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
So you think, whatever the circumstance, that it's ok to shoot anyone who enters your house?
i think if someone brakes into my home i have the right to defend it by what ever means needed
Yeah. You go for it. Goodluck. :thumb:
We obviously live a different set of principles. Sorry if mine shock you into a sickening disbelief! I mean I know its wrong protecting whats mine.
tell me about it. I'm cursed.
I'm merely putting across my point of view! It contrasts yours, thats all. I'm not blabbering, I'm debating! ...anyway this discussions boiling the blood.
as we were....
But it's the way you go about protecting it. There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect your house and property, nothing wrong with using physical force (within reason) to do this either. However, you and Territt seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to think it's all right to subject someone to extreme pain and even death just because they're doing this. I mean, there's a clear difference between an altercation and leading to death and the owner of the house just killing because they're so enraged that someone had "the audacity" to break into their house.
Reasonable force is the view that in eyes of a jury of peers that any action taken to prevent a threat of violence was justified and proportional to protect yourself. You can naturally prevent a thief from taking your stuff, but until they appear to be about to be violent towards you, you have no right to kill or attack them.
To be honest I can't really see a huge difference between someone who has a fantasy about what they'd do to someone who broke into their house, and someone who imagines what they'd do if they broke into someone else's house. It's all still imagining a violent fantasy that involves subjecting another human being to pain and possible death.
Tony Martin was a convicted thief living a fantasy about killing local gypsies who obtained firearms against the law (firearms laws brought in after another man's fantasy led to him walking into a school and murdering children). He played a part in organising a situation where he confronted two thieves who ran away. In response he murdered a 16 year old, and no doubt enjoyed the act as much as he had imagined.
I don't see any difference between Tony Martin and Thomas Hamilton.
You support the homeowner having the right to do that and get away with it.
You support the homeowner being judge, jury and executioner and killing someone as a penalty for stealing their property.
In short, you support the death penalty for burglary.
I hope you're proud of yourself.
no because thats a packet of chewing gum, but if someone for instance was in a hold up and managed to get the guy who was doing the hold up, then thats fair enough.
It would really depend on the circumstances of the burglary. If the guy who was being burgled, confronted the owner and started a fight, and then the burglar got hurt, then tough shit for the burglar.
Shooting him as hes running out of the door though is a bit different.
I dont think someone should HAVE to cower in the corner and hide if they get burgled. I dont think someone should be penalised for standing up for themselves
Three minutes. Not a bad prediction. although I'm surprised that you didn't nomiate Territ too TBH
so what do you think he should have done, just stood there and let the Theifing little scum take what they could?
I take issue with Territt's or anyone else's stance that a homeowner should be allowed to get away with shooting someone in the back who is running away with some loot and is clearly posing no danger whatsoever to the homeowner. That is paramount to saying someone's TV is worth more than a human life. And that's indescribably sick and fucked up. So much so that anyone who believes that should be looked up by doctors to make sure they pose no danger to others. I certainly wouldn't want to be near anyone with such mentality.
:banghead:
You are a sick cunt.
well im waiting for you to come up with an idea? maybe he could have helped them carry the stuff they wanted to take? would that make you happy?
So you condone shooting someone in the back after running away from a house? Sick, sick man.
well what would u have done?
So those are the option then? Kill him/let him get away?
You have a seriously narrow perspective on things, don't you?
Just a thought, where would you set the limit - just walking into your house without permission or a van full of swag - at what point on that scale if that person life forfeit?
If you are going to keep responding to an actual event with the fantasy in your head of what happened then we aren't going to get very far.
You have to understand that it's an absolutely accepted fact that they were already running away, they had already left, he had already terrified them, stopped the theft and defended his home.
Then he murdered a boy
Rang the police, like 99% of the population would do.
They was still inside his house, they had still damaged his property, and by saying he still murdered a boy, your making out like he was a innocent school boy, he was in the middle of braking into somebody’s home, he had done it before and if it was for what happened that night he would have done it again, this not make out that he was an innocent victim in this.
There is a saying that "an Englishman's home is his castle". And long should it remain so. In my view, burglars deserve no rights. Frankly, if the scumbag in question had been shot whilst going about his crime, I would not weep. The homeowner should be released immediately, the police should apologise for their gross stupidity and the burglar in question should expect a visit from the Old Bill. But will that happen? Of course not.
Until someone is actually violent towards you, you have no justification for attacking them, because you don't know their motives. What if a drunken man simply accidentally got the wrong house on the way back to his mates house from the off licence, and you'd left the door unlocked? Quite possible in an unfamiliar neighbourhood where all the houses look similar.
It has to be said, that after Territt, you were my second choice.
I'll ask you the same question that Territt is ignoring. Where is your limit - at waht point does another person's life become forfeit?
Actualy they don't. It's what we pay them for.