Businessman on trial for assaulting two thieves on his property...

Bizarre. Just bizarre. The law in this country is so skewered.

I'm admittedly in the latter camp to be honest. To break into someones property with the extent to steal is completely disrespectful, to then expect to be treated with respect to avoid a beating when you tried to cause that person physical and financial harm is ridiculous IMO

When someone breaks into your business you should not have to be afraid of either retaliating and risk getting arrested, or not retaliating and risk having the life beat out of you.

Just shows what the 'justice' system really is in this country.

"Prosecutor James Wilson"

Please, if any robber is reading this, please go rob this *******. Continuously. Every month at least once and keep messing up his house in the process.

No it isn't. The law is extremely simple and perfectly balanced and sensible.



A breaks into B's home. B hears and goes after A. A runs away. Whilst A is running away, B shoots A in the back. Is B justified, because he was treated with 'disrespect'?

What if B tackles A to the floor and, instead of just breaking both his legs, breaks his neck and leaves him paralysed?

Frankly couldn't care less in either scenario, don't break into someones home.

Sorry - I mis read your post.

There are usually two camps in this sort of discussion. Those who agree with the whole reasonable force idea and those who feel that as soon as someone comitts a crime, that person becomes fair game for a good beating.

The intruders would not have pressed charges - the CPS would have done that.



A lot of force, I'd say. Verging on unreasonable.

The injuries sustained corroborate what the victims are saying.

I respectfully refer you to my 'hysterical ignorance' comment, above.

Sure, everyone should just be able to kill and maim each other because they broke the law.

Shot in the face by a shopkeeper? WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE SHOPKEEPER IS GOING TO PRISON? You shouldn't have tried to steal 80p worth of quavers! Pfft, this 'justice' system!

I don't even. I have no words. Really.

Then less people would go around stealing sweets...

Then less people would go around stealing sweets...

BIB: I'm in that crowd, I'm afraid.

Nah.

The sweet theif would just go in armed to the teeth and take the shopkeeper out first.

If your logic worked, you'd have no burglaries in the US.



That's ok!

Sorry, not sure if serious. Are you really defending my intentionally absurd hypothetical?

Sorry, not sure if serious. Are you really defending my intentionally absurd hypothetical?

A lot of force, I'd say. Verging on unreasonable.

The injuries sustained corroborate what the victims are saying.

No one is saying they should be treated with 'respect'. Protect yourself, restrain them, arrest them. That is fine.

Not really, thieves are scumbags. It's liberals like you that let them get away with it. Who gives a **** what happens to them? They shouldn't steal in the first place. People are no longer scared to burgle because of stories like this. All your doing is enabling them. What a farce.

Tackling someone running away with the intent to stop them is fine, if they just so happen to be paralysed because of that my sympathy lies with whoever ends up wiping their arse.

It's not about what happens to them. It's about what has been done by the businessman.




Yes, with the intent to stop them. To that extent I agree; if they happen to end up paralysed when someone was just defending their property, that's unfortunate but not a criminal matter. What is being said in this thread is different. People seem to think that it is okay to tackle them with intent to stop them, and then beat the crap out of them with the intent of retribution. They are two very different things.

It's not about what happens to them. It's about what has been done by the businessman.




Yes, with the intent to stop them. To that extent I agree; if they happen to end up paralysed when someone was just defending their property, that's unfortunate but not a criminal matter. What is being said in this thread is different. People seem to think that it is okay to tackle them with intent to stop them, and then beat the crap out of them with the intent of retribution. They are two very different things.

You don't have to worry, so long as you are really defending yourself, and not engaging in extrajudicial retribution. In practical terms you probably don't even have to worry in the latter case, so long as you don't break limbs.

What he did is completely fair. They shouldn't try to steal his stuff. People like you will never learn until it happens to you.

As it happens, my (parents') house has been burgled whilst I was there. And it doesn't make any difference. If I had broken multiple limbs with some blunt instrument when they were on the floor or fleeing, to get retribution for their attempted burglary, I should be in jail.

I anticipate your arrest and conviction under this logic when an intruder breaks into your home and you break their arm via restraint or fracture bones when hitting them with a baseball bat or whatever.

As I noted earlier, human bones are fractured very easily.

People are no longer scared to burgle because of stories like this. All your doing is enabling them. What a farce.

Humans are very fragile creatures. It would easily take just a swing of a heavy or blunt object to fracture a bone. This is why people fracture bones in their face when merely punched.

If the businessman swung a blunt object at the thieves a few times then it is not shocking that he would have broken a few bones. I wouldn't say swinging a blunt object at an intruder three times is that unreasonable, even if it does result in broken bones.

You seem to be suggesting that there is some sort of logic or intense thought in these situations - there isn't. If a woman is met with a burly intruder, in her kitchen, in the dark with him in a mask who looks like he's about to go for her - she's not going to try and "restrain them" or "arrest them", she's going to grab the kitchen knife and go for them.