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

Such as?

Extreme pacifism as you are advocating however, "don't hit back under any circumstances" has no place in any self-respecting human's life.

When did I advocate that?
And even if I had, this claim is still ridiculous.

Deterrent, removes the threat from society



When did I advocate that?
And even if I had, this claim is still ridiculous.

When you made the statement of "should" - what should be done in x situation. A rather useless word.

Well if you know going into someone elses properly that you were going to get a pickaxe to the head instead of a £75 fine it would be a good deterrent. It would also pretty effectively remove the threat from society.

I still didn't say what you claimed I said...
E.g. self defence is sometimes a valid excuse



Ok, there are some advantages to that too, but they are outweighed by the disadvantages

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.

It's obvious that you're not in a position to offer an impartial point of view so I'll leave it there.

You genuinely think this is the worst thing lawyers do? Wait until you meet some corporate ones, you're in for a shock.

No I don't. But someone said "who is this prosecutor" so I just wrote that. I find this horrible it's basically saying "let yourself be robbed, let the robbers get away". How this man can say of himself that he is upholding the law is disgusting.

Not shocking at all.

You may use reasonable force to defend yourself and property. This guy left one of the intruders with a broken arm and two broken legs.

It was only right that with the injuries sustained by the intruders and the allegations made by them, that the matter was investigated and left to a jury to decide.

The problem with "reasonable force" is who decides what's reasonable and what's not?

In a violent confrontation, your goal is to put your opponent down and make sure they stay down - You have no idea what they are capable of.

A jury.

Hope this clears things up.



Which would likely be considered reasonable. I don't see the problem here.

Oh wow yeah because i have absolutely zero grasp on the U.K legal system.

I think you missed my point.

In their Lordships' view the defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. It requires no set words by way of explanation. No formula need be employed in reference to it. Only commonsense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. Of these a jury can decide. It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be commonsense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have to avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence. Of all these matters the good sense of a jury will be the arbiter. There are no prescribed words which must be employed in or adopted in a summing-up. All that is needed is a clear exposition, in relation to the particular facts of the case, of the conception of necessary self-defence. If there has been no attack then clearly there will have been no need for defence. If there has been attack so that defence is reasonably necessary it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action. If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken. A jury will be told that the defence of self-defence, where the evidence makes its raising possible, will only fail if the prosecution show beyond doubt that what the accused did was not by way of self-defence

Well if you know going into someone elses properly that you were going to get a pickaxe to the head instead of a £75 fine it would be a good deterrent. It would also pretty effectively remove the threat from society.

That must be why America has zero burglaries.

The alternative, and what seems to be the reality, is that thieves will break into properties armed and ready to attack the first person they see, expecting to otherwise be attacked.

Yeah because I said it would create zero burglaries...
Exactly, now someone who burgles must be content to kill or seriously hurt someone.
I assume these people are in much shorter supply than someone whose moral code only allowed them to steal.

While you're assuming it might be worth looking at the official crime stats that show just as much violent crime as burglaries. Criminals don't tend to be squeamish about hurting people and often don't intend to kill or seriously injure someone when they do it.

Legalising the vigilante murder of home invaders does nothing but escalate the level of violence common in home invasions on both sides and make things more dangerous for everyone.

The law is fine. You can defend yourself if you are in danger but not chase someone down and kill them if they try to steal something you own. Your property is not worth another person's life, even the life of a criminal. This guy defended himself, possibly went too far in the heat of the moment, had a trial where the jury decided he had acted legally within his rights, job done.

I value my property substantially more than a criminals life.

Then you're a psychopath.