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 ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Crime: If you Looked out of your window and saw your car being broken into..
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in General Chat
If you Looked out of your window (at night) and saw 2 guys trying to break into your car what would you do?
a) Phone the police and sit tight
b) Stick your head out of the window and shout to scare them off
c) Grab a knife or iron bar and chase them and if you caught one would you hurt them?
d) Something else??
And assuming you didn't call the police in the first place would you do so after or just think they'd do sod all and it would be more hassle then it's worth.
a) Phone the police and sit tight
b) Stick your head out of the window and shout to scare them off
c) Grab a knife or iron bar and chase them and if you caught one would you hurt them?
d) Something else??
And assuming you didn't call the police in the first place would you do so after or just think they'd do sod all and it would be more hassle then it's worth.
0
Comments
I would call the police, send out killer dogs(if i had any) and get a camera to take pics of them. Not like a photot shoot but like for evidence. if the dog thing doesnt work, i would send out my crazy mother mase to blind them but still have the pictures taken.
Call the police then go out there with a weapon and slap the FUCK outta them and then sit tight....
Same here. Unless they were bigger or more than me, in which case I would go with the photography evidence thing.
I wouldn't want to go out and do anything because if I did I might, rightly so, be charged with a more serious offence.
I'd also then phone the police.
If you called the police, they'd probably take ages to arrive, by which time the burglars would have made off with your car. The police would then arrive, and say there's nothing much they can do as they didn't catch the burglars red-handed.
I'd love to go out there and smash their heads in for trying to steal something of mine, but knowing the justice in this country nowadays, i'd get sent to prison for attacking them, and the burglars would get off scot free. :mad:
Nonsense.
Under English law, you are fully entitled to protect your property. The question is that of reasonableness under the circumstances. If, for instance, you decided to confront the person attempting to get into you car, who then came at you with a knife, you would be entitled to use reasonable force to stop him or her. This might include hitting him or her or anything else to secure your safety. If, however, he or she backed off and said 'fair cop, guv - I give up' and you proceed to beat him or her or set your extremely dangerous dog upon him or her, then clearly this would be totally unreasonable behaviour.
Reasonableness, then, is surely the point at which defending your property or yourself turns into retribution.
If you act unreasonably, you should face the consequences.
Did you not read my reply?
It is a question of reasonableness under the circumstances. If you act unreasonably in relation to the other person, you should be charged, tried and, if found guilty, sentenced appropriately. If, however, it was reasonable in comparison, you should not.
Why not just kick the shit outta them and throw their body over a fence but not kill them..just knock them out and throw the body away and if they attempt to do you for assualt then say they broke into ur house.
Because these countries are a shambles as well, nowhere will ever be right, people will always be disagreeing...when will an eutopia world ever exist?
Incidentally, the maximum sentences for burglary are:
Dwelling - 14 years
Non-dewlling - 10 years.
So clearly this offence is very serious. As such, I very much doubt that the accused with receive three months unless the circumstances were such that it truly warranted a lesser sentence.
Dwelling and non dwelling? Whats dwelling? I know a boy who robbed numerous houses and went to jail for a couple of months now hes out and around, but he will be sentenced.
There are thousands of cases per year in England and Wales. You have highlighted three. What about the thousands more? It is surely well under 1%.
What type of drugs were they? I think they were class A and in a huge quantity and worth a couple of million pounds.
The importation of a class A drug has the maximum sentence of life imprisonment, as does rape. Clearly, therefore, they are both extremely serious cases. What is the differenciating factor? The circumstances. Hence it is of fundamental importance to decide upon a relevant sentence based upon its facts.
There was a programme on BBC1 a few weeks ago - a couple had spent £6,000 on CCTV Cameras to catch people who vandalised their home - the police even after seeing the footage said the picture quality wasn't good enough for a 100% identification - even though the home owners knew who they people were.
Also the issue of reasonable force - it's all well and good the police or the judge deciding what is reasonable when they are sitting in the comfort of your own office, sipping a cup of tea - but when you are in the real situation with seconds to think and fear that the other guy is going to knife you of something and you have to decide there and then - who's to say in those circumstances what seemed reasonable at the time.
For instance it might NOT seem unreasonable to the police to hit someone on the head in order to knock them out - but if two people attcked you all they need do is have one person grab and hold you whilst the other punches, kicks or knifes you. So merley wounding them a little might not be good enough to save your life.
I think once a person sets out to commit a crime 90% of their rights should be dropped. People shouldn't have the right to kill them or anything like that but they shouldn't be in more trouble then the person committing the crime.
The right to sue their victim should go out the window .. like that guy who went to rob that farmer claiming he can't get work because of his injured leg, has it occurred to him he can't get work because people don't want to hire a now very well known thief??
It was cannabis :rolleyes:
'Reasonable force' under the circumstances can be extended to anything - it need not be merely wounding. For instance, if someone was about to stab you and you had a knife in your hand, it would be just and accepted to stab this person. If he then fell to the floor and passed out and you continued to stab him and to hit him, clearly this behaviour would be totally unreasonable and consequently absolutely unacceptable.
YOU SHOULDN'T BE IN MY FUCKING HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT SCARING ME LIKE THAT!
there are loads of cases of burglars commiting rape, murder and arson when they have been rumbled. in my panic and fear for my life YOU will get seriously attacked.
remember ...i was at home with no intention of breaking the law. the other guy set out with sole intention of breaking it and possible hurting or killing someone. i will be reasonable ...in my fear anger and madness!
RAPE
Starting point 5 years on fight with no aggravating or mitigating features.
Starting point 8 years when:
i 2 or more men acting together;
ii the man has broken into or gained access to where the victim is living;
iii the man is in a position of responsibility toward the victim; and
iv the man has abducted the victim and held him/her captive.
Further aggravating features, leading to a departure from those starting points are where:
a. there is violence over and above the force necessary to commit the rape;
b. a weapon is used to frighten or wound the victim;
c. the rape is repeated;
d. the rape has been carefully planned;
e. the defendant has previous convictions for serious offences of a violent or sexual kind;
f. the victim is either very old or very young;
g. the victim is subjected to further indignities; and
h. the effect upon the victim is of special seriousness.
I wonder why, then, the man convicted of raping a young girl received only three years. The likely explaination is perhaps that defences were successfully pleaded or that the judge sentenced the man inappropriately. If it was the latter, an appeal will probably be brought, as, if I remember correctly, is being planned.
class a drugs include the bad fuck up ones such as Heroin and opiates, class a, fair enough.
They also include drugs such as magic mushrooms. As long as you take the right type of mushrooms, they carry very little risk. So why impose a max 7 year possesion penalty on them?
so, swallowing these totally natural plants and most of the time having an enjoyable experience should carry a higher sentance than forcing a woman to have sex with you, causing incredible emotional problems for her?
also, cannabis is still illegal, despite the fact that it is less harmfull than the two legals.
I think that it is still law for boys to go to archery lessons every 2 sundays is it?
What I do know about is the justice system, and I can tell you that English justice is considered the finest in the world. Sure, it has it's problems, but nothing's perfect. Everything can improve. There is much more RIGHT with it than WRONG, once you look beyond the surface and the publicised stuff.
Rape- i think if a man acts alone in a rape case he should get more than 5 years, he should get around 10-15 years, rape ruins a girls life or a males if the case may be..why should a rapist get out within 5 years and if 2 or more males are involved in the rape then there should be an unlimited jail sentence on them, preferably 20 years or so , i just think rape is very wrong.
The man who raped the 14 and 15 year old girls whom he met from the internet only got 3 years because he probably had a weak judge that day, for criminals only the hardest most ruthless judges should be allowed to sentenced, its the only way this fiasco will be sorted out, by putting all the criminals in jail.
I also believe duffy's point about magic mushrooms, they should not be a class a drug...they are harmless if used correctly and they are given here as a gift from God, what gives the government the right to choose wether they make it illegal or not.