PDA

View Full Version : Justice? Retaliation? Revenge?



jonboy
12-20-2009, 03:47 PM
Interesting case should get a few normally hot under the collar posters even hotter

Scene UK. Players one middleaged family man, reputable community member, local businessman, member of various charitable organizations. one elderly other.
lesser players one brother and at least four unknowns..

Middleaged family man returns home with wife and kids to find elderly other and two others in his house. He is tied up threatened by them and generally humiliated as are his family. He manages to break free, intruders flee, he chases them, resulting in him and his brother flooring one of the intruders and beating seven sorts of s..t out of him, breaking into three pieces a cricket bat in the process. Intruder left permanently brain damaged... various other players not seen again.

Result...? Middleagedman and brother get 30 and 39 months banged up in gaol for aggravated grievous bodily harm.. Brain damaged intruder gets probation... after the case the intruder is revealed to have 50 previous convictions and is currently on bail for another charge.

Judge's point is that ..whatever the reason you don't take the law into your own hands, break down of society etc... Overwhelming public support for business man, tabloids winding everyone up as usual.. Dare I ask for your comments...?

David Tabor (sailordave)
12-20-2009, 03:56 PM
He manages to break free, intruders flee, he chases them,

Chasing AFTER someone will usually result in this scenario. Same here in the States. If on the other hand he had gotten free and beat the crap out of them in his house or immediately outside and not some (indeterminate) distance away they probably would have gotten off scot free. In MOST states you can only use deadly force for self defense and defense of others. Florida and a few others allow deadly force for defense of PROPERTY.

Emotionally I can understand why people are ticked about him having to spend ANY time in prison, but the judge is quite correct (in theory) that our legal system is for the benefit of society as a WHOLE and when individuals take things into their own hands and act as judge/jury/executioner that threatens the public order.
Much as I sympathize w/ these guys I suspect they caught a break in that if they had been the victims of the same treatment the bad 'uns would have gotten far lengtheier sentences.

What would REALLY suck would be if the brain damaged intruder sues (and wins) civil damages. Although I would hope no jury of citizens would award him anything.:eek:

Nicholas Carey
12-20-2009, 04:18 PM
Chasing AFTER someone will usually result in this scenario. Same here in the States. If on the other hand he had gotten free and beat the crap out of them in his house or immediately outside and not some (indeterminate) distance away they probably would have gotten off scot free. In MOST states you can only use deadly force for self defense and defense of others. Florida and a few others allow deadly force for defense of PROPERTY.Moreover, one can only use deadly force if there is an imminent threat (e.g., he's got a gun or other deadly weapon) to one's life or that of others.

The Florida deal is new, statutory law and I don't believe there's a whole lot of precedent built up around it yet, as to just what circumstances might allow the use of deadly force in the defense of property. I'm willing to bet that the liquor store clerk that shoots an unarmed, fleeing shoplifter in the back for shoplifting a fifth of Jim Beam is probably not going to fare well in court.

BrianW
12-20-2009, 04:38 PM
I think they should have gave him and his brother a medal, and made them national hero's for a week.

BrianW
12-20-2009, 07:07 PM
IMHO, once a bad guy has intruded into my domain, there is no magic line where I can't smash him.

It's not like a hasty retreat across the threshold erases the crime.

Glen Longino
12-20-2009, 07:19 PM
IMHO, once a bad guy has intruded into my domain, there is no magic line where I can't smash him.

It's not like a hasty retreat across the threshold erases the crime.

Of course, there is a magic line where you can't smash him.
The magic line is drawn at the spot where your own life and the lives of others are no longer in danger.
I know how you feel, but if you ever get the chance to shoot somebody in the back running away from you, Don't Shoot!
On the other hand, in the case that's the subject of this thread, it's okay to chase the felonious bastid down the street and apprehend him and drag his sorry hide to the police station, but it's not okay to beat him brain-dead or kill him. I know you know that!

Concordia...41
12-20-2009, 07:42 PM
The Florida deal is new, statutory law and I don't believe there's a whole lot of precedent built up around it yet, as to just what circumstances might allow the use of deadly force in the defense of property. I'm willing to bet that the liquor store clerk that shoots an unarmed, fleeing shoplifter in the back for shoplifting a fifth of Jim Beam is probably not going to fare well in court.

And he shouldn't (fare well in court). I'd have to look it up, but I think the law you're referencing only applies to a person's personal property - i.e. home, but it'd be interesting to see where the line is drawn - vehicle, boat, business...

On the stupid criminal note, we had some kids arrested for breaking into a boat. The one kid's explanation - delivered with a straight face no less - was that he was just visiting, walked away from a party on foot, got lost, and climbed up on a boat to see if he could see a landmark.

Yeah ... when I'm lost at 2:00 a.m., I always wander into a boat yard and climb up on a boat...

PatCox
12-20-2009, 11:08 PM
The new Florida law just says that there is no duty to retreat from a situation.

The rules are clear, though most people don't know them.

It is illegal to kill a person. Period. Thats an important first principle. Its illegal to kill someone. There is an exception, however, when the killing is "legally justified." Thats important, most people who kill someone probably "feel" justified. But its still murder, unless its "legally" justified.

It is only legally justified if the killer was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

Now it is not a legal rule, its not anywhere in the law, that you can kill anyone in your house. However, its as good as a legal rule, because the cops and the prosecutors are not going to charge you, ever, if you kill an intruder in your house. Its just kinda unofficially presumed that you are in imminent danger if there is an intruder in your house. You are probably okay as long as they are still in your yard, and you shot them. If you followed them out of the house and spent any length of time beating them to death, sorry, but thats considered excessive. If you got in the car, and ran them off the road a mile away, and then beat them to death, thats murder, thats vigilante stuff.

These rules are all pretty reasonable, come on, you are allowed to kill someone to protect yourself, and thats it, you are not allowed to hunt them down and kill them.

You are not allowed to kill someone over a threat to property, no piece of property is worth a human life, sorry, thats reasonable to me.

The Florida law deals with one special circumstance, which is, that you are not usually allowed to kill someone, even if they are a threat to your life, if you can remove the threat to your life by retreating. This situation almost never comes up, it will never come up when you are in your own house, for sure, and as I said, whatever the law says, no cop and no prosecutor will charge you for killing an intruder unless the situation is extreme, like you spent a half hour bludgeoining a 13 year old girl to death just because she broke in your house.

The Florida law elminates this requirement. I think its stupid, because the only place it will ever matter, is in the case of some kind of stupid drunk fighting confrontation, so suppose you are arguing with someone over a traffic accident or outside a bar, and he pulls a gun, under the traditional law, you are not allowed to escalate the situation if you can just safely leave. This law says you can stand your ground and shoot him.

I don't think this was a problem that needed a solution, it seems to me that if you are really in imminent danger of your life, that almost presumes that there is no safe retreat, you know what I mean?

All this law is going to do is let people who got themselves into stupid showdowns, walk. People who let themselves get into stupid showdowns, in my opinion, are not innocent.

The plain fact is, that no matter how much you think your pride and manliness are worth defending with deadly force, the only thing that justifies you using deadly force, is a threat to your life, not your pride, not someone keying your car, or knocking down your mailbox.

There are too many angry nutjobs out there fondling their guns and just waiting for an excuse to blow someone away, those people should not bee encouraged.

Ian McColgin
12-20-2009, 11:19 PM
In the seriously abbreviated statement that stated at the thread, it appears most likely that the home owner really was way past simply subduing the robber he and the brother [who mysteriously appeared] and were off on advanced rage fueled revenge. That was a very serious crime, deserving of a porportionatly serious punishment.

Rapelapente
12-20-2009, 11:26 PM
What would REALLY suck would be if the brain damaged intruder sues (and wins) civil damages. Although I would hope no jury of citizens would award him anything.:eek:

If that happened in France he'd surely win huge civil damages, since there isn't citizen jury in civil court, and the decision is left to a unique judge.

PatCox
12-20-2009, 11:27 PM
Here is a simple way to put it, you are not allowed to use any more force than the cops are allowed to use. The cops are not allowed to hunt down burglars and beat them half to death. They are supposed to arrest them, not mete out street justice.

BrianW
12-20-2009, 11:38 PM
Not sure if it's universal, or just a US thing, but every criminal knows that once you enter a mans house, all bets are off. He may legally be killed in that circumstance.

Once a criminal has accepted that fact, decided it's worth it, and entered another persons domicile with bad intent, the location where he get's his due shouldn't be important.

But that's just me.

Glen Longino
12-21-2009, 12:31 AM
Brian, Brian, if a 15 year old Mexican kid or a 50 year old meth head sneaks into your house to steal something and you kill him, you are a muderer unless he was trying to kill you or your family.
Get over it! You can't kill people simply because you want to, regardless how macho gun heavy you are.
I've let people live who I could have killed. So must you.

perldog007
12-21-2009, 12:45 AM
Actually the concept of acceptable homicide on a home invader can be traced to ancient Jewish law. "If someone comes to your home in the night time, arise quickly and kill him"

I agree with Glen, just because somebody is "bought and paid for" doesn't mean you should drop the hammer. ( or employ whatever means of dispatch you are possessed of )

Shutting down a human is very very serious stuff for most folks, and even if you are right the legal and emotional aftermath can be ruinous.

Very thankful I never had to take a life. Had to fire a really good guy once who had a righteous shoot. Turned him into a drunk, and folks who carry guns to work can't be drunks on the job. Very sad business. He did what he had to, and it ruined him.

Seems like a lot of lawmen who take lives leave us early with health problems. Jim Crillo is a fairly well known example, I knew an Amtrak Cop who went the same way. Left Baltimore City after a shooting, came to Amtrak and didn't last more than a couple of years.

paladin
12-21-2009, 11:09 AM
Well.....since I keep a S & W model 19 with 5 rounds in it.....and the first 2 are .357 rat shot (the next two are glaser safety slugs), izzitt alright if I aim at their gronicles and get off the first two where I think it will stop all forward motion, then if they keep coming (highly unlikely) use the glaser rounds in the kneecaps......the last one is a soft nosed .357.....a really terminal situation.

perldog007
12-21-2009, 01:41 PM
Well.....since I keep a S & W model 19 with 5 rounds in it.....and the first 2 are .357 rat shot (the next two are glaser safety slugs), izzitt alright if I aim at their gronicles and get off the first two where I think it will stop all forward motion, then if they keep coming (highly unlikely) use the glaser rounds in the kneecaps......the last one is a soft nosed .357.....a really terminal situation.

I live i a fairly rough little 'hood. Mortgage free can have it's drawbacks when you are doing it on a limited budget :) Still, there's only been one murder on my property in the last five years. We were lucky enough to be elsewhere at the time.

My instantly available options for dispatch run wider and deeper as I would expect yours do also. While I fully comprehend the need for blue humor as a means of maintaining sanity for those who "take out the garbage", I am also leery of of expressing same 'round 'civilians' .

Suffice it to say that lethal force is not where I would start on the continuum based on past experiences. We have had to issue challenges in our six years at the shanty.

Having the means to back up said challenge visible has luckily thus far obviated the need to employ the aforementioned means.

A Successful defense against a homicide charge would liquidate my meager estate and leave me owing more. That means drop the hammer only as a last resort. No matter what.

A good friend of mine is retired MPDC and only ten years older than me. He was in a shootout on Pennsylvania Avenue many years ago. Back when .38s' were used. Suicide by cop, the guy pulled an empty 12 gauge and leveled it at the responding officers. I know my acquaintance has been in other scrapes but he does not talk about them.

He just called the other day to discuss his recent cancer diagnoses. You would be harder pressed to find a more fit 58 year old. It's a tough business. I know the war radically changed my kid.

In the situation described in the thread, I do think that the U.K. is a tad bit hysterical with all of the anti-self defense stuff, that's just me. They are happy with it, may they live long and win prizes. Me, I would be happy to have the guy flee. If he comes back after that there's not much question of intent.

paladin
12-21-2009, 02:11 PM
I've only been confronted in that situation once, quite a few years ago.....I had surgery on my leg and couldn't walk....I left the front door unlocked (at the house previous to this one....It was common knowledge that I was not there for extended periods of time.
I could not get up and down stairs, and the house was a 4700 sq. foot rancher...but I had a 2800 sq. foot "basement, fully finished, with dutch door access outside from the rear garden to the basement. That was the place I stored books, weapons etc......
A couple of fellows decided no one was home...they got inside...I watched them on closed ckt tv......
they exited the basement, I was sitting in the kitchen, doors open.....as they moved to the center of the yard....I cut loose with the .444, close.....so that they could see the impact into a big oak tree....
It was a bit chilly outside....I made them stand there, drop their pants and underwear, remove their shirts etc, and told them I would shoot to kill if they ran, then called the cops......the deputy chastised me for firing my weapon...I reminded him that I was outside the township and on private property.....word got around about the old man on Three doctors road. Never lost anything....

perldog007
12-21-2009, 09:31 PM
A little off topic, but I always wondered why the .444 got popular. What's the big advantage over the .45-70?

PatCox
12-21-2009, 09:57 PM
I am glad to see how many of you guys are rational and have sense about this. You guys who have arms and know how to use them, and wouldn't hesitate to use them, still, most of you, believe killing another is something you do when you have to.

I do believe that any time you wake up in your house in the night and there is an intruder, you are justified to shoot them.

But if you wake up and they are already running out the door and trying to get away, thats just nohow, no way, a time when our creator would say you were justified in killing them, forget the law.

A minority of people seem to think that once someone has passed a certain line, they are free to shoot that person, regardless of circumstances, a thought process like "he broke in my house, I get to hunt him down and kill him."

I am a lawyer, I could bore you to death slicing and dicing the fine points of the way the law deals with this situation. Thats all ****. If someone is running away, you don't get to kill them. If you think thats a situation where you get to bring out the artillery and chase them down, you have some anger in you, and somewhere inside, you are one of those who are sitting there in your house hoping, fantasizing, about finally getting that chance to blow someone away, and you are hoping to punish someone for lots of stuff in your heead that has nothing to do with what they did.

perldog007
12-21-2009, 10:22 PM
Very salient points Pat. I think a lot of people don't realize that internet posts can come back to haunt them. Just because we use a handle hardly means we are anonymous. Especially since the patriot act.

It bears repeating, even when you are justified and vindicated using deadly force it still takes a toll. I know folks who have been, done, and own T-shirts. I don't envy them even a little bit. In fact it's the other way around on that score in all cases.

BrianW
12-21-2009, 10:28 PM
If... ...you are one of those who are sitting there in your house hoping, fantasizing, about finally getting that chance to blow someone away, and you are hoping to punish someone for lots of stuff in your heead that has nothing to do with what they did.

No loaded guns in my house, or in my bedroom.

I still stand by my opinion that once a criminal has crossed the line, accepted the risks, and put my family in harms way, anything I chose to do after that is his fault.

PatCox
12-21-2009, 11:39 PM
Brian, I don't think you are a bad guy, and for sure, noone who is not bringing it on themself is at any danger from you.

But its just a true fact, once someone is running away, you just don't have the right to kill them as punishment. That right to kill them is only yours when you are trying to stop them from threatening you and your family, not after the threat is over, as punishment because they threatened you.

I know that there is an acceptance of a level of 'rough justice" or street justice in some communities, but unless your uncle is the police chief or the judge, or the guy you killed is a known bad guy and everyone knows it, it just means you will get off easy, not scot-free.

pcford
12-22-2009, 12:39 AM
Libtards/libturds must run the U.K. justice system......
Yes, these men are heros for giving this felon brain damage.

YEEEEEE HAAAAAW.

Hey, email me when the next cross burning is coming up down there in Vidor, willya? Thanks.

Glen Longino
12-22-2009, 12:45 AM
jbelow is not racist!
He hates everybody equally!

JimD
12-22-2009, 12:57 AM
Perhaps there should be a grace period after the crook flees your house. You could have, say, ten or fifteen minutes to hunt him down and kill him. Twenty four hours max. After that you have to settle for calling the cops.

bobbys
12-22-2009, 01:42 AM
I keep a cricket bat with the serial numbers filed off to place at the dead body.

JimD
12-22-2009, 11:24 AM
I keep a cricket bat with the serial numbers filed off to place at the dead body.

To make it look like suicide?

BrianW
12-22-2009, 12:35 PM
Perhaps there should be a grace period after the crook flees your house.

How about a percentage of the statute of limitations for the crime?

Phillip Allen
12-22-2009, 12:40 PM
"Judge's point is that ..whatever the reason you don't take MY TURF into your own hands, break down of society etc... Overwhelming public support for business man, tabloids winding everyone up as usual.. Dare I ask for your comments...?"

I fixed that quote for ya...

andrewe
12-22-2009, 01:14 PM
There were a few more points to the case. The perps threatened the family with knives and said they would "kill them". The son escaped and alerted the uncle, who lived nearby. He got the higher sentence because he had not experienced the trauma of the husband. The more considered commentators agree that they are guilty but should have got suspended sentences on the provocation grounds. At the moment, in the UK, the chances of being caught for burglary are pretty small, as the police do not persue 'minor' cases and even if caught, they receive 'slap on the wrist' type punishment. So no surprise about the 50 previous cases. And this situation is likely to fuel victims anger, if they get the upper hand.
A

Phillip Allen
12-22-2009, 01:23 PM
Brian, I don't think you are a bad guy, and for sure, noone who is not bringing it on themself is at any danger from you.

But its just a true fact, once someone is running away, you just don't have the right to kill them as punishment. That right to kill them is only yours when you are trying to stop them from threatening you and your family, not after the threat is over, as punishment because they threatened you.

I know that there is an acceptance of a level of 'rough justice" or street justice in some communities, but unless your uncle is the police chief or the judge, or the guy you killed is a known bad guy and everyone knows it, it just means you will get off easy, not scot-free.

Pat...I doubt I would chase someone after they fled the scene...however, were that to happen I'm SURE punishment would be far,far from my mind...rather, not giving them the chance to return and kill me in my sleep!

JimD
12-22-2009, 02:00 PM
How about a percentage of the statute of limitations for the crime?

That took me a few seconds to get :D

Nicholas Carey
12-22-2009, 03:39 PM
A little off topic, but I always wondered why the .444 got popular. What's the big advantage over the .45-70?
Velocity. Even with the modest factory load, the .444 Marlin shoots flatter than a 45-70 and at the normal ranges (eg 150 yards or less) you might actually shoot it at, it packs a bigger punch than the 45-70. At longer ranges, the 45-70 packs a bigger wallop, but it's got the ballistics of a rock.

I remember my first time shooting it. Pinned the target up to a scrub oak about 6 inches in diameter in an old quarry. The first round, from about 50 yards out, hit the tree off center and just about dropped the tree. If the shot had been centered on the tree, the tree would've gone done.

Speaks with authority, yes it does.

Phillip Allen
12-22-2009, 03:42 PM
Velocity. Even with the modest factory load, the .444 Marlin shoots flatter than a 45-70 and at the normal ranges (eg 150 yards or less) you might actually shoot it at, it packs a bigger punch than the 45-70. At longer ranges, the 45-70 packs a bigger wallop, but it's got the ballistics of a rock.

one neds to understand the external balistics of the old government round to hit with it...AND be able to estimate distance very well

One load I used to be familiar with (45-70) when sighted in to hit center at 200 yards would be 12 1/2 feet low at 400 yards...just to point out the problem...

Nicholas Carey
12-22-2009, 03:55 PM
one neds to understand the external balistics of the old government round to hit with it...AND be able to estimate distance very well

One load I used to be familiar with (45-70) when sighted in to hit center at 200 yards would be 12 1/2 feet low at 400 yards...just to point out the problem...There's a reason the old 45-70 Sharps buffalo rifles had mondo sights on them :p

http://www.shilohrifle.com/catalog/images/2008_quigley.jpg

Keith Wilson
12-22-2009, 04:01 PM
One point: In a just society, there will be some limit on what you can do to a person who has broken into your house and done you harm, even a really nasty fellow like the one in the story. Reasonable people can disagree on what the limit is, but there has to be some limit.

Phillip Allen
12-22-2009, 04:13 PM
okay...?