If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Maybe it's the concept of me being married that has people struggling, but as Flashman's Ghost suggested, my wife's sister's hubby is the fellow in question. If he'd been my brother, I would have said. Occam's Razor and all that...
Hopefully this sends out a message to all the thieving cunts out there.
Great. Next time I speak to someone who pays less tax than they should I will murder them safe in the knowledge we now welcome citizens becoming judge, jury and executioner and that killing a human being for thieving is acceptable.
Murder and tax evasion are two completely different kettles of fish!
The message is that if you break into someone's house and get injured or killed, then you can't rely on the laws designed to protect us to help you out.
Or how about, if you stick 2 fingers up at the law, the law will do the same to you?
Burglars are scumbags, they break into people's homes, they attack people in their beds and steal their posessions, and i'm sure the majority of people in the streets will be glad that for once the law is on their side.
I think there is a vast difference between someone coming into your house and attacking you in your sleep, then stealing your stuff than some rich bastard making a few extra quid off the government.
But it is a moot point. The bottom line is that some people appear to be advocating murder as a tool of revenge. Can a shopkeeper kill someone who's nicked a can of fizzy drink from his shop? And if not, why?
If you know where the person who burgled you yesterday lives should you be allowed to get away with going round his place, waiting for him to come out of the house and shoot him in the face on his own doorstep? And if not, why?
If we allow homeowners to kill burglars who are running away and who are posing no danger whatsoever to the homeowners, we are advocating murder for revenge/punishment. That is the long and short of it.
Because in both cases, it would make you just as bad (if not worse) than them?
Some who accept the concept of the latter are likely to carry out the action of the former.
For example:
http://www.wmur.com/news/13470893/detail.html
Would that be revenge or punishment ?
No because by the time he's left that person poses you no threat.
I thought you were talking about the burglar who fell out of the window. This is the case that began the latest argument in here. There's no indication he was running away.
See above.
The Tony Martin case and indeed the general 'right' of homeowners to do pretty much anything they want regardless of the circumstances has actually been debated throughout the thread. My comments were directed to those who argued such things.
You are right that we do not know the circumstances of this particular case. That is why I find it rather disturbing that some people are saying 'good' that he won't be prosecuted without knowing what went on and that hopefully that we will be a message to other burglars. Which bassically translates as ''we couldn't care less if the homeowner had actually overpowered the burglar, camly grabbed him by the collar and chucked him out of the window like dirty laundry. Hopefully burglars will understand that we will kill them like dogs if they have the temerity of breaking into our homes".
To all those concerned, Texas is that way
<
Although to be fair, if you have been killed then wahtever the law does will make little difference to you anyway
Are you suggesting that any criminal, anyone convicted of a crime, should lose their right to protection by the laws?
What do you mean "for once"? There has been no change in the law, this case is no difference from many which have proceded it.
How many laws are not on the side of "law abiding" citizens?
Have you seen the recent thread about them?
I'm not suggesting people be killed for breaking into someone's house. Im saying that if you are injured during a break in then you only have yourself to blame and the homeowner shouldn't be prosecuted for defending themselves of their property.
I'm also not suggesting people who kill should escape justice. IMHO Tony MArtin didn't get what he deserved. He shot someone in the back whilst they ran away, and he should have spent a lot longer inside. The guy was a reclusive gun nut from what I understand.
Is this some sort of question making me out to be immature by what I'm saying? Let me enlighten you to something. I've dealt with a lot of victims of crime, i've seen a lot of things and had to sit and comfort people when they realise they've just had pretty much everything taken away from them. From elderly people who've just lost their pension because of the con artist, to the young couple who've had their car stolen to the old woman who has had her face smashed in by 2 lads wearing balaclavas. Forgive me if my opinion of people who decide to steal from those of us who want to work for a living is lower than yours.
It's not as personal. In fact its nowhere near as personal. If some cheeky git robs your gaff they invade your personal space and property. If someone evades tax, they evade it through a system (its because of the system they do it. Goverment etc) and it affects more than one person. It may not even effect you directly as a result.
Course you can be pissed about someone dodgin the tax man, but your telling me you'd be more pissed at that than you would a break in? Nah...
It's silly placing murder and tax evasion in the same boat, very silly.
I think that it's more a comment on the news story today...
Since one or two people earlier in the thread appeared to be supporting killing a human being because they had dared to break and enter somebody's house, I was simply asking how it would be any different if I were to kill a human being who'd cheated me and the State of taxes.
But if the tax evasion analogy is troubling you, let me choose another one. If killing a person simply for breaking into your house when it is perfectly clear your life is not in danger is acceptable, can I kill someone I catch with their hand down my pocket retreiving my wallet on a bus? And if not, why not?
As said several times before, the bottom line remains that if the life of the occupants of the house is clearly not in danger it is completely and utterly unnaceptable to suggest they should get away with killing an intruder. It is no different from a shopkeeper or a commuter killing someone who's been caught nicking a can of beer/nicking a wallet.
I somehow feel one or two people believe they should be allowed to kill burglars as punishment for breaking into people's homes, but don't have the gulls to express their beliefs out loud.
How do you think you would deal with someone who was taking your stuff ?
If I reckon I could be hurt or killed I would not try to grab him.
Couldn't be simpler, really
Why? Would you like to police to do something else to them?
I was trying to establish what would be your alternative method to address the problem as I hadn't seen any in your posts.
That was what I meant by the "what do want the police to do to that person ?". What would be the ideal outcome for the thief, in your solution ?
And if he's not arrested, well that's life. You appear to be suggesting that the prospect of a burglar running away with your property is intolerable and that since there is a good chance the police might not catch him we might as well shoot him in the back to prevent him from getting away.
Well, if that is what you are suggesting, I'm perfectly happy letting him go if the alternative is to shoot him. I don't put the value of my property above a human life. Shame some here appear to have a different view on that.