone forcing entry to your home with intent to commit bulgrary, assault, rape or perhaps murder?

What rights does the intruder have in those circumstances Martin? And why?

How it should be when a criminal decides of their own will to commit a crime then they should waive thier rights.
They have a choice.

Addiction to drugs/alcohol is not an excuse
Wanting something that someone else has and taking it rather than working for it is not an excuse.

There are no excuses really, just choices to make.



The reality is somewhat different with a plethera of so-called 'professionals' sticking up for and attempting to justify why scumbags commit crimes.

The real answer is they choose to, it just comes back to this simple fact.

Finally - it turns out the scumbag has 54 convictions agianst him - why or why is he allowed out? He should be locked away and the key binned, or just labotomised and used for spare parts

Could not put it better.

These days,criminals have shown that they are more vicious than we have ever known before and are quite likely to injure a victim severely or even kill him. Having burgled a house they are not satisfied until they have trashed it as well!

Any criminal breaking into a house or attacking an innocent person has therefore to be assumed to be capable of the worst actions. As a victim you can't hang around to see what he is likely to do, you have to act immediately in your own defence.

Les

Shut up.

Oh yeah, its a bitch when the guy you are burglarising turns around and kicsk the crap out of you. Top result :thumb:

The problem with this case is that he wacked the burglar in the house with a table leg (not a problem - self defence). He then chased him down the road with a bat and caught him (still not a problem - lawful detainment). But then he subjected him to a head beating with the bat and asked his brother to join in - which he did. This may be a little OTT. If he had just pinned him down and held him until police arrived, he had the bat in case the burglar struggled which he could have used.

Police have lost jobs and have been suspended for similar things. At the end of the day, only a court can decide if what he did was lawful or not. Which is what happened and jury found him guilty. The appeal court however reviewed it and set him free.

But if they had just given him a few digs and waited for the police to appear and arrest him, then what was to stop the guy coming back the next day to carry out his threats to kill?

If actually being arrested and charged lead to a proper detterent, ie the guy gets some bird, then perhaps people wouldn't need to meet out their own justice?

I agree about the punishment. In theory, he should have been remanded until his trial. There is nothing to stop him or his cronies from coming back. Even more so now that he has suffered a severe beating

No, mainly because I don't believe you should have the gun in the first place.

I completely agree that you should have the full protection of the law in DEFENDING yourself and your family.

Yup only the criminals should have guns right Martin?:brickwall
Why should a law respecting person of sound mind not be allowed to have a gun? Aside from the knee jerk reaction to police failing the licence system where the government banned all handguns,assault rifles etc.
How many persons are killed by legally held guns each year?
Less than are killed by performance car owners I'll wager and yet you seem to have one-dont you think It should be taken from you?
cheers richie

If you think increasing gun ownership is a good idea, go look at the stats from the US.

One thing you can be absolutely sure of, the more guns there are in circulation, the more people (many innocent) that will end up getting killed and maimed by them.

IMO there is absolutely no upside to increasing gun ownership

I think you'll find that the gun laws we used to have were considerably more strict than the majority of the usa laws which is why your comparison is worthless,still why lets facts into one of your "the world should be this way because I know best" posts eh?
If those guns are held by correctly licenced individuals then I think you'll find that you are taling boll*cks IMO of course.
Upsides to gun ownership include being able to provide fresh food for your family,olympic gold medals and the thriving industry we used to have based around firearms to name but a few still if you dont understand it or agree with it ban it eh-Are you intending to hand in your car to appease the greens soon as they dont like/understand it?
cheers richie

Surely he should be coaching Pakistan :thumb:

I'm not trying to turn this thread into anything. You're the one who's decided to be unpleasant and jump to conclusions.

I don't believe in guns...end of..deal with it;)

How many people just lately have been stabbed to death when they have confronted a burglar, vandal etc etc, quite a few. Wasnt some one stabbed to death only last week trying to get an old ladys handbag back?
So when this Gent catches up with this person, whom he knows to have a knife (seeing as the criminal has threatened to kill his family with one) he is supposed to just (without training) pin him down to wait for the old bill?
Sod off, he needs to incapacitate him, he doesnt want this guy getting up to stab him or his brother. Not having beaten any one around the head before to test how hard to hit him, he decides in the heat of the moment it needs a f****ing good whack which he provides!

Job done............ he deserved a medal not a prison sentance.

No jumping to conclusions-Ive read some of your previous postings.
You made a worthless comparison with usa gun numbers and I called you on it.
I then point out a few upsides of responsible gun ownership which you chose to ignore after stating there are no upsides.
You are wrong... end of..deal with it ;)
cheers richie

Well if you read my postings then you clearly haven't bothered to try and understand them.

But comparisons with the US are not useless, you appeared to argue for more guns. As America has shown, more guns = more needless deaths. Just bescause you don't like the comparison, doesn't make it worthless!!

There are NO upsides to gun ownership

Guns exist.. I can prove it. I'll struggle a bit more with the Tooth Fairy though.. ;)

I think its wrong to get the Gun ownership argument tied up with this though - I'd like to own my own firearms but that isn't so I can "protect my home!". A correctly stored firearm and ammunition would be too difficult to access in a house invasion situation. Anyone who wants to own a gun to keep under their pillow in case the bogeyman comes to get them is a fool, and should never be allowed a gun licence.

I think a short suspended sentence was the right punishment. What he did was not right, but it was understandable.

Everyone has the right to use what they consider to be reasonable and proportional force to defend themselves, or someone else, regardless of where they are. That is the rule the Police, Military, and the Public have to abide by. In the case of the Military, that includes when involved in operations such as Afghanistan.

It gets my back up a little when I see people bleat about how horrible it is that someone cannot defend their home, but are happy to buy the Mirror when it whines about how poor "innocent" Iraqi rioters get a bit of a kicking after they run out of petrol bombs...

Same rule applies to EVERYONE; it IS straight forward, it IS plain, and it does make sense.

He put himself in this position as he pursed someone who he believe was armed; the threat was only there because he made that decision. The immediate threat had passed and he then put himself back into that position - it's this point that really puts him on shaky ground.

In addition to that - the belief that he "might" be armed is not a threat in that situation either; if the guy had the knife out then, again, the situation is different. Plus even if he was carrying a knife, if you have someone pinned on the ground, they can't access it or use it - it's not a suicide vest...

Sorry, completely diasagree. If I was in that situation, I would have done exactly the same.
If he broke in to his house armed to the teeth and threatened to kill the guy's family, on one night, what's to stop him doing exactly the same the next night?

Eventually the policeman you see standing outside the door in the aftermath of these situations would leave and then it would be open season for this guy to return anytime he fancied to do it again.

It may not be lawful, but the fear of it happening again would be the driving force to persue and take this guy down, the law be damned should I catch up with him.

This is the crux of the situation. What this guy may not have been justified, may not have been lawful and may have been excessive, but the end result is the man who broke into his house and threatened to kill his family is incable of doing it again. "just desserts" sums it up nicely.
astraboy.