Nyx Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by Sidla What if the ball went through the window? now would that be a ball at teatime?? or maybe a ball at two in the morning?? Get real and at two in the morning it`s more likely to be a brick.unless of course you`re in the habit of leaving all your windows open 24 hours a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinp Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 To all those saying 'don't pre-empt violence on them' seem to be overlooking the main point: !!THE SLIMY BARSTEWARD(S) HAS BROKEN IN TO YOUR PROPERTY!!! I'm sorry, but that alone would enrage me. They had no right to do that and I believe they should lose their rights the moment they set foot in your property. 999 times out of a thousand, i'm not a violent person. But when this lowlife is threatening the very foundations of your livelihood, either with or without a weapon, I would, as a matter of instinct do whatever it took to keep me, my family and my possessions safe. When they break in, that's provocation enough to spark a response from me. I'm sick of all this "oh but they were running away" lark. Tuff tits. They've already stepped over the line and deserve whats coming to them. They are scum. An Englishman's home is his castle and I disagree with anyone who believes that burglars have ANY rights once they've broken that law. They aren't normal people like you or I, they are the bottom-of-the-barrel people who were trying not only to rob you, but also trying to do you over in court for protecting your family and property. Devious, scheming sods like this make me sick an the courts system doesn't do enough for the REAL victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyx Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by dinp To all those saying 'don't pre-empt violence on them' seem to be overlooking the main point: !!THE SLIMY BARSTEWARD(S) HAS BROKEN IN TO YOUR PROPERTY!!! I'm sorry, but that alone would enrage me. They had no right to do that and I believe they should lose their rights the moment they set foot in your property. 999 times out of a thousand, i'm not a violent person. But when this lowlife is threatening the very foundations of your livelihood, either with or without a weapon, I would, as a matter of instinct do whatever it took to keep me, my family and my possessions safe. When they break in, that's provocation enough to spark a response from me. I'm sick of all this "oh but they were running away" lark. Tuff tits. They've already stepped over the line and deserve whats coming to them. They are scum. An Englishman's home is his castle and I disagree with anyone who believes that burglars have ANY rights once they've broken that law. They aren't normal people like you or I, they are the bottom-of-the-barrel people who were trying not only to rob you, but also trying to do you over in court for protecting your family and property. Devious, scheming sods like this make me sick an the courts system doesn't do enough for the REAL victims. I couldn`t agree more !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatalieSheff Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 if id got kids then yes id bash em, but i havent so id try and get a good luck at em, let em go and call bobbies. not worth getting injuried for sake of material things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igm1 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by dinp To all those saying 'don't pre-empt violence on them' seem to be overlooking the main point: !!THE SLIMY BARSTEWARD(S) HAS BROKEN IN TO YOUR PROPERTY!!! I agree with you dinp, that's why I voted Yes, but no unnecessarily gratuitous violence I disagree with anyone who believes that burglars have ANY rights once they've broken that law. Agreed but they don't deserve to be murdered when the burglar could be some young kid, addicted to drugs, who is trying to pay off his debts and is in deep trouble. They need help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 the law at the moment allows you to use reasonable force. the people arguing for a change here (if you can call it making an argument) are saying that they should be free to murder the burglar as the burglar will have forfeited all rights. Maybe as the step after that they'd like to see the word reasonable removed from all self-defence law, so if someone decides to attack you it's perfectly legal to pick up a knife or a 2*4 and beat them to death with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinp Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by IanMitchell I agree with you dinp, that's why I voted Yes, but no unnecessarily gratuitous violence Agreed but they don't deserve to be murdered when the burglar could be some young kid, addicted to drugs, who is trying to pay off his debts and is in deep trouble. They need help. I voted yes, get them before they get you. That doesn't mean I condone unncessary violence, but I would do what is necessary to protect whats important to me. I don't give a rats ass WHY someone is breaking into my house, they simply shouldnt do it. Their problems should not be my problems. I don't steal from others and I dont expect to be stolen from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinp Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by Cyclone the law at the moment allows you to use reasonable force. the people arguing for a change here (if you can call it making an argument) are saying that they should be free to murder the burglar as the burglar will have forfeited all rights. Maybe as the step after that they'd like to see the word reasonable removed from all self-defence law, so if someone decides to attack you it's perfectly legal to pick up a knife or a 2*4 and beat them to death with it. I certainly wouldn't plan to murder anyone, but if a fight broke out and they were giving as much as you and they ended up dying as a result, I dont see why I should be punished for that. I was doing my duty and protecting my family and property, whereas the lowlife was out to strip me of safety and possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igm1 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by dinp I voted yes, get them before they get you. That doesn't mean I condone unncessary violence, but I would do what is necessary to protect whats important to me. Definately. The poll should be changed to get them before they get you, but no unnecessarily gratuitous violence. Their problems should not be my problems. I don't steal from others and I dont expect to be stolen from. Agreed. It should not be your problem, I'm not disputing that if someone breaks into somewhere that is not their property they are wrong- regardless of the reasoning. What I'm saying is if they're desparate they need help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinp Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by IanMitchell Definately. The poll should be changed to get them before they get you, but no unnecessarily gratuitous violence. The 'get them before they get you' option should still be there though, as some person somewhere would just want an excuse to kill someone and get away with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.