If i caught anyone in my closet trying to steal my wardrobe... methinks i would have to kill them.
I'd give them a good beating, then tie them up and make them eat somthing disgusting! Ooo n give them a nuggy! While I waited for the filth to arrive.
the problem is the law (in uk) says to use "reasonable" force, however that is relative to the intentions/actions of the burglar. thing is, if you are upstairs and they are downstairs, you have no idea of their intentions. so how can ou react accordingly?
Yep, everyone has a different definition of reasonable. I think shooting to stop them NOT to kill them would be OK but to tell you the truth I don't think we should have guns in our houses anyway. In America guns in houses injure more family members than burglars (and don't try to say that's because Americans are dumb, I'm sure it would happen here too with some of the idiots I know).
I agree that the law always seems to be on the criminals side in England at the moment. It needs sorting out. Signing up to that European Human Rights Legislation was the worst thing ever to happen to our legal system since it seems to only protect criminals. I think criminals should lose some of their human rights, after all doesn't prison deny them the right to free movement, so why don't we extend that?
I personally believe that a person should be able to use more force than they can at the moment, but i don't believe they should be allowed to do whatever they want to a burglar, that's rediculous. If a burglar was cought in your house, you surely could'nt be able to take them downstairs to your basement and torture them to death, that's ridiculous.
The English legal system is about being fair, and using force to defend yourself, not to take revenge, that's savage.
I think that people should be allowed to protect their property with reasonable force which means stopping the threat but not killing them if possible. Of course if the person is being violent and acting like they are going to kill or hurt your family then killing them may be the only option. However I think shooting a person as they are running off is not acceptable because they are no longer a threat. I don't believe that criminals should ever be allowed to sue for injuries aquired during their criminal activities. Revenge attacks after are a different matter. When people are hurt while breaking into someones house then there should always be an investigation but there need not be a trial except in cases like Tony martin (not sure if that is his name) where the person was no longer a threat.
Good replies thanx chaps!
I've been targeted by the little shits a few times myself, I’ll just list what I can remember being stolen within the last couple years...
2 bikes worth about £800 each
1 car stereo worth £600
Watch worth about £200
There has been more over time. This major problem in the country not matter what measures you go to protect something legally, they'll go one step further to get it.
If I see someone nicking my car stereo next time they will be begging for mercy. The police are there to make the government appear they are doing something. Ok they do catch big time criminals sometimes but I sure that involves MI5 CIB/D etc. The Bobbies don't really do much more than target the innocent, in my experience.
So perhaps if we were to take the law into our own hands a little more, would the criminals be a little unsure of taking something?