How messsed up is this?!

All very well saying the crim should lose all rights of protection under the law, but that's not considering the big picture.

The message being sent here isn't to home owners and that they have no right to defend their property, it's to the crims, and that they're offered protection under law if they don't inflict (physical, at least) harm. If people were permitted to do as they liked to crims that might be fine on an individial basis, but the end result would be an escalation in violence.

[yorkie_chris]

Mental harm is more damaging than physical. The results of a bit of a kicking can be gone in a week.

Message which should be sent is if any violence is used including the kidnapping type scenario here, the law will come down on you like a ton of bricks. If you want to rob houses... rob an empty one.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Mental harm is more damaging than physical. The results of a bit of a kicking can be gone in a week.

Message which should be sent is if any violence is used including the kidnapping type scenario here, the law will come down on you like a ton of bricks. If you want to rob houses... rob an empty one.

+1 an if the owners come home, do one!
rather than tying them up, keep assult off your rap sheet and increase the chances of making your get away.

You never know, had these 3 heard the owners come home and decided to make a run for it, the owner might have been too shocked to think and before he knew it they'd be out of sight and down the road, but thats just speculation mixed with a bit day dreaming.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Mental harm is more damaging than physical. The results of a bit of a kicking can be gone in a week.

Message which should be sent is if any violence is used including the kidnapping type scenario here, the law will come down on you like a ton of bricks. If you want to rob houses... rob an empty one.

Yes that's true, certainly the crim should have been locked up as well and the fact he hasn't is certainly a failing on the judges part.

I was commenting more on the idea that crims deserve everything they get. Of course they do, but that doesn't mean it's actually a good idea - hence IMO the jailing of the home owners in this case isn't as mad as it seems.

[CheGuevara]

Originally Posted by leedsmatt7

You never know, had these 3 heard the owners come home and decided to make a run for it, the owner might have been too shocked to think and before he knew it they'd be out of sight and down the road, but thats just speculation mixed with a bit day dreaming.

I think that's pretty sound speculation. Coming home to find your stuff gone would make most people angry, but not the same kind of angry as "Hey you just tried to kill my family". I'd still wanna bruise him a little though

I think that despite this dip****e of a judge doing what he has done here by setting precedence, I would happily beat the living **** / life out of anyone who threatened my familly or people I care about, sod the consequences, this includes chasing them down and giving them a lesson, at least this might protect someone else from having the same person threaten their family.

Originally Posted by CheGuevara

I think that's pretty sound speculation. Coming home to find your stuff gone would make most people angry, but not the same kind of angry as "Hey you just tried to kill my family". I'd still wanna bruise him a little though

You recently had your KTM nicked didnt you?
What would you have done had you caught them breaking in rather than clearing off?
Just asking because if I found myself having already been robbed I THINK I'd be more gutted than angry. As thats how I felt after having my car stereo nicked, slightly embarrassed too as it was a naighbour who came round to let me know my car door was open a jar and he wondered if I'd removed my stereo before bed.
But the few weeks later when the alarm got set off and we gave chase well, then I was fuming.

You recon thats a fair description of how you felt/would have felt.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

The message being sent here isn't to home owners and that they have no right to defend their property, it's to the crims, and that they're offered protection under law if they don't inflict (physical, at least) harm.

They did though. Bunch of armed men tied them up and threatened to kill them.

Not saying it should be open season on Crims - just questioning how the courts can demand that a person, having extricated themselves from that horrendous situation, must achieve instanaeous rationality.

I don't see how you could be expected to think "Well they haven't actually murdered us all yet so maybe they were just bluffing - let's give them the benefit of the doubt eh?"

I like the way everyone assumes they can 'beat the living daylights' out of the burglar. What if the burglar 'knows kung fu' and puts you down or kills you before carrying on doing whatever he was doing. It's easier to sit at a keyboard and say 'I'd kill / maim / hurt them, than to actually do it.

Regarding the story, to me it reads that the burglar has been given a non-custodial sentence because he is brain-damaged as a result of the beating he received. IMO it would have been fair to chase the guy and hold him, maybe rough him up a little, but just hold him til the police get there. Why beat him over the head with blunt instruments? That's just stupid and asking for trouble. I can't believe they thought their actions were justified.

[CheGuevara]

Originally Posted by leedsmatt7

You recently had your KTM nicked didnt you?
What would you have done had you caught them breaking in rather than clearing off?
Just asking because if I found myself having already been robbed I THINK I'd be more gutted than angry. As thats how I felt after having my car stereo nicked, slightly embarrassed too as it was a naighbour who came round to let me know my car door was open a jar and he wondered if I'd removed my stereo before bed.
But the few weeks later when the alarm got set off and we gave chase well, then I was fuming.

You recon thats a fair description of how you felt/would have felt.

Honestly had I caught and cornered him/them - I probably would have rushed one of them and tried to subdue him until the police showed. If that involved a few thumps before he hit the ground and stayed there then so be it.

If I had to chase him down the road as he tried to escape with my bike, I probably would have stopped wherever he dropped the bike so he could continue his escape. If I did decide too keep chasing, and managed to tackle him, then perhaps a painful arm-lock to keep him put.

I have a pretty good temper, but if he had not threatened or caused me or my friends/family any physical harm, then I don't think I'd be enraged enough to beat him senseless if he had given up resisting (otherwise it seems I'd have missed my calling in the RCMP).