No problem breaking any bone with a well made cricket bat. It’s a pity I don’t play cricket, if intruders broke into my home I’d have to chase them down with a table tennis bat. I’d give them a darned good spanking though.
Its from guardian a known shitty journalism website.
Also the guy chased teh robber what does that mean? Was the robber already fleeing and he went after him? Or when he escaped the robber ran?
I’m pretty disgusted at this (I’m English too, so this is on my home turf). It’s like the Tony Martin case years ago (a farmer who killed a gypsy who was robbing him and ended up going to jail for it). Frankly you should be able to defend yourself in your own home, especially if the assailant is armed. The law should not be protecting criminal scum. End of.
[quote]optheta wrote:
Its from guardian a known shitty journalism website.
Also the guy chased teh robber what does that mean? Was the robber already fleeing and he went after him? Or when he escaped the robber ran?[/quote]
In England the story is pretty much everywhere, not just newspapers. Gave that as a link because it details the story well.
[quote]optheta wrote:
Its from guardian a known shitty journalism website.
[quote]
This isn’t The Sun or The Daily Mail we’re talking about here.
The Guardian is as respected in the UK as the New York Times is in the States.
Personally I think that with a situation such as this you should definitely not be put in a position legally where defending your home and family is a possible cause for prosecution.
Even if the person is running away, you should be allowed to use NECESSARY force to incapacitate them so they can be brought to justice.
Friedrich Nietzche talks about something similar in his first published book. He says there are 2 types of revenge:
-
Where, through fear of further action from your adversary, you deal such a strong blow to them as to avoid any counterattack. This is a REFLEX and usually involves little to no logical contemplation. (for example when lashing out at a machine or utensil that has caused you harm)
-
TAKING TIME FOR CONSIDERATION you attack your enemy in the way that you feel will hurt them most regardless of consequences, knowing full well that you may well suffer in the process.
Type 1 is generally seen as acceptable in society.
Type 2 not so much.
The question of whether the perpetrator was chased down immediately following the incident or wether pre-meditation was involved changes the situation.
If this sort of revenge were not subject to criminal prosecution we’d be living in a dangerous world with fewer liberties and freedoms than we enjoy now.
The system we have is far from perfect, and there are many things that are wrong with it. This case does not represent one of those things.
You can still defend your home with a weapon. You just can’t smash someone’s skull with a cricket bat after you have already successfully ejected them from your home.
It’s a question of where we draw the line, and there have been far bigger miscarriages of justice relating to these laws than this example. I think the sentence is excessive, but there is no question that he committed a crime.