'Juries should acquit people who beat up burglars' |
Post Reply |
Author | ||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 10:40am |
|
From question time...
Video...
|
||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Depends on the definition of "beat up"...
I fully support anyone who defends their family/home/property from someone trying to harm them or take it in some way. The scope and level of that defense has to be justified though within certain margins of acceptability and the law should account for that - it doesn't though unfortunately...
|
||
SamR
First Officer Chargin' ma lazers! Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 496 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Couldn't have put it any better. |
||
|
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
However...
The case they are referring to, involved a guy and his family being subjected to a terrible ordeal. ''After the event'' the guy tracked down the perpetrator and beat his head in, causing brain damage.
I must admit, I'm a pretty aggressive individual, and I would most definitely be chasing the swines down the road trying to batter them.
But if i did, I would fully expect to be dealt with by the law.
Why? Because when you do something like that ''after the event'' you become a vigilante, taking the law into your own hands. And that in society isn't acceptable. The general public can't be allowed to decide for themselves, whether someone is guilty or innocent and exact the punishment of their choosing. That is for the courts to decide.
If someone breaks into your house however, and you or your family are threatened, you have the legal right to use the appropriate force to defend yourself.
The full question time debate will put the Andrew Roberts comments into proper perspective.
Andrew Roberts made some quite illogical comments on Question Time, aided by the not so logical Richard Madeley.
Madeley and Roberts, were of the opinion that if you chase after someone ''in revenge'' after a crime is committed, without your life being in danger, you should be exonerated.
Imagine the scenario, you charge out of your house in a berserker rage, grab the assumed perpetrator, give him brain damage, and then... you find out you've mistaken an innocent person for the bad guy.
Welcome to Richard Madeley's anarchic society.
|
||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If they don't want to get beaten up or killed, don't burgle!
As someone recently said: the only thing Tony Martin did wrong was missing the other ! Best regards, Vulcan. |
||
737Chris
Chief Pilot Joined: 04 Apr 2009 Location: The Abyss Points: 2247 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Its not quite that simple, I don't believe that gives a person to retaliate with unnecessary force, such as bashing their head in with a brick or shooting them. |
||
Generic forum signature
|
||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It would depend on if the burglar had run off when confronted or started threatening the people he was robbing. If the latter, then there is no argument - if he gets killed, tough luck!
Best regards, Vulcan. |
||
Flightboy
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Essex, UK Points: 7396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Im with the americans on this one, enter my home without permission you have to be prepared for whatever i class as a resonable force to remove you from it.
Flightboy |
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That wasn't what this was about, as I said.
The guy had left the building, the threat was non existent. He pursued him with revenge in mind. He acted as a vigilante, and administered his idea of justice.
Im with the americans on this one, enter my home without permission you have to be prepared for whatever i class as a resonable force to remove you from it.
Which leaves plenty of scope for unlawful killing. You shouldn't decide what constitutes ''reasonable force'' the law should. |
||
Stringbean
P1 Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: London Points: 912 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
known in legal terms as "Malice aforethought".
|
||
Rich
Just Flight Staff Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: Planet Earth Points: 8543 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I can't see how "he tried to rob me of my Playstation so I robbed him of his life" could ever be deemed an appropriate response.
The law should never allow people to dish out their own retribution. Chasing someone down the street after they have left your property and seriously injuring them is a serious crime, as simple as that. |
||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If you are chasing them with a view to catching them but they then get injured as a result of not wanting to be caught and you defending yourself... What about that?
Would chasing after them and seriously injuring them after committing something more serious be justified then?
If they are running away then presumably they were caught in the act or disturbed. What would/could have happened to you, your family, your property if they hadn't been disturbed?
If you choose to let them go, that's up to you but then how would you feel if they then decided to come back the next day and do something else. Or went somewhere else the next night and that didn't turn out as well?
|
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Would chasing after them and seriously injuring them after committing something more serious be justified then? No it wouldn't. If somebody did such a thing and mistook your wife, or you, for the perpetrator, would that be justified? The general public shouldn't decide when and how to punish. The general public shouldn't act as judge jury and executioner, thats for the legal system in a civilized society. Unless you favor anarchy? Vigilante justice doesn't work.
If you choose to let them go, that's up to you but then how would you feel if they then decided to come back the next day and do something else. Or went somewhere else the next night and that didn't turn out as well? There's a bid difference between a legal citizens arrest, and deliberate injury, beating a perpetrator to the point of brain damage. A legal citizens arrest is full of pitfalls, if the person arrested is an innocent party, or the perpetrator injured, lawsuits can ensue.
The police aren't allowed to batter someones head in ''after the event, not in self defense'' and neither are the general public.
|
||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Agree about the false identification, but we are talking about running after the guy you've just seen legging it from your open window... If I know he's just pinched my wallet am I justified in beating the hell out of him? No. Understandable if I did? Still no. If he resists me 'arresting' him and subsequently gets hurt in the struggle, am I to blame then? No.If I know he's just attacked/hurt my son/wife am I justified in beating the hell out of him? Still no legally but understandable? Yes and I'd hope any jury would see it that way too.
Now in a real situation you may not know exactly what he's done nor what he could do the following night if you just let him go. If you then 'beat him up' as a result of such panic/trauma/provocation etc. then should that be treated exactly as if he had beaten you up? No. I think a certain amount of leniency and understanding has to be taken into account in such situations.
|
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Agree about the false identification, but we are talking about running after the guy you've just seen legging it from your open window...
It doesn't matter. To act that way is taking on the role of vigilante, administering your own justice. Convicting and punishing yourself. An independent court, police, jury didn't witness him committing the crime and running away from your house. The courts would only have your word for it.
You would be taking on the role of judge and jury. Not acceptable.
If I know he's just attacked/hurt my son/wife am I justified in beating the hell out of him? Still no legally but understandable? Yes and I'd hope any jury would see it that way too.
Which was precisely the debate on question time. The individual that decided [understandably] in a rage to chase after the guy, and then subsequently caused him brain damage in revenge, was jailed. However, the high court intervened and applied a more moderate sentence.
But it still has to be against the law, to take matters into your own hands, after the event, not in self defence, act as judge jury and executioner and beat someones head in.
Imagine the difficulties it would cause, if it was left to the general public to decide when and how to punish.
Edited by MartinW - 25 Mar 2010 at 2:24pm |
||
Stringbean
P1 Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: London Points: 912 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It could be argued that the wrongdoer sustained his injuries because he was being chased [by you]. Had you not chased him, he would not have been injured. You have to understand English Law and the latin phrase..."novus actus interveniens" which means,..."a new act intervening". "Breaking The Chain", and "Causation" all play a factor.
|
||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yep, and that is why the law can sometime be the proverbial 'ass'... I would assume/hope a sensible jury would use common sense in such a case...
|
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
They may use common sense and lessen the severity of the sentence, they did in the case we are discussing, but the perpetrator would still be culpable, he or she would have committed a crime and will receive the punishment deemed fit.
The law will never condone revenge attacks. And rightly so.
|
||
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |