No problem - you just have to persuade 17,399,999 other people to also send you 0.005p. :lol:

 

...and you have to persuade everyone who gets burgled to not put a claim in, and instead try and murder them instead (because that's pre-meditation if you decide to do it in advance) :P

...and you have to persuade everyone who gets burgled to not put a claim in, and instead try and murder them instead (because that's pre-meditation if you decide to do it in advance) :P

 

But there's usually not much time for meditation when you are being burgled. :P

 

Seriously though - getting back towards the point : I've never suggested that everyone should react violently to a crime in progress, only that the law might be modified to expand the definition of self-defence a bit, so that the victims of crime don't get dragged unnecessarily to court for just suffering a rush of blood.

If you ever get burgled I’m sending a link to this thread to the CPS. Enjoy prison for pre-meditated murder x

If you ever get burgled I’m sending a link to this thread to the CPS. Enjoy prison for pre-meditated murder x

 

This thread is getting extremely wierd now.

Weird, surely?? Spelt like Weirwood

And the burglar mumbled “I’m sorry”

 

Well why the hell are you stealing from some one then?

 

A little sorry doesn’t make up for it

 

He’s a criminal, through and through

...and therefore subhuman and should be deprived of his right to life in lieu of a proper trial?

Resounding victory there for the concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" and "rehabilitation" so well done for that ronald mcdonald.

Resounding victory there for the concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" and "rehabilitation" so well done for that ronald mcdonald.

 

He was caught red-handed outside the house so there is no innocence. He is a thief.

So is the President Of The United States, only he does it BIG TIME, no small bits & pieces for him, only shitloads of 500million dollars sums. Until he is brought to justice I don't think anyone has any moral right to demand anything other than abiding by the letter of the law. That means prison or fines.

 

Now if anyone wants go and sort the biggest crooks in the world first, and then work your way down the small fry then I could accept that argument.

 

In the meantime get some house insurance or insure your mobiles for free via your bank account freebies and no-one need die (on either side of the crime). If you can't afford it, then I presume you have very little that needs to be replaced...

 

 

Weird, surely?? Spelt like Weirwood

 

You're complaining about *my* spelling mistakes? :lol:

...and therefore subhuman and should be deprived of his right to life in lieu of a proper trial?

 

I'm all in favour of suspects being put on trial, but that isn't what this thread is about.

 

OK, if someone nicks your TV or games console, those can be easily replaced via insurance - but what if it were some priceless family heirloom? It's far easier to imagine someone losing their rag over *that*.

I'm all in favour of suspects being put on trial, but that isn't what this thread is about.

 

OK, if someone nicks your TV or games console, those can be easily replaced via insurance - but what if it were some priceless family heirloom? It's far easier to imagine someone losing their rag over *that*.

 

A thread about vigilante justice is definitely about the proper process that should be being exercised in our justice system, no matter what is stolen or otherwise wrong done. You seem to be saying that it's okay for someone to take the law into their own hands if they were dealt enough emotional damage through losing an item of high sentimental value. Are you actually an anarchist?

He was caught red-handed outside the house so there is no innocence. He is a thief.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. It’s a pretty solid judicial principle that ensures fair and just trials and sentencing.

 

Guilt can only be determined in a court of law.

A thread about vigilante justice is definitely about the proper process that should be being exercised in our justice system, no matter what is stolen or otherwise wrong done. You seem to be saying that it's okay for someone to take the law into their own hands if they were dealt enough emotional damage through losing an item of high sentimental value. Are you actually an anarchist?

 

Not exactly - I was merely saying I could understand why someone would lose their rag under those circumstances. That's why there is a 'diminished responsibility' defence available : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_responsibility

 

e.g. if you came home and caught some guy raping your wife, then you beat him with a baseball bat, many people would have sympathy with that impulsive act.