But where does it end though astraboy.

I can see your point about the burglar coming back the next day, but in that case you should make sure he was killed so that he couldn't. And while your at it, you may as well kill him immediate family or best mate in case they get any ideas.

It will be open season for people to beat up others using the excuse of "I thought he was a burglar"

Listening to the news the other night, I thought they said that the real "crim" had since been locked up for offences committed AFTER he allegedly got brain damaged. The fact is that this countries justice system hands out tiny sentences to habitual criminals time and time again, which leaves them free to continue with this behaviour. Rather than just chopping their &$£%ing hands off. :lol1:

I'm not saying that he didn't deserve it - I'm saying that it was still excessive in the eyes of the law, and that I think that is right because where do you draw the line? The judges seem to agree with this as his brother who was not involved in the original incident still has a harsher sentence because he cannot claim to have been in the same emotional situation. That said, at that point he was not acting in defence of himself or his family - he was seeking vengeance and retribution. I can't blame the man for that; but it is not legal and given his otherwise good nature, a suspended sentence was the right "punishment" from the start.

Our crappy Justice system is meant to ensure vengeance and retribution - the fact that it's ran by a bunch of useless wet "it's because their mummies didn't love them" liberal self-abusers is besides the point I'm afraid. ;)

I think it is a good thing that if the criminal realises that when he breaks into a house and/or threatens a person's family with death or injury with a knife that he could well get thumped seriously by the householder with the backing of the law, that it might just make him think twice about doing it.

If as now he feels that he will be protected by the court under the incredibly stupid human rights act, then he will feel suitably encouraged to try it on!

Why the hell should anyone expect that sort of protection from the law when he breaks the law and threatens innocent people?

Les :(

Why just quote US statistics though Martin, why not include Canada, or Switzerland, in your argument too :wonder:

After all, they both have heavily armed populations :thumb:

It's a really good challenge, but we are (for better or worse) more culturally similar to the US than Canada or Switzerland. And we share huge issue with violent crime and gangs. I don't think Canada or Switzerland has these issues to the same extent.

I think overall we're better off having strict gun ownership laws than more lenient ones.

Can someone explain to me why after 54 convictions (one after this incident) that the guy is still allowed out?

Depends what the convictions are for - are they spent - ie has he served the punishment for them?

The one after the incident may be for a crime that occurred before it. It may be that an outstanding crime has been pinned to him by a witness who recognised him from the news.

But, thats the punishment system for you - should be locked up, moved, left on a desert island, given to the army - a long time ago.

I often have dealings with people who have well over 100 convictions

Will these PC Plonkers who are responsible for the treatment of such dyed in the wool criminals never learn?

Les

I wish you'd stop throwing around phrases like 'PC Plonkers'. Do you even know who you mean, or what it is you are are objecting too? Surely it would be the height of political INCORRECTNESS to allow criminals to offend on multiple occasions without effectively dealing with them.

What it actually highlights are the failing of a, our society and b, our criminal justice system. Why not debate those 2 points Les, rather than trying to turn this into some sort of sloganistic and misdirected rant?

Cannot see why you infer that I don't know who I mean and that you don't either. That term is very easily attributable.

What on earth do you think i was criticising if it was not the two points you mention.

Read it again without bias Martin!

Les

I dissagree here,

The criminals already have easy access to guns, as do the little 'gangstas' if not through owning them though hiring them from illegal armourers.

Up until Hungerford & Dunblaine there where next to no issues with legally held firearms, Dunbaline was a terrible tragedy, kids shot dead by a looney - a looney known to the Police who still did not act and remove this firearms and licence - Ok, that simplifies it but that is basically what happened. http://news.scotsman.com/dunblanekil...aws.2666156.jp

Hungerford - looking back you have to wonder why Michael Ryan was allowed to keep such an arsenal in his house and why he would need such weapons, semi auto AK47 and a semai auto 30cal M1 (WW2 vintage) assault rifle.

Still, any guns in the wrong hands kill people - currently in the hands of the criminals in this country.

The Police let the people of Dunblaine down and a lazy Conservative government knee-jerked in a law that stopped 1000's of people who never said boo to a goose and responsibly and legally held firearms from doing so.

Gun ownership is not a right but if the strict standards and control are in place then why not allow people without criminal records, people who can pass a set of strict criteria, people who want to shoot at a licenced and professionally run club do so.


Guns and thier legitiamte ownership are an easy target for the 'ban it beacuse people cannot be trusted' brigade.

+1 Paul.

Les

Community Police...


YouTube - Death Wish 3 - They Killed the Giggler

They had his family tied up FFS. I'd certainly be fearful for my life in such a situation thus would be pretty p*ssed if I happened to catch up with the chap when chasing him away ...

TX.