Man who knocked down burglar in court

ash23

ziggyman17 wrote: »

Society is in a mess because of the all the do gooders in the world.. The burgular had 7 previous convictions and yet is out and about walking the streets, it should be like the american system of 3 strikes and your in jail for a long time..

Pesky human rights campaigners. Damn you Martin Luther King!! Amnesty International are making such a mess in the world. Tsk.

benway

Of course, three strikes worked so well in the States that their crime rates are still exponentially higher than ours? Murder rate is a couple of thousand times higher?

bbam

The King of Moo wrote: »

Do you seriously think that burglars should have no rights whatsoever?

That they could legally be killed in the streets by citizens?

Do you really want to live in such a barbaric world?

Mostly, yes.
I feel once you unlawfully enter someone's house your liable to be killed at the end of a baseball bat. Fair enough.
Honestly chasing the guy in the car was a little ott, but granting comp or prosecuting the homeowner is way off.

Solair

The situation as of early January 2012 is currently covered by :

Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0035/index.html

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

The home owner is an idiot. That is fairly obvious.

To condemn a man an idiot based on this is quite a horrible way to behave tbh. We are emotional beings. While legislators, and ivory towered folk like to believe they're dealing with robotic automatons, it is far from reality. Fear, Anger, adrenaline etc are all factors in this case. The judiciary should empathise with this. This is a person who is just looking to live his life and look after his family, who has had his home, where his children sleep, invaded. The invader took his property, including jewelry which could have emotional value as well as monetary value. there are so many things to consider before calling such a person an idiot.

He went from the position of being a victim to being the defendant in 5 minutes flat.

No, he went from being a victim, to being BOTH a victim and a defendant. And unlike the burglar who committed an unprovoked crime that was completely unjustifiable, and who tried to lie and squirm about being drunk and 'finding himself in a strange bathroom etc', he REACTED to quite a serious crime that was committed against him and his family.

he is an idiot and deserves whatever he gets.

Surely you don't really believe that?

Exactly. Or what if there was two of them? Or what if he looped back once the car got rounf the corner? Or what if there was an accomplice waiting for him?

You may question what he did, and believe that it wasn't the best course of action, but saying he was an idiot deserving all he gets is completely cold. People are not computers, and we should empathise with such scenarios. The victim of the burglary is not a threat to society, and reacted to a serious crime.

IMO, we should always side with 'the idiot', and grant him our mercies. People have enough to deal with having to put up with criminals without being criminalised for standing up against them.

Or what if the burglar had died?

What if the homeowner shrinked away, and the burglar came back as he viewed them as easy pickings? There are lots of 'what ifs'. My own view, is that such risks are the hazards that go with deciding to be a criminal. The fight against crime begins with citizens. This airy fairy notion that we just leave it all to police etc, only works if it......... well works. By all means point out the hazards of confronting criminals, but lets stand up with the citizens rather than the criminals.

Corruptable

Solair wrote: »

The situation as of early January 2012 is currently covered by :

Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0035/index.html

No **** Sherlock.

Re-statement of the common law position which had been in practice for dozens of years. Normally a fair and a good position, but there's still an imbalance and a broken system which needs to be rectified.

kopfan77

I know im only jumping in at page 29 of this thread......but this all comes down to "Reasonable Force"

Yes, the scumbag is exactly that for breaking into this guys house and stuffing his pockets full of jewellery, and I know if it was me i would find it extremely hard not to put his head in with the baseball bat beside the bed....but that doesnt mean that it is right if the force is not reasonableto the situation

In this case the guy ran like hell and posed no threat to the owner, so in my opinion to chase him, run over him in your car and then hit him a second time is not reasonable force to the particular situation...its over the top. If he had chased him and hit him a couple of digs I think he's have had a hell of a better case

Now if the scumbag turned on the owner when discovered and became violent then in my opinion, if the owner used violence back it would be considered reasonable force.

Every case is different and as such has to be treated as such....but my thoughts are that at the end of the day the actions and force used have to be reasonable to the situation

The King of Moo

bbam wrote: »

Mostly, yes.
I feel once you unlawfully enter someone's house your liable to be killed at the end of a baseball bat. Fair enough.
Honestly chasing the guy in the car was a little ott, but granting comp or prosecuting the homeowner is way off.

And if you got a beating or worse for being mistaken for a criminal; were run over by a man chasing a burglar or were injured in a stampede of people after a suspected paedophile, I'm sure you'd shrug your shoulders and accept these things as part of the risks of such a society.

benway

Corruptable wrote: »

Yeah, you know once someone references "fascism" as a reason why we shouldn't dare take on a criminal or dare to suggest stronger laws you know it's the end of meaningful discussions with that person, and that they would need an invasive surgical procedure to safely remove their head from their anus.

Haven't seen many useful suggestions, just a lot of internet tough guy posturing, and reactionary hot air.

And if you don't accept basic, universal, inalienable human rights as an essential bulwark against fascism and tyranny, then you need to deal with your head/arse fusion issue and all, maybe have a quick look at some recent history.

Corruptable

The King of Moo wrote: »

And if you got a beating or worse for being mistaken for a criminal; were run over by a man chasing a burglar or were injured in a stampede of people after a suspected paedophile, I'm sure you'd shrug your shoulders and accept these things as part of the risks of such a society.

There's a Tort for that. But it should be the case that you have to "come with clean hands" (as in the case of equity) before you should be entitled to claim. So perhaps a criminal who suffers due to the risks of his profession should not be entertained in the civil courts.

In any event, you and whats-his-name are cruising the realms of hyperbole.

Corruptable

benway wrote: »

Haven't seen many useful suggestions, just a lot of internet tough guy posturing, and reactionary hot air.

And if you don't accept basic, universal, inalienable human rights as an essential bulwark against fascism and tyranny, then you need to deal with your head/arse fusion issue and all, maybe have a quick look at some recent history.

I've made suggestions, you simply refuse to entertain them and would much prefer deflecting them with hyperbole or semantics.

I'm not going to bother posting them again, you can go back a few pages if you want to read them. Henceforth, I refuse to take anything you contribute seriously as you clearly don't give a **** until something like the crimes referred to herein happen to you.

The King of Moo

Corruptable wrote: »

There's a Tort for that. But it should be the case that you have to "come with clean hands" (as in the case of equity) before you should be entitled to claim. So perhaps a criminal who suffers due to the risks of his profession should not be entertained in the civil courts.

In any event, you and whats-his-name are cruising the realms of hyperbole.

I'm just trying to imagine what a world in which petty criminals don't have human rights might actually be like.

ash23

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm just trying to imagine a world in which petty criminals don't have human rights might actually be like.

Scary because I reckon there's a bit of a petty criminal in us all.......

The King of Moo

ash23 wrote: »

Scary because I reckon there's a bit of a petty criminal in us all.......

That's what a lot of people calling for removing all rights from criminals (or most criminals) don't seem to realise.

I know I've definitely broken some laws, mostly very minor traffic violations like jaywalking, passing through a red light on my bike a few seconds after it turned red.

I also know that in the future, I might find myself in a position where I commit some more serious crime.

And if that day ever comes, I still want to be considered a human with basic human rights in the eyes of the law.

Corruptable

The King of Moo wrote: »

That's what a lot of people calling for removing all rights from criminals (or most criminals) don't seem to realise.

I know I've definitely broken some laws, mostly very minor traffic violations like jaywalking, passing through a red light on my bike a few seconds after it turned red.

I also know that in the future, I might find myself in a position where I commit some more serious crime.

And if that day ever comes, I still want to be considered a human with basic human rights in the eyes of the law.

For the sake of argument then, the minimum threshold for removal of rights has to be conviction for an indictable offence (currently 5 years or more in prison).

Or maybe three strikes, or ten strikes or something like that in terms of lesser offences (i.e.: misdeamours like traffic offences wouldn't count)

Stark

The King of Moo wrote: »

That's what a lot of people calling for removing all rights from criminals (or most criminals) don't seem to realise.

I know I've definitely broken some laws, mostly very minor traffic violations like jaywalking, passing through a red light on my bike a few seconds after it turned red.

I also know that in the future, I might find myself in a position where I commit some more serious crime.

Burglary isn't simply a natural progression from traffic violations. You can't get into America if you have a criminal record, they don't care if you've broken a few speed limits.

Corruptable

I think a lot of these problems stem from the failed social engineering of the last century.

The idea that we are all equal isn't based in reality. There's no such thing as a classless, genderless, bisexual, equal opportunity society and there never will be, however in attempting to create it, what you end up doing is ****ing up the existing society which isn't necessarily perfect, but it works.

You cannot say that about what I would call our current hybrid society, half-centred on human rights, and half-centred on the old view. The system is clearly ****ed and is non-functioning.

ash23

But who decides?
If this guy can decide to mow down a guy who broke into his house and then ran away and gets away with that without prosecution, does that not indicate to me that if a guy grabs my ass in a bar that I can glass him?

We don't get to decide as individuals what is a "serious" crime and what isn't because we all have different morals.
That's kinda why there are laws.
And we don't get to decide which ones are ok to break and which ones aren't and we don't get to decide the punishment. That's left up to the courts.

benway

Corruptable wrote: »

I've made suggestions, you simply refuse to entertain them and would much prefer deflecting them with hyperbole or semantics.

I'm not going to bother posting them again, you can go back a few pages if you want to read them. Henceforth, I refuse to take anything you contribute seriously as you clearly don't give a **** until something like the crimes referred to herein happen to you.

It's my ball, and I'm going home.

So ... let me guess, I couldn't possibly live in the "real world" if I don't go in for hang 'em high bullsh!t? As it happens, I have had my apartment burgled, and I have plenty of experience in the criminal justice system, dealing with "scumbags", at work, in my neighbourhood, and in the town where I grew up.

I'm no wooly liberal, I'm just in favour of criminal justice policy that might actually be effective, not just in satisfying peoples' raw emotional hatred of "scumbags". And at the same time not allowing crime to be used as a trojan horse to undermine all of our rights.

No point in having people put themselves at risk by arresting someone, when they can just get the cops to do it. This isn't deflecting, this is directly addressing, but disagreeing ... no offense, but I think it's a bad idea. All this have a go hero stuff is dangerous, it'll lead to people getting hurt - this is the real world, not Kick-Ass.

Stark

benway wrote: »

All this have a go hero stuff is dangerous, it'll lead to people getting hurt - this is the real world, not Kick-Ass.

Kick-Ass got hurt...

The King of Moo

Corruptable wrote: »

For the sake of argument then, the minimum threshold for removal of rights has to be conviction for an indictable offence (currently 5 years or more in prison).

Or maybe three strikes, or ten strikes or something like that in terms of lesser offences (i.e.: misdeamours like traffic offences wouldn't count)

But how does losing human rights work in a practical sense? Can only the government execute the person or can anyone have a shot?
I'm guessing that some of the people calling for some criminals to lose all their rights would side with the latter, as they've been defending a tired and very angry man driving after a burglar.

Stark wrote: »

Burglary isn't simply a natural progression from traffic violations. You can't get into America if you have a criminal record, they don't care if you've broken a few speed limits.

I know, but even if I'd never committed any crime before, I could never say I never will commit a crime in the future. And if such a day comes, I want my full set of human rights to be intact.

mconigol

The King of Moo wrote: »

That's what a lot of people calling for removing all rights from criminals (or most criminals) don't seem to realise.

I know I've definitely broken some laws, mostly very minor traffic violations like jaywalking, passing through a red light on my bike a few seconds after it turned red.

I also know that in the future, I might find myself in a position where I commit some more serious crime.

And if that day ever comes, I still want to be considered a human with basic human rights in the eyes of the law.

Wow...basically what your saying is that you'd like a little safety net for yourself just in case you feel like breaking into someones home some day.

Breaking a traffic light on your bike doesn't impinge on the human rights of others so why should your rights be affected by that? I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

I think what most (of the rational) people here are saying is that if someone deliberately puts themselves in a position where they decide to remove the rights of another then their own rights take second place temporarily.
i.e. if you're going to be a criminal do so at your own risk

These guys have made a concious decision to act outside the laws and accepted behaviours of society yet they want the benefits and protection that this society provides when it suits them. Can't have their cake and eat it in my opinion.

Stark

The King of Moo wrote: »

I know, but even if I'd never committed any crime before, I could never say I never will commit a crime in the future. And if such a day comes, I want my full set of human rights to be intact.

Well there's a good chance you'll lose your right to freedom for one thing.

JimiTime

ash23 wrote: »

Pesky human rights campaigners. Damn you Martin Luther King!! Amnesty International are making such a mess in the world. Tsk.

See, this exemplifies the idiocy of the human rights campaign. Relating scenarios like these to the work of Dr King etc. Dr King stood up for the rights of an oppressed people who did nothing but have black skin. How we deal with criminals is nowhere near the same.

Its like a NAMBLA asking for us to give paedophiles jobs in schools, and quoting Martin Luther Kings fight against discrimination. The fact is, we discriminate. We have to. It is wise to. The basis for this discrimination is the issue. For example, not allowing a man to work in childcare because he's black is racist discrimination which we should fight. Not allowing a man to work in childcare because he's got a history of sexual assault is wise discrimination.

ToxicPaddy

The mistake that guy made was to do that off his own property, its seen by the law as planned or premeditated.. if it happened on his own property, he could have claimed he and his familes safety was in danger and acted in self defence as the burglar was acting.in a threatening way..

While I have no sympathy for the burglar, chasing him down and running over him twice is never going to end well. Its going a bit too far in the eyes of the law.

Maybe if he threw the burglar into the back if the car, brought him back to his place and beat the crap out if him he might have got away with it

The King of Moo

mconigol wrote: »

Wow...basically what your saying is that you'd like a little safety net for yourself just in case you feel like breaking into someones home some day.

Breaking a traffic light on your bike doesn't impinge on the human rights of others so why should your rights be affected by that? I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

I think what most (of the rational) people here are saying is that if someone deliberately puts themselves in a position where they decide to remove the rights of another then their own rights take second place temporarily.
i.e. if you're going to be a criminal do so at your own risk

These guys have made a concious decision to act outside the laws and accepted behaviours of society yet they want the benefits and protection that this society provides. Can't have their cake and eat it in my opinion.

IF you consider inalienable human rights to be "a little safety net," then yes, I'd love to have that.

The idea of losing one's human rights temporarily actually seems to be somewhat covered by the permission of using reasonable force against an intruder. If I ever became a burglar I'd expect that I might lose my life entering someone's home.
But I don't want to live in a world where one's loss of human rights extends beyond the heat of the moment and the confines of the victim's home.

Stark wrote: »

Well there's a good chance you'll lose your right to freedom for one thing.

Of course, I accept that. But that wouldn't be an infringement of my human rights if it was a crime which warranted a custodial sentence.

JimiTime

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm just trying to imagine what a world in which petty criminals don't have human rights might actually be like.

You do realise, that full human rights or none is not the choice right? Like you realise that we remove a persons right to freedom when they are jailed etc? Having a system balanced more in favour of would be victims of criminals does not equate to 'Its gonna be torches and pitchforks'!

ash23

JimiTime wrote: »

See, this exemplifies the idiocy of the human rights campaign. Relating scenarios like these to the work of Dr King etc. Dr King stood up for the rights of an oppressed people who did nothing but have black skin. How we deal with criminals is nowhere near the same.

Its like a NAMBLA asking for us to give paedophiles jobs in schools, and quoting Martin Luther Kings fight against discrimination. The fact is, we discriminate. We have to. It is wise to. The basis for this discrimination is the issue. For example, not allowing a man to work in childcare because he's black is racist discrimination which we should fight. Not allowing a man to work in childcare because he's got a history of sexual assault is wise discrimination.

I was talking about human rights which are "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being".
Which covers everything from genocide to opression to vigilantism.
Every person in our country has the same rights. And the same laws apply to everyone. We cannot decide where and when to punish what we deem to be a bad person outside of the legal system.
MLK fought for human rights, equality for ALL, not just black people and lost his life for that cause. Like many others. It's not "wise discrimination" to decide a petty thief can be greviously injured. The system doesn't work like that.

The King of Moo

JimiTime wrote: »

You do realise, that full human rights or none is not the choice right? Like you realise that we remove a persons right to freedom when they are jailed etc? Having a system balanced more in favour of would be victims of criminals does not equate to 'Its gonna be torches and pitchforks'!

I don't agree with removing any human rights.

The idea behind them is that they fulfill the basics needs and rights of every person, and that all of them apply to every human being.

And if you start removing some human rights, that could very easily lead you down a slippery slope.

Anyway, I don't know why you're bringing up prison sentences. I've already stated that I have no problem with that when it's warranted, and somehow I don't think that's what people have in mind when they call for some human rights being taken away from criminals.

What I do object to is violent, reckless vigilante justice being meted out on the streets, which is what the man in this case did, even if it was partly excusable, and what a lot of people are defending.
So I don't think we'd be too far from pitchforks and torches, as that's not so far from what a lot of people seem to want.

benway

Corruptable wrote: »

I think a lot of these problems stem from the failed social engineering of the last century.

The idea that we are all equal isn't based in reality. There's no such thing as a classless, genderless, bisexual, equal opportunity society and there never will be, however in attempting to create it, what you end up doing is ****ing up the existing society which isn't necessarily perfect, but it works.

You cannot say that about what I would call our current hybrid society, half-centred on human rights, and half-centred on the old view. The system is clearly ****ed and is non-functioning.

There's no such thing, yet. Things were going pretty well until the mid-70s, when the forces of reaction and entrenched privilege had regained their strength after the second world war, and started to reassert control. I agree with you that the job is only half done, but the struggle isn't over, not by any means.

So, basically you're saying that you want to go back to the "old view"?