Burglar stabbed to death, Manchester [Merged]

[wayne71]

Re: Burglar stabbed to death, Manchester

Am I the only one who doesn't give a shite about the dead burglar?

If you don't get masked up and break into someones house, the person who lives there will not be forced into an action that results in your death.

Am I wrong?

No your right. Its all well and good a judge saying your actions were OTT if you kill someone but in the heat of the moment when its dark and your missus and kids are asleep upstairs you pick up whatever weapon you can and keep hitting until they either run off or are unconscious/dead.

What's a judge got to do with this? It is the members of the jury who have total discretion as to whether those actions were OTT. 12 people like you and me. Who is better placed to understand if those actions are reasonable?

I presume you would feel that in most circumstances that people are entitled to do what is required to defend their home. Then in those circumstances you would acquit. I fail to see how anyone can see anything wrong with that system.

It shouldn't even get that far, if someone breaks into your house and dies as a result, tough shit. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for some dead scumbags case to be heard.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: Burglar stabbed to death, Manchester

No your right. Its all well and good a judge saying your actions were OTT if you kill someone but in the heat of the moment when its dark and your missus and kids are asleep upstairs you pick up whatever weapon you can and keep hitting until they either run off or are unconscious/dead.

What's a judge got to do with this? It is the members of the jury who have total discretion as to whether those actions were OTT. 12 people like you and me. Who is better placed to understand if those actions are reasonable?

I presume you would feel that in most circumstances that people are entitled to do what is required to defend their home. Then in those circumstances you would acquit. I fail to see how anyone can see anything wrong with that system.

It shouldn't even get that far, if someone breaks into your house and dies as a result, tough shit. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for some dead scumbags case to be heard.

Hmm ok.

So if a 12 year old breaks into my house am I entitled to lock them in the cellar and torture them for a couple of weeks, say cutting a finger off each day. Once they were gone maybe start on the toes. Obviously while I was doing this he's begging me to stop or even to kill him to end his misery.

Is that ok?

Or would you consider that unreasonable?

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Re: Burglar stabbed to death, Manchester

No your right. Its all well and good a judge saying your actions were OTT if you kill someone but in the heat of the moment when its dark and your missus and kids are asleep upstairs you pick up whatever weapon you can and keep hitting until they either run off or are unconscious/dead.

What's a judge got to do with this? It is the members of the jury who have total discretion as to whether those actions were OTT. 12 people like you and me. Who is better placed to understand if those actions are reasonable?

I presume you would feel that in most circumstances that people are entitled to do what is required to defend their home. Then in those circumstances you would acquit. I fail to see how anyone can see anything wrong with that system.

It shouldn't even get that far, if someone breaks into your house and dies as a result, tough shit. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for some dead scumbags case to be heard.

We tend to go through the tedious and expensive business called due legal process in order to ascertain guilt or innocence.
Its a procedure that,although far from infallible,has served us well for hundreds of years,and separates reasonable democracies like ours from dictatorships.
And I,for one,am glad we have it,and the costs to taxpayers such as myself that come with it.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: Burglar stabbed to death, Manchester

What's a judge got to do with this? It is the members of the jury who have total discretion as to whether those actions were OTT. 12 people like you and me. Who is better placed to understand if those actions are reasonable?

I presume you would feel that in most circumstances that people are entitled to do what is required to defend their home. Then in those circumstances you would acquit. I fail to see how anyone can see anything wrong with that system.

It shouldn't even get that far, if someone breaks into your house and dies as a result, tough shit. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for some dead scumbags case to be heard.

We tend to go through the tedious and expensive business called due legal process in order to ascertain guilt or innocence.
Its a procedure that,although far from infallible,has served us well for hundreds of years,and separates reasonable democracies like ours from dictatorships.
And I,for one,am glad we have it,and the costs to taxpayers such as myself that come with it.

Plus how do you even determine if they were a burglar or not in any event? By having a fucking trial presumably, or maybe he's suggesting we just take the homeowner's word for it.

The possibilities for mass murderers are endless.

 

[wayne71]

Re: Burglar stabbed to death, Manchester

It shouldn't even get that far, if someone breaks into your house and dies as a result, tough shit. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for some dead scumbags case to be heard.

We tend to go through the tedious and expensive business called due legal process in order to ascertain guilt or innocence.
Its a procedure that,although far from infallible,has served us well for hundreds of years,and separates reasonable democracies like ours from dictatorships.
And I,for one,am glad we have it,and the costs to taxpayers such as myself that come with it.

Plus how do you even determine if they were a burglar or not in any event? By having a fucking trial presumably, or maybe he's suggesting we just take the homeowners word for it.

The possibilities for mass murderers are endless.

Woah, I didn't say the case shouldn't be investigated but if the evidence is overwhelming that the person broke in to your house and was injured or died as a result why should the homeowner be dragged through court.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Re: Burglar stabbed to death, Manchester

It shouldn't even get that far, if someone breaks into your house and dies as a result, tough shit. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for some dead scumbags case to be heard.

We tend to go through the tedious and expensive business called due legal process in order to ascertain guilt or innocence.
Its a procedure that,although far from infallible,has served us well for hundreds of years,and separates reasonable democracies like ours from dictatorships.
And I,for one,am glad we have it,and the costs to taxpayers such as myself that come with it.

Plus how do you even determine if they were a burglar or not in any event? By having a fucking trial presumably, or maybe he's suggesting we just take the homeowners word for it.

The possibilities for mass murderers are endless.

On the plus side,it may decrease the amount of Jehovah's Witnesses who come calling at silly o'clock on a Sunday morning...
You can't debate with the lynch mob - they just want their pound of flesh.
Even if this would inevitably lead to the wrong person in the noose now and again...

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: Burglar stabbed to death, Manchester

We tend to go through the tedious and expensive business called due legal process in order to ascertain guilt or innocence.
Its a procedure that,although far from infallible,has served us well for hundreds of years,and separates reasonable democracies like ours from dictatorships.
And I,for one,am glad we have it,and the costs to taxpayers such as myself that come with it.

Plus how do you even determine if they were a burglar or not in any event? By having a fucking trial presumably, or maybe he's suggesting we just take the homeowners word for it.

The possibilities for mass murderers are endless.

Woah, I didn't say the case shouldn't be investigated but if the evidence is overwhelming that the person broke in to your house and was injured or died as a result why should the homeowner be dragged through court.

Who decides if the evidence is overwhelming?

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Re: Burglar stabbed to death, Manchester

We tend to go through the tedious and expensive business called due legal process in order to ascertain guilt or innocence.
Its a procedure that,although far from infallible,has served us well for hundreds of years,and separates reasonable democracies like ours from dictatorships.
And I,for one,am glad we have it,and the costs to taxpayers such as myself that come with it.

Plus how do you even determine if they were a burglar or not in any event? By having a fucking trial presumably, or maybe he's suggesting we just take the homeowners word for it.

The possibilities for mass murderers are endless.

Woah, I didn't say the case shouldn't be investigated but if the evidence is overwhelming that the person broke in to your house and was injured or died as a result why should the homeowner be dragged through court.

...and how or who ascertains whether the evidence is overwhelming?
That's precisely what courts are for,where the Crown Prosecution Service consider there is a case to answer.
Almost everyone on here was ready to hang Jo Yeates' landlord a while back,because he had bad hair and a Waterstones bag.
And guess what?
Yep,he was completely innocent.
So much for testosterone taking the place of justice.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: Burglar stabbed to death, Manchester

Plus how do you even determine if they were a burglar or not in any event? By having a fucking trial presumably, or maybe he's suggesting we just take the homeowners word for it.

The possibilities for mass murderers are endless.

Woah, I didn't say the case shouldn't be investigated but if the evidence is overwhelming that the person broke in to your house and was injured or died as a result why should the homeowner be dragged through court.

...and how or who ascertains whether the evidence is overwhelming?
That's precisely what courts are for,where the Crown Prosecution Service consider there is a case to answer.
Almost everyone on here was ready to hang Jo Yeates' landlord a while back,because he had bad hair and a Waterstones bag.
And guess what?
Yep,he was completely innocent.
So much for testosterone taking the place of justice.

To be fair to them it was particularly sinister looking hair.

 

[Pigeonho]

Re: Burglar stabbed to death, Manchester

We tend to go through the tedious and expensive business called due legal process in order to ascertain guilt or innocence.
Its a procedure that,although far from infallible,has served us well for hundreds of years,and separates reasonable democracies like ours from dictatorships.
And I,for one,am glad we have it,and the costs to taxpayers such as myself that come with it.

Plus how do you even determine if they were a burglar or not in any event? By having a fucking trial presumably, or maybe he's suggesting we just take the homeowners word for it.

The possibilities for mass murderers are endless.

Woah, I didn't say the case shouldn't be investigated but if the evidence is overwhelming that the person broke in to your house and was injured or died as a result why should the homeowner be dragged through court.

Exactly. Even the thieving little cunts dad has come out and said he wishes he had the guts to confront a burglar, more or less saying he doesn't blame the homeowner who killed his son. I just don't understand how people don't see that if you break into someones home then you are at risk of being nicked, hurt by the home owner or in some cases, killed. I'm sure the person in question didn't pick up the knife to kill, he picked it up to injure, fight back and defend his own. He had every right to do that and the burglar had no rights, because as soon as he illegally entered that property he left all of his rights on the doorstep. Maybe if the law was more hard on burglaries perhaps people would have more faith and take any step necessary to not have to confront the burglars, safe in the knowledge that if the Police do catch them, they won't see freedom for a good 5 years or so. I was on Comm Service with a guy who had been convicted of attempted burglary. Why the fuck he wasn't in jail i'll never know, but until that is sorted out people will take things into their own hands, and rightly so too. I said in another thread about how my sister in law was faced with 4 burglars breaking onto her then home, with threats of rape being shouted at her unless the keys to her car were handed over. She phoned the police, only to be told that no one would be able to attend because the only available officer was at that point on his own. Seriously! So basically she was left to fend for herself, alone, because the police couldn't provide an officer because he too was alone. That, to me, is fucking atrocious and it's things like that which then make people take it into their own hands. I said to her that she should have phoned back and said she had a gun and was going to use it and watched how quick they turned up then. People are forced to take things into their own hands. If that results in the death of the criminal in question, good! The bottom line is if they weren't trying to steal things that weren't theirs in the first place, they wouldn't be at risk of anything anyway.
I hope this happens more and more to people who want to illegally enter a property to take things that aren;t theirs.