PDA

View Full Version : Over the top or justified response to thieves ?


500N
22nd Jan 2014, 22:59
Is this Over the top or justified response to thieves ?

The photos of the bloke with the broken legs and arm are good
although I reckon the younger one would have got more benefit
from having a permanent limp.

Both of them look absolute no hopers !!!

IMHO, serves them bloody right.
Businessman tackles two thieves after catching them red-handed on his property . . . now HE'S one on trial for assault

Andrew Woodhouse on trial facing assault charges on two raiders
The 44-year-old businessman denies GBH and GBH with intent
Kevin Green and Timothy Cross ended up with 75 fines for theft
Woodhouse caught Green and, court hears

Jury heard he rugby-tackled Cross and laid on top of him until police arrived
He was arrested and accused of using excessive force

Businessman on trial accused of using unreasonable force on thieves raiding his property | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544030/Businessman-attacks-two-burglars-catching-red-handed-arrested-defending-property.html)

Capetonian
22nd Jan 2014, 23:07
Is this Over the top or justified response to thieves ?Please tell me that's a rhetorical question?
Woodhouse deserves a medal.
Now let's wait for our resident softies to crawl out and sympathise with the thieving scumbags.

con-pilot
22nd Jan 2014, 23:13
Businessman on trial accused of using unreasonable force on thieves raiding his property | Mail Online

Only in England do the evil doers triumphs over the innocent victms. And many here bitch about our laws. :rolleyes:

So you paranoid, self righteous, smug anti-guns nuts need to get your own house in order before you bitch about ours.

Is this Over the top or justified response to thieves ?

Well over the top. And for some reason I'll bet you agree. :ok:

500N
22nd Jan 2014, 23:13
Yes, it was.

"Woodhouse deserves a medal."
Good point.

I like the fact he took the fence post one of them was carrying
and then used it to beat the crap out of them.

I still think the younger one would have got more benefit out
of a few broken bones with hopefully a permanent reminder.

ruddman
22nd Jan 2014, 23:19
I would've shot them...but that's just me. :}

Airey Belvoir
22nd Jan 2014, 23:21
The owner is likely to be elevated to the status of "National Hero".


Perhaps if this were to happen a little more often the crime rates might go down.

rh200
22nd Jan 2014, 23:22
It's what leads to the continual degradation of our society. The best that could happen was for the police to go to the scum, serves yourself right.

That said, you do need to make sure that there isn't total sadistic violence committed. Which leads me to another point.

Just how much force is reasonable. The problem in a lot of case's, especially if there is more than one bad guy, is attrition and skills. The average Joh Bloh is not some unarmed combat specialist from the SAS. Whilst a lot of intruders etc have had a bit of recent experience at the odd punch up.

We also need to keep in mind you have no idea to what extent these people will go to get away, or protect their identity's.

So I would say from a tactical viewpoint, your only option is to go in hard and fast as possible, to disable them as soon as possible, not stopping until it's entirely obvious they they no longer present a threat.

Thats just an opinion, maybe there's some unarmed combat specialist who can put some light on such things on the thread.

Now the first thing that happens is, the huggy fluffy's moan about "they wern't going to hurt you", well you had know way of knowing that, and frankly why do we err on the side of potential harm to the innocent, instead of harm to the people that have already shown they are prepared to break the law.

There is no shortage of people that have been hurt, or killed trying to do the right thing and civic duty. So I say when confronted by such a situation, go hard and fast and don't stop until theres no chance of it developing into a "war of attrition", or walk away and stick your head in the sand. A good lawyer should easily be able to present it that way.

500N
22nd Jan 2014, 23:23
"I would've shot them...but that's just me. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif"

Then at least you wouldn't have had to chase them across a padock
to where the getaway car was ;)

500N
22nd Jan 2014, 23:25
"So I would say from a tactical viewpoint, your only option is to go in hard and fast as possible, to disable them as soon as possible, not stopping until it's entirely obvious they they no longer present a threat."

+ 1

If you are going to do it, as above.

goudie
22nd Jan 2014, 23:47
Some years ago the police were visiting houses around here (neighbourhood watch scheme) to check our security measures. As the copper was leaving my house I remarked that I kept a baseball bat in the cloakroom to ward off any intruder(s). He replied, ''Well, be careful, whatever you do just use it as a last resort to defend yourself, if attacked, or you might find yourself in trouble!''
I don't pity the two scumbags at all and a 75 fine is derisory, but Woodhouse could be found guilty of using unreasonable force. It's happened before.

Lord Spandex Masher
22nd Jan 2014, 23:52
So you paranoid, self righteous, smug anti-guns nuts need to get your own house in order before you bitch about ours.


I'm neither paranoid, self righteous, smug or anti-gun so I can bitch all I like. Just remember that.

419
22nd Jan 2014, 23:54
So the two scrotes were found guilty of theft but why no mention of either of them being charged with carrying an offensive weapon?
AW took the weapon (fence post) from one of them and he may be charged for using it on them so surely they should also have been charged for having it in the first place.

Anyway, I bet the 75 fine they each received will really make them change their ways! (Assuming that they even bother paying it that is)

Fox3WheresMyBanana
22nd Jan 2014, 23:56
http://bowfishingforum.com/uploads/monthly_03_2013/post-154-13646498851351_thumb.jpg

Nervous SLF
22nd Jan 2014, 23:59
IMHO if you get into a fight either defending your own property or someone being assaulted in public you have no choice but
to go in hard. You have to damage the other person so badly that he is totally unable to get back up and start on you again in
case this time he wins. The snag with this idea is that it goes against the police, judges and politicians who all say that you can
only use reasonable force. Well what is this reasonable force ? No-one seems to be able to give a definite definition, they all fluff
around and are unable to do so. For this reason I am sorry but under these circumstances I will refuse point blank to intervene
as I have no wish to end up in prison as I would do if I used what I consider to be reasonable force.

superq7
23rd Jan 2014, 00:00
I was in bed one morning when I heard a clinking sound I said to the Mrs what's that noise ? she says that's the copper scrap in the yard I flew down the stairs and confronted the scroat screaming what the f-ck etc etc he looked at me and fled it was then that I realised I was bollock naked !

Takan Inchovit
23rd Jan 2014, 00:18
Excessive force? Id say 'old mate' was holding back!

parabellum
23rd Jan 2014, 00:36
The fact that it was two against one should be taken into consideration, definite need to exert maximum force or go under. The fact that the crim was injured around the legs and arm should indicate that the defence was reasonable since blows to the head could have killed.


Still having trouble with his legs ten months later - still drawing benefits too, no doubt. Wouldn't mind betting the fish was poached from a private property!

onetrack
23rd Jan 2014, 00:36
There's a long-standing and strong judicial belief that one must not meet criminal behaviour with excessive force that is deemed to be vigilante behaviour. I understand this judicial belief is very strong in both the U.K. and Australia.

One has to keep in mind, the entire exercise was over the theft of a few quids worth of fuel. Is it morally correct to maim people over petty larceny? Would you like a similar style of retribution imposed on you for the sweets you stole as a child? :hmm:
Have your legs broken for stealing a handful of sweets, or for stealing the hard-working neighbours, fruit or vegetables? (come on, own up, we've all done it).

No, the problems here are that the fine of 75 quid is inadequate (particularly seeing as the fine probably won't be paid) - and the laws failure to address the scrotes use of violence in the theft, by not charging them for using that violence.
Assault charges at the very least for the scrote that wielded the fence post should have been part of the deal, and this is a poor performance on the part of the law.

A good defense lawyer is all that's needed, to ensure that the theft victim continues to be recognised as the real victim, and not the scrotes.
I'd be pleading temporary insanity, if I were him. :suspect: :E

Nervous SLF
23rd Jan 2014, 01:19
Is it morally correct to maim people over petty larceny? Would you like a similar style of retribution imposed on you for the sweets you stole as a child? :hmm:
Have your legs broken for stealing a handful of sweets, or for stealing the hard-working neighbours, fruit or vegetables? (come on, own up, we've all done it).



Whilst it may have been common for you to steal when young I most certainly did NOT. I was brought up in a money challenged
family and if I had stolen anything my parents would have made my life hell.

I even get the idea that you seem to think it is morally ok to commit petty larceney, well sorry but to me it isn't. :*

fitliker
23rd Jan 2014, 01:24
Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.

onetrack
23rd Jan 2014, 01:34
Nervous SLF - I'm not condoning any larceny - and I can assure you, I was also brought up in a particularly money-challenged environment.
However, if you didn't succumb to a bit of fruit or vegetable stealing from the neighbours, or a bit of juvenile petty larceny under peer pressure, then you must be a pillar of virtue in your society, and a rare individual.

The point I'm making is that thieving is endemic in every society in the world - and the firm American belief that you're entitled to pull our your handgun and blow away or permanently maim anyone stealing from you (or even being on your premises illegally) is not a view or belief supported by any judiciary or law enforcement in the U.K., Australia or N.Z. - and is purely an excessive response to what is generally regarded as a low act, by people who are just plain dumb.

500N
23rd Jan 2014, 02:00
onetrack

"The point I'm making is that thieving is endemic in every society in the world - and the firm American belief that you're entitled to pull our your handgun and blow away or permanently maim anyone stealing from you (or even being on your premises illegally) is not a view or belief supported by any judiciary or law enforcement in the U.K., Australia or N.Z. - and is purely an excessive response to what is generally regarded as a low act, by people who are just plain dumb."

Your point of view.

plenty of others have the belief the US system has it right and maybe not
"blow someone away" but at least use force.

The other 3 countries you mention have all gone the other fluffy huggy way
where the victim is the perp and the person being thieved from can't do a
damn thing to stop them or the law comes down on them.

Crims in Aus have far too many "rights" although it seems to be swinging
back again with the big issue of parolees etc being out on bail et al being
curtailed.

As fit said, "Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six"
and don't leave them able to be a witness against you !

onetrack
23rd Jan 2014, 02:18
500N - You're merely regurgitating mindless and simple-minded NRA propaganda, and your views are not views held by most civil societies where ruthless, uncontrollable vigilante action - undertaken by individuals without regard to circumstances - has been replaced by properly-instituted and properly-run law enforcement.

Yes, I agree, our judiciary has been "soft" on criminals for too long, and most right-thinking people would like to see stiffer sentences and some real penalties for crims.
However, it take time for this to happen, and we are now seeing longer sentences being handed out for serious crimes.

The basic problem is the criminal mindset, whereby they see some time in jail as merely being the price to pay for their selected "occupation".
A justice system that gives them seriously-increasing penalties for their failure to alter their mindset and drop their selected "occupation" is what is needed.

However, there's constant pressure to keep jail levels at modest levels and to try and encourage crims to involve themselves in becoming "regular" members of the community - and probation, community-service penalties, and various other rehab methods, are all part of the arsenal involved in trying to get crims to go straight. One has to remember that jails are breeding grounds for more criminality, and many small-time crims are best served by being kept away from hardened crims, less they decline further.
Some will make it, and some never get it, and they are set on criminal activity for life. These are the ones requiring extended punishment.

onetrack
23rd Jan 2014, 02:41
Ahhh, yes - another person who believes that all crims must abide by all Ten Commandments - but he's happy to ignore Number 6, for his own beliefs and behaviour. :)

A A Gruntpuddock
23rd Jan 2014, 02:43
"A justice system that gives them seriously-increasing penalties..."

The main problem with that is that the police have to catch them first, then get enough evidence & witnesses to successfully prosecute them.

They know that there is a very good chance that they will never be apprehended, that they will not necessarily be convicted, and that they will probably get out early anyway.

And they will rarely have to make proper reparation to their victims, who might well have been traumatised by the crimes, if not actually injured.

Hardly 'civilised' to encourage them by prosecuting the victims or even suing them for damages.

A A Gruntpuddock
23rd Jan 2014, 03:01
Justice should be swift -

Two Thieves on a Motorcycle get Way more than they Bargained for Trying to Rob this Dude in a Truck - YouTube

:E:E:E

500N
23rd Jan 2014, 03:24
Jesus they were lucky.

Pity he didn't manage to collect them "dead centre" instead
of clipping them with the edge / side.

RAC/OPS
23rd Jan 2014, 03:49
One has to keep in mind, the entire exercise was over the theft of a few quids worth of fuel.

But about 25k over recent months. Maybe the same or other thieves.

Not so much money challenged now then Onetrack?

500N
23rd Jan 2014, 03:57
Maybe he should have done what a farmer did here in NSW to fuel thieves
- ferals living nearby.

Drained the tank, left only a little bit in it, with sugar.

Thieves nicked the petrol, put it in the car and off they went.
Luckily for them they got across the farmers boundary and
the car stopped just the other side, engine totally fcked.

They had to talk the rest of the way plus leave the evidence
of the car which of course allowed the coppers to question them.

Either way, the farmer was happy and they were without a car.

Krystal n chips
23rd Jan 2014, 05:12
What a wonderful response.....from the cerebrally challenged as always.

Yes, the sentence does seem to be lenient.

However, with regard to the attacker of the thieves, just a minor point that, as ever, seems to have been conveniently overlooked.

In recent times there have been several well publicised cases where a defendant has been acquitted when confronted with thieves in their own home and when violence has subsequently ensued.

So the law has in fact supported the actions of self-defence in such circumstances.

The point being, for the confused and deluded on here, that, you can defend yourself in your own property, but, as in this case, if you subsequently pursue the attackers or intruders and then assault them, in the manner reported in the usual heart rending manner of the Mail, then it becomes a different matter entirely as you have now become the assailant and thus, quelle surprise, now face assault charges.

" Only in England do the evil doers triumphs over the innocent victms. And many here bitch about our laws.

So you paranoid, self righteous, smug anti-guns nuts need to get your own house in order before you bitch about ours."

For one so passionate about the law Con, please explain how the thieves, now found guilty of theft, can be classed as innocent victims.

gupta
23rd Jan 2014, 05:32
please explain how the thieves, now found guilty of theft, can be classed as innocent victims

This would be the best example I have read for a long time of ignoring the context of the original post, selectively rewriting it to reflect the exact opposite. And with a gratuitous ad hominen to boot!

Trolls abound in these woods.

sitigeltfel
23rd Jan 2014, 05:45
I wonder how long the jury will be out for?

Krystal n chips
23rd Jan 2014, 05:52
" This would be the best example I have read for a long time of ignoring the context of the original post, selectively rewriting it to reflect the exact opposite"

In that case, as the thieves were fined 75 for their stealing and admitting as much "I was nicking petrol" then maybe you can explain how they are innocent victims?......unless of course you feel this is a gross miscarriage of justice....which you probably do.

Of course, you could have been directing your italicised comment at Con....who did precisely as you suggest.

doubleu-anker
23rd Jan 2014, 05:59
fitliker

"Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." Damned right there, sport.

If I catch one on my place I'm prepared to swing for him/them. The cops shoot to kill when they feel threatened, so why not us? How do you know the b:mad:s aren't carrying a knife? Ask them? Gimme a break. A property owner has the right to defend his family and property. As previous posts have stated, the best means of defense is attach, hard and fast.

This is all fore told of course. Chaos will rein. The best way to create chaos is to penalize the victims of crime and going soft on the criminals. Not me.

bcgallacher
23rd Jan 2014, 07:47
This took place in Wales,not England and as it is a jury trial I would be astonished if there is a conviction.

onetrack
23rd Jan 2014, 07:47
Those who believe in harsh and extreme punishments should read the history of one particular reform school in Australia - run by sickos who enjoyed perpetrating constant violence and inhumane treatment on the "juvenile deliquent" inmates.

Little wonder then, that that school produced a sizeable number of hardened, ruthless killers who have been responsible for at least 35 known murders, and some of Australia's most horrific murders.

None of the delinquents were murderers when they went inside. Any empathy they had for other people was beaten out of them - and they were effectively taught to have no emotions - thus ensuring they became ruthless and detached killers when released.

School For Killers - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/school-for-killers/)

Revenge and burning hatred are what drives people to carry out excessive reprisals against offenders - meaning that there is then, little to distinguish between the offenders and the offended.

bcgallacher
23rd Jan 2014, 08:02
Just to cause a bit of mischief - What do you think would happen if this incident took place in say Arkansas and the householder was black and the injured thieves were white?

Effluent Man
23rd Jan 2014, 08:23
It's pretty much a non story really because the jury will acquit him if the facts are as reported.
I liked a quote I heard on the wireless last week from,I think,Theodore Roosevelt:

"An uneducated man might steal from a boxcar,an educated one will steal the whole railroad"

Alloa Akbar
23rd Jan 2014, 09:03
Krystal / Onetrack - Ever been the victim of a burglary / robbery? I have. I can assure you, if I had caught up with the perps I would have beaten the crap out of them as well. The lasting effects both psychologically as well as financially are significant. It took us 5 months to resolve the insurance, whilst the perp still walks the streets as a paid Police informer, still ignores the laws regarding drinking in public places, still deals drugs and still commits petty crime. The only thing that stops me exacting retribution is the consequences me and my family would suffer.

I used to live in Alabama where most of my neighbours were armed. Whilst I wouldn't wish to support one side of the gun argument or the other, I do have to concede that there were few robberies in our neighbourhood. As the Sherriff explained, the hoodlums know if they break in and you are home they will probably die, so they don't do it. Perhaps if Mr Woodhouse is publicly supported by the courts then crims might reconsider "petty crime".

PS - Onetrack - When we were kids, if we got caught nicking sweets or apples, invariably our parents of farmers would give us a thrashing, and we would take it knowing it was punishment for wrong-doing rather than run to the courts screaming "Child abuse!".

VP959
23rd Jan 2014, 09:07
Many years ago I helped catch an armed thief who had just broken a jewellers window with an axe and taken around 40,000 of stuff. I just grabbed him from behind around the waist and with the help of a couple of other bystanders wrestled the bloke to the ground, then sat on him, keeping him pinned down, until the police arrived.

When I gave a statement to the police, I was stopped at the point where I said I'd grabbed the bloke and formally cautioned and told that I could be charged with assault.

As it happens no charges were brought against me or the others, but at the time the police were very clear that we had assaulted this thief and could be charged if the CPS thought it in the public interest to do so.

I've been repeatedly asked why I decided to tackle this thief, but have never been able to give a good answer. I remember turning around in the street when I heard the noise of the axe hitting the window, I remember thinking it'd be a good idea to get a good view of the thief to give the police, but have absolutely no recollection as to why I decided to tackle him at all. My memory is a complete blank from the point where I decided to run across the road to the point where I found myself with arms locked around his waist with him trying to shake me off his back.

I suspect this bloke may have been the same, you sort of go into autopilot when things like this happen, and he may well have had no intention of causing these injuries to this thief at the time.

James1809
23rd Jan 2014, 09:33
Justice prevails, was reading the news story on this last night and did a bit of digging around. There was a Facebook page set up from the start in support of Mr Woodhouse and a post last night thanked everyone for their support and that Mr Woodhouse was found not guilty. Hoorah for common sense.

Link to Facebook page can be found here (http://www.facebook.com/SupportAndrewWoodhouse)

anotherthing
23rd Jan 2014, 09:38
I hope he is acquitted but it is a quandary for the police. Surely it is not for the Police to decide if reasonable force was used? If they were running away, then can it be said that by chasing then confronting them, he instigated the violence?

I'm not supporting the thieving scum at all and given the current police manning etc, I dare say that for a few s worth of diesel, the police would have put the case to the bottom of the pile if he had merely reported it and not given chase.

One would hope that a jury of peers will back him up and return a very swift 'not guilty' verdict. That in itself may serve as a was to make common thieves think twice, certainly these two cretins.

The CPS however should have looked at the case and thrown it out, citing that it is not in the public interest to prosecute.

Edit to add I was typing this as james replied above... good result :ok:

goudie
23rd Jan 2014, 09:45
Good on the jury. The right decision swiftly arrived at.
As for the petty thieves 'lessons have been learned!' :=

Andu
23rd Jan 2014, 10:31
The more I hear of the imbecility of police charging people who are defending themselves and their property, the more I feel that if ever I was unlucky enough to find myself the winner in an incident like the one that started this thread, I'd "do a Richard Kimble" when the police arrived and insist that I'd come upon a one-armed man (or three or four two armed-men) beating the bejzus out of the poor unfortunates (who had, by the way, just robbed by home/business) and those aggressive miscreants had run off when I approached after carefully wiping their fingerprints off the axe handle (this one officer, the one I picked up after they'd run off to hold as evidence for you).

It would probably be in my best interests if the unfortunates those mysterious, aggressive strangers had attacked were not in a state to refute my account of events.

rh200
23rd Jan 2014, 10:42
I hope he is acquitted but it is a quandary for the police. Surely it is not for the Police to decide if reasonable force was used? If they were running away, then can it be said that by chasing then confronting them, he instigated the violence?

Depends, where they still on his property. Or where they still carrying his property. Could be you have every right to confront them and ask for it back, maybe even attempt to hold onto it.

500N
23rd Jan 2014, 10:45
They were still carrying the jerry cans of stolen fuel.

Anyway, good result all around. Hopefully it might make them
think twice about doing it again but I somehow doubt it.

The old man will be a bit sore for a while while he mends.
Full length casts are not nice to have on and at his age I reckon
rebuilding muscle mass won't be easy.

sitigeltfel
23rd Jan 2014, 10:52
The judiciary dispenses law.

Juries deliver justice.

500N
23rd Jan 2014, 10:53
And he taught them a lesson they won't forget !

bcgallacher
23rd Jan 2014, 11:51
Another case that brings shame on the British police - they keep talking about cooperation from the public,if they act like this they have little chance.The chief constable should be fired for wasting police time and money on a case that was never going to have a jury that would convict.The police will have to decide if they are there to fight crime or be politically correct social workers.

goudie
23rd Jan 2014, 12:34
Although most of the public have no sympathy whatsoever for these scrotes, I think it presents a bit of a dilemma for the police, inasmuch that it's ok defending one's self and property, but using only minimal force to do so. In this case the police thought the chap overdid it and charged him accordingly. His fellowmen thought differently. That's why we have jury's.

500N
23rd Jan 2014, 12:37
"That's why we have jury's."

Which is why most of us would prefer being tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Whip up a media campaign as well, all helps to pressure the Police.

I think we are seeing people getting pissed off with crims getting away
cheaply or completely through loop holes et al.

Octopussy2
23rd Jan 2014, 12:51
Actually, your right of self-defence is precisely that - a right to use reasonable force to defend your person, not your property.

Running after someone to attack them, when they are running away from your house/land etc (even if they are carrying what they've nicked), isn't an act you do in self-defence.

That said, I'm not remotely surprised by the jury's decision (and that is, indeed, the beauty of having a jury in cases like this - they can make a "perverse" decision, which stands).

I doubt many people have much sympathy for the thieves.

panda-k-bear
23rd Jan 2014, 13:03
What's good is that the jury took only 20 minutes to clear him from this ridiculous trial - Cleared by jury in 20 minutes: The businessman prosecuted for attacking burglars on his land - Wales Online (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cleared-jury-20-minutes-businessman-6554476)

500N
23rd Jan 2014, 13:06
Wow

That sends a message.

Good on them.

onetrack
23rd Jan 2014, 13:23
Alloa Akbar - I most certainly have been the victim of theft, many times over many years. As business owner with substantial property and assets at one time, I had fuel regularly stolen from me, as well as tools, and other property including vehicles.
It does make you angry when it happens - but I didn't take retribution by indulging in extreme violence. I let the law find the perpetrators, make the arrests, and hand out the penalties (and yes, some were never caught).

I even employed a youngster from reform school on the advice of a friend - and this young bloke rewarded me shortly afterwards by stealing a vehicle containing a firearm, ammunition, tools and oils from me.
I never saw any of the tools or oils again, he dumped them in some forest country, and he wrecked the vehicle.
The police came down hard on him and charged him with a long list of serious offences, including vehicle and firearm theft and unauthorised use of the firearm (he fired off a few rounds in the forest, it appears).

When he appeared in court, he burst into tears, and when asked why he carried out the offences, he merely replied ashamedly through his tears, "I don't know".
He was obviously one screwed-up laddie, and I suspect he had a raft of family and personal problems, some of which could have been childhood abuse, as we now understand with advanced years and increased knowledge.

Once again, I didn't seek retribution by breaking his legs - because his problems need mindset adjustment and some serious rehab efforts by people skilled in those areas.
I personally don't think inflicting serious violence on him would have achieved very much, apart from showing him that serious violence was acceptable.

Fortunately, because I own much less "moveable" property nowadays, I suffer much less from theft.
However, it's never very far away, as my stepdaughters property (that I was looking after) was broken into last Summer, and the perpetrator got away with over $35K worth of goods within 10 minutes.
He merely kicked in the front door of the locked, but empty house (SD was working away in another State) and helped himself.

As with all thieves, he was caught within a short space of time after some top-class forensic work, and was sentenced in a higher court for a much longer period of time than normal, due to the amount stolen.
My SD would like to do serious damage to him, but as I explained, it's not worth the hassle, she wasn't threatened or injured, insurance covered almost all of the loss - and material possessions can be replaced.

rgbrock1
23rd Jan 2014, 13:34
500N wrote:

I like the fact he took the fence post one of them was carrying
and then used it to beat the crap out of them.

Not good enough. I would have taken said fence post and not merely beat the crap out of him with it, I would have rammed it securely up his ass. Sideways.
"Oh my Bubba, what a large ass you have."

pigboat
23rd Jan 2014, 13:40
As for the petty thieves 'lessons have been learned!'
You think? There are some on this thread making excuses for their behaviour.

Alloa Akbar
23rd Jan 2014, 13:49
Onetrack,

My situation was compounded by the fact that the local Police Force use him as an informer so "Justice" was never going to happen, despite some of our possessions being found at his house. This is where the law fails ordinary folk and this is what fuels my anger. Like you though, I haven't resorted to violence as I would stand to lose more.

Incidentally, does anyone know if "Outing" the guy publicly as a grass is breaking any law??

panda-k-bear
23rd Jan 2014, 14:12
As with all thieves, he was caught within a short space of time

If only that were true!

racedo
23rd Jan 2014, 14:30
Believe not convicting him was wrong and should have sympathy for those 2 poor men mistakenly accused.............:E

Yeah Right............good on him for dishing it back to them.

500N
23rd Jan 2014, 17:48
It seems one of these two crims didn't get off quite as lightly.
One less for the courts to worry about.

Petty criminal 'drowned in a canal after mugging victims
pushed him in while trying to defend themselves'

Would-be mugger 'drowned in canal after victims fought back and pushed him in' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544698/Petty-criminal-drowned-canal-mugging-victims-pushed-trying-defend-themselves.html)

con-pilot
23rd Jan 2014, 17:55
For one so passionate about the law Con, please explain how the thieves, now found guilty of theft, can be classed as innocent victims.

Good God! Reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits is it?

Please point out anywhere I called the scumbag crooks "innocent victims"?

The person or persons that are the targets of these low life crooks are the innocent victims.

The victim of this crime should have never been arrested, let along forced to go to trial. It was two aganist one.

Are you for real? :rolleyes:

teeteringhead
23rd Jan 2014, 18:27
One tends to favour the medieval concept of the "outlaw".

Having disregarded and/or broken the Law to a certain extent, one then loses the protection of the same Law.

You ignore it, so you obviously think it's worthless, so you can't use it.

Works for me .........

gunbus
23rd Jan 2014, 19:00
Good result, common sense has for once prevailed one point needs to be clarified though, the police took the only action available to them the useless morons of the CPS acted in the way they usually do to line the pockets of their brethren.

I am rather surprised our resident cloggie hasn't pitched in to blame Maggie for the perps plight which any lefty will agree is all her fault ! :E

tony draper
23rd Jan 2014, 19:19
Hand them over to the surgeon to be anatomised, one likes to go to the theater and watch a good dessection,might be prudent if Doctor Knox does the throat first,stop em flopping about and gurgling to much,upsets the ladies that do.
:rolleyes:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
23rd Jan 2014, 19:39
Hey 500N,
if the mugger who drowned turns out to have played truant during school swimming lessons, or was knocked unconscious by a shopping trolley he chucked into the canal, does he get 'elevated' to the Darwin Awards thread? ;)

..and as for those wondering about what's to be done with yobbos - for those who haven't seen it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04clpd7h0b0

500N
23rd Jan 2014, 19:43
"Hey 500N,
if the mugger who drowned turns out to have played truant during school swimming lessons, or was knocked unconscious by a shopping trolley he chucked into the canal, does he get 'elevated' to the Darwin Awards thread? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif"

Absolutely.

I'd elevate him anyway just for attacking someone who was then
able to throw him into the canal :O

cockney steve
23rd Jan 2014, 21:46
@ Basil F3WMB, I'd let your black hoe sort them out first and then shoot them

Delightful though the sugggested image may be, it was not a suggestion to "kill them with kindness"
The item was a B A C K hoe commonly known in this country as a "JCB" digger....or tractor with a back-actor.

and regarding the" Chasing them" scenario being different once they had left his property.....yes, indeed!

He was then apprehending criminals in the execution of a felony.
I think a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable course of action, as was immobilising the dangerous one carrying an offensive weapon.

OTT would have been if he'd broke the other's legs, thrown them both in their car, emptied their booty into it and then launched a lighted match in.:E

500N
23rd Jan 2014, 21:51
"OTT would have been if he'd broke the other's legs, thrown them both in their car, emptied their booty into it and then launched a lighted match in.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

You get THEM to light the match to light a smoke after the fuel has spilt, then it is self inflicted and not your fault.

You also have the other issue that it was diesel !!!

Krystal n chips
24th Jan 2014, 05:25
Con

" Only in England do the evil doers triumphs over the innocent victms. And many here bitch about our laws.

So you paranoid, self righteous, smug anti-guns nuts need to get your own house in order before you bitch about ours.

Well done, yes I did misinterpret your sentiments, or rather the ambiguity of the sentiments. Possibly because I was distracted by the rest of the holier than thou piety that followed.

However, for the vigilante brigade, a happy ending it seems. A jury acquitted the innocent victim and, thankfully, we have a jury system rather than the vigilante system many would, seemingly, prefer. The fact he broke one intruders legs being of no consequence it appears.

Smug smirks and smiles of satisfaction all round then !

500N
24th Jan 2014, 06:07
K&c

If he didn't steal the fuel, he wouldn't have had his legs broken.
His own fault.


Oh, by the way, he had both legs broken plus his arm !

sitigeltfel
24th Jan 2014, 07:00
I wonder how much this pair of scrotes have cost the taxpayer in police investigation time, legal aid costs and hospital charges?

sitigeltfel
24th Jan 2014, 07:39
Smug smirks and smiles of satisfaction all round then !

Wow, a lecture from KnC on smugness!

500N
24th Jan 2014, 08:15
John

Of course she is second guessing the jury and judge.

She would want to wrap them up in cotton wool,
give them a place to live and money (welfare) to
live on while they train for the next job because
it is not their fault !!!

Where as a fair few others would have whacked him over
the head as well and left the younger one with a permanent
reminder.

Pity it wasn't petrol, an accidental "spillage" would have
caused a bit of pain.

Peter-RB
24th Jan 2014, 09:00
Gentlemen,

I took up arms against seven intruders in 1995 at 2330hrs, they has set fire to the rear of my garage on my private land, the garage contained two cars valued at 100k and a small office I use with my business, I made the perps put the fire out, and escorted them of my property, about 1 hour later I was arrested and dropped in the slammer, I was charged with threatening to shoot the perps which I didnt (the Browning 5 shot was just to impress them not to mess with me) however I was taken to a three day trial in our Crown Court System with a jury of 12 Good men and True, I was found 100% Not Guilty of two charge's with a pathethic third charge dropped, my family were hounded by the Press and local radio, I was also villified in the local press, but after I won the case and thanked the jury, all I had to do was pay the 36k for my legal team.
The bad guys addmitted to the Crown Court they had gone with the intent of setting my garage on fire, but the Police when asked about this, said they would not be taking action against the Perps!!

So where is Justice when needed ?, my advice especially in the UK,..dont take any sort of Firearm or Shotgun with you, you will be the one in Court, unfair as it is, thats the way the Police view it!:ugh:

Peter RB
Lancashire

panda-k-bear
24th Jan 2014, 09:44
A jury acquitted the innocent victim and, thankfully, we have a jury system rather than the vigilante system many would, seemingly, prefer.

The victim of the crime had suffered several robberies previously. The police, seemingly, had made no arrests. One could surmise - though it would be an assumption - that the police had given out crime numbers to allow insurance claims and then investigated no further.

In order to have some form of justice, it took vigilante action.

Would you argue that this is right and proper - that the police have to be forced to investigate because someone is so desperate that they take the law into their own hands?

SawMan
24th Jan 2014, 11:12
I would do similar to any crooks I find (or worse) because I know that the legal system is not going to do enough to prevent them from doing their evil deeds again and again. The difference is that I am not going to hand around afterward, so unless something happens on my property or at my workplace, all anyone can say is that "some guy caught them and did what needed to be done, and then they left". Let the legal system see enough of that and maybe they'll get the message that they're not doing their jobs. And maybe they will have a fleeting thought that because of that, they are not secure from being made to pay the price for stupidity either :=

If you enter my house illegally, you will not survive- but I will. If you steal from me I may not be able to restrain myself from going too far with you, but rest assured that if I catch you stealing from me, you will never steal again even if I let you survive. I'll deal with the aftermath if I have to, but if I can avoid it I will :E

I'm a peaceful, caring, and generous person. If you need food, I'll feed you. If you're thirsty, I'll give you water. If you need shelter, I'll be sure you get that. But ask me for it, don't take it without asking. And realize that beyond those three things, you have no true need, only a want, which makes it your problem to deal with and nobody else's :ok: Peace is only achieved when evil is not allowed to proliferate, and the last tool which can be used to achieve that peace is violence against the evil. Only those prepared and willing to do violence against evil deserve any peace :cool:

anotherthing
24th Jan 2014, 11:28
My SD would like to do serious damage to him, but as I explained, it's not worth the hassle, she wasn't threatened or injured, insurance covered almost all of the loss - and material possessions can be replaced.And I'll wager your SD has seen a rise in her insurance premiums... a double whammy thanks to the thieving scum

MagnusP
24th Jan 2014, 11:31
and material possessions can be replaced.

Yes, with nice new ones which the scrotes know about and often return for in a few weeks.

Krystal n chips
24th Jan 2014, 12:27
" In order to have some form of justice, it took vigilante action"

Now you mention it, and are clearly such a passionate supporter of vigilante action no doubt you will also be inclined to offer an equally ringing endorsement of this vigilante action. Obviously, you won't be alone here as many others with similar views will, I am sure, be only too pleased to offer their equally unequivocal support to you.

Vigilante jailed for killing man he mistakenly thought was paedophile | UK news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/28/vigilante-lee-james-life-murdering-bijan-ebrahimi)

After all, what could possibly go amiss when people decide to participate in such action.....murder being, well, just an unfortunate and trivial consequence...."no hard feelings old boy, sorry about that ".

John Smith....well done !.....for one brief moment you actually displayed a vague idea as to how the judicial system works in the UK and clearly support the principle......alas, in doing so you have also effectively negated all your previous psychotic rants about introducing draconian laws and punishments.

Octopussy2
24th Jan 2014, 14:11
Glad to know you're a "trained" lawyer as opposed to all those untrained ones, who are positively dangerous :E

Krystal n chips
24th Jan 2014, 14:48
A trained lawyer !.

What an interesting revelation for somebody who has consistently espoused views ranging from the radical to the extreme.

Still, at least we all now know your alleged profession. Would you care to substantiate this claim by any chance?

Did I agree with the jury. Well, as m'learned friend has pointed out, no, I was not privy to all the evidence, and neither for that matter were, as far as I am aware, the others on here who were so supportive of the accused.

What confused me however, and here I have to bow to professional opinion of course, is how an individual can receive two broken legs and other injuries and the assailant be found not guilty thereafter.

An explanation, in laymans terms, would, I assure you, be most welcome.

goudie
24th Jan 2014, 15:08
He tripped m'lud!:ouch:

jez d
24th Jan 2014, 15:11
Peter-RB, I'm truly sorry to hear of the ordeal you went through. Your advice is sage.

I was always advised that an article to use in a 'reasonable defence' would be something that one could naturally lay one's hands on. For instance, a machette under one's pillow wouldn't wash, but a hefty Maglite torch kept on one's bedside table, there for those occasions when there is a power outage, would.

Related, a couple of years ago a friend of mine spotted some youths throwing bricks at his elderly neighbour's front windows. Deciding not to tackle the little sh1ts himself, he instead took some photos of the incident and drove up to his local police station.

Rather than being thanked by the constable on duty, he was asked if he was usually in the habit of taking photos of minors and warned sternly that any such behaviour in future could result in him being arrested. :ugh:

When he related the story to me I suggested he call his local Superintendent and demand that immediate disciplinary action was taken against the constable and that a full and frank apology made to him. Unfortunately he decided to ignore my advice and chose instead let the issue slide.

ruddman
24th Jan 2014, 15:41
To answer the question, of course it's over the top. He wasnt being attacked. You can't go around breaking people's legs just for stealing some diesel parts or whatever it was.

ruddman
24th Jan 2014, 15:59
Properly directed by the judge? Right....:rolleyes:

500N
24th Jan 2014, 16:04
Ruddman

Judges always direct juries. How the hell else is a jury to know what to do
with stuff they hear in the court.

Would you prefer they are the Defence lawyer ??????m:O

Checkboard
24th Jan 2014, 16:21
Rather than being thanked by the constable on duty, he was asked if he was usually in the habit of taking photos of minors and warned sternly that any such behaviour in future could result in him being arrested.
There's no law against taking photographs of minors.

ruddman
24th Jan 2014, 16:24
Properly.

Depends on $$$ in brown paper bags doesn't it?

fitliker
24th Jan 2014, 16:38
Learn Judo and you will never be unarmed as the floor becomes your weapon.

Checkboard
24th Jan 2014, 17:50
I think Krystal n chips understands the principle of self defence.

... but like most deep left-wingers, cannot bring themselves to believe it was self defence if you were in fact successful in defending yourself. :hmm:

(i.e. falls into the erroneous assumption that the person with the most injuries must, ipso facto, be the innocent party.)

500N
24th Jan 2014, 19:20
Check

That is very well put.

Piltdown Man
24th Jan 2014, 19:34
Wasn't me! The morons were fighting each other and I broke it up. Disagree? Prove it!

PM

500N
24th Jan 2014, 19:50
The younger one did it :rolleyes:

parabellum
25th Jan 2014, 00:45
Mentioned by jez d above, you do have to be careful what you use to defend yourself. If you have a baseball bat behind the curtain in the bedroom and go to work on intruders/attackers with it you can expect, (so I was told), to justify why you had a base ball bat at all. If you are a player and a member of a team or an ex member but with a history of being involved in base ball you are probably OK, otherwise it will be deemed a lethal weapon. John Smith can probably confirm or otherwise?

rh200
25th Jan 2014, 10:42
To answer the question, of course it's over the top. He wasnt being attacked. You can't go around breaking people's legs just for stealing some diesel parts or whatever it was.

He was trying to retrieve his property, you still have those rights I would think. They attacked when he went to get it back, simple.

I don't think it matters what you have behind the curtain or under the bed. The principle is reasonable force, if you have the bat you don't have to use it.

Another words if in the middle of the night some 5 year unarmned kid was caught stealing food from your fridge, beating them with a bat will most likely not cut it. If on the other hand they have the butchers knife, and attacks you, it may well do. This depends on how much of a warm and fuzzy picture of the kid the media finds.

B Fraser
29th Jan 2014, 16:46
If you shoot a burglar, fire 3 rounds. The first goes into his back and kills him, roll him over and put one in the front of his leg and then put a third in the ceiling.

When being interviewed by the police, the first shot in the ceiling was a warning, he rushed you holding what you thought was a gun and you put one in his leg. He spun around and the third went into his back.

:cool:

goudie
29th Jan 2014, 18:25
When the Brits were in Aden there was a saying that, if you ran over an Arab, reverse back over him to make sure he's dead.
Burial fees were cheaper than hospital fees!

ShyTorque
29th Jan 2014, 18:34
Our village used to have a one-man crime wave, which went on for about a decade. The problems included burglaries, bicycle thefts, vehicle thefts and ongoing fuel thefts from heavy plant machines and associated vehicle damage. Various court prosecutions of the perpetrator had taken place but had made no difference. However, one night the miscreant was caught red (diesel) handed with a number of fuel containers in a locked transport and plant hire yard. He had stupidly left them there the night before, in preparation for his next outing and found a small reception party waiting. Having been apprehended, the miscreant, after some persuasion, agreed to give up the names and addresses of his regular customers for said stolen fuel. These customers were visited the same evening in a company vehicle and the miscreant agreed to go along for the ride, although it must be said, probably not too willingly. The situation was explained and certain things were said to persuade these customers that further similar business would not be a good idea. I understand that none of them were partial to an accompanied ride in the van, under the same circumstances.

The miscreant had become slightly muddy and otherwise untidy during the interview process so his hosts kindly cleaned him up before delivering to his mother's home address. She appeared very unhappy about the unfortunate events of the evening (he had found things so stimulating that he had fully urinated and defecated in his own underwear) and she immediately went to the police, claiming that a kidnap had taken place and he was the innocent victim.

An investigation was launched and someone was briefly interviewed about the incident but it was pointed out that rather than a kidnapping, the young man had been caught in the process of theft, had the error of his ways pointed out and simply taken home to his mother.

The one-man crime wave apparently stopped overnight. :E

500N
29th Jan 2014, 18:51
"When the Brits were in Aden there was a saying that, if you ran over an Arab, reverse back over him to make sure he's dead.
Burial fees were cheaper than hospital fees!"


Goudies post reminded me of a piece in Maj General Jim Molan's book.
MG Molan was an Aussie General who ended up "running the war in Iraq"
as Operations Officer for 4 Star general and therefore the whole country.

But prior to this, at the start of the East Timor situation around 2000,
before the troops had gone in he was on the ground with others evacuating
by vehicle nuns and others. Jim Molan, then a Colonel or Brigadier was driving.
Indonesia and others weren't sure about everything, chaos was everywhere.
When they were driving in a 2 vehicle convoy some nuns to the airport,
a motorcyclist (policeman) started following them.

Anyway, in a very crowded intersection, they had to slam on the breaks for
some reason. The motorcyclist didn't manage to stop and came crashing through the back window, body fully inside.

Across the road were 4 or 5 Indonesian Police who after seeing what happened started across the road towards them.
Jim Molan said he made a quick decision, lent across the nuns,
pushed the body back out the back window and then sped off with the other vehicle.

His comment was that it was better to explain after the event than get into
a situation with 5 angry police from a country where some severely resented the fact that Australia was invading.


Edit
Apart from some do gooder bureaucrat in Canberra who called him in a huff
and got short shifted, nothing else was said :O :ok:

ExSp33db1rd
29th Jan 2014, 23:21
I've just discovered my 8ft aluminium rowing dinghy missing from it's resting place below my house at the waters' edge -not visible from the house. Not only that, but the barsteward who has knicked it had to cut down the tree in order to lift the stout lock and chain over the stump, around which it was always locked.

The vessel leaked slightly and I have been meaning to repair said leak, when I got A Round Tuit. I hope the barsteward sinks. Although presumably it might have been towed away, as no oars were with it.

Should I ever even see such an intruder/thief again I'll become a Crime Statistic, I can't spell "raseaonbel froce" never mind understand it.

Solid Rust Twotter
30th Jan 2014, 05:24
When the Brits were in Aden there was a saying that, if you ran over an Arab, reverse back over him to make sure he's dead.
Burial fees were cheaper than hospital fees!


Similar situation in these parts, Mr Goudie. The justice(sic) system is somewhat in favour of a certain demographic and tend to make life difficult if they get the idea there is a chance of sticking it to another part of the demographic.

This means that if you do find an intruder in your home and deal with him, there is a better than average chance of a heap of nightmares and headaches if he has the chance to speak to our dutiful guardians of law and order (sic). Trying to prove that you didn't drag him and his mates in off the street at 2am, trap them in your home, break a window or lift roof sheets your self then proceed to assault him, is almost impossible. Your word against that of him and his mates, not to mention reprisals once he's allowed to walk free. The trick is to make his silence permanent...

Erwin Schroedinger
30th Jan 2014, 06:36
Excessive force can only be identified after the event, not before or during the event.

Weapons readied for defence (baseball bat, knife, gun, whatever by the bedside) can only be adjudged to be excessive after the event, not before or during the event.

Then again, common sense doesn't apply - this is England.

ExSp33db1rd
30th Jan 2014, 06:46
.......this is England.

and New Zealand. ( sadly - Clean, Green, Safe ? yeah! right ! )

Maybe my Uncle's WW 1 ceremonial Naval sword, kept by my bed now, could yet find its raison d'etre !!

I'm told that the groove in the blade is to allow the blood to run out so that one can withdraw and reinsert more quickly ?

ShyTorque
30th Jan 2014, 07:31
I would never keep anything that could be construed as an offensive weapon in the house, for fear of repercussion. However, as a keen DIY'er I often have some home improvement material around the place. For example, I possibly haven't yet disposed of a four foot length of 2 by 2 pine that was left over from a recent repair project to the woodwork in the loft.

In the case of a home emergency it might come in useful.