The more I see people condoning the beating of thieves, the more it makes me think that people might just give others a beating, or at least turn a blind eye, if they decide they deserve it.
And most people with common sense could tell it was without the need for a court case.
The law doesn't work on "the common sense of most people" it works on... the law. If the law says it's not permitted, that's that, unless it allows for extenuating circumstances.
Clearly, assaulting someone and breaking three of their limbs defaults to being against the law. So it's just a matter of deciding if there are sufficient extenuating circumstances to justify it, taking into account whether or not it was a cold calculated act, an unintentional act, and the likely state of mind of the accused in the circumstances he found himself in.
All of the above is far too complex for "the common sense of most people" to decide with any degree of reliability, so it goes to a Jury and they decide what was reasonable (always a tricky one), on behalf of the rest of us. That's why he was prosecuted. The Jury ARE in a way, "the common sense of most people" but with the huge advantage of having ALL the facts (unlike us) and of having the subtleties of the law explained to them by lawyers (unlike us). It was the right way to deal with this tricky situation.
Read this in the paper this morning, guy did indeed get found not guilty, one of the robbers was complaining about his broken legs etc..., but it served him right imo, that'll teach him
Do you think you would be that person on the jury who wouldn't budge on their "principles" and drag the deliberation out for days?
It'd probably go to an hour or so, just long enough for the judge to accept a majority verdict.
Besides, once the evidence had been delivered, even if I believed he did it out of spite, as long as there was a reasonable doubt, I'd be duty bound to acquit.
The fact that he chased them means that it can't possibly be self defence as he was in no danger from people running away.
He could have run after them, arrested then and then restrained them USING REASONABLE FORCE until the police arrive, but breaking someone's legs is not reasonable force in any way.
He is a violent thug who thinks that dishing out a beating to people who have wronged him is justifiable. It isn't.
What an absurd post. Who do you think he is, Superman ? He's supposed to chase two thieves, one of them armed, then perform a citizens arrest, detaining both of them until the police arrive while at the same time worrying about whether he is using "reasonable force".
Oh dear, he hurt two thieving scrotes who were out to rob him. Tough luck, perhaps they'll have second thoughts next time. Your obvious sympathy for the criminals leads me to suspect that you have close friends or relatives in the same "line of work" ? Nothing else would explain you calling the victim a violent thug.
Comments
Yes it is amazing. Having to accommodate people's "right" to want to nick stuff!
Soon Thieves will be classified as an ethnic group and they'll be taking their case for a right to steal to the European Court.
I know who I'd believe. I'll give you a clue. Not the criminals.
I'd want more information.
It wasn't a case of proving he did it, as it was known that he did, more a case of deciding if it was justifiable or not.
The law doesn't work on "the common sense of most people" it works on... the law. If the law says it's not permitted, that's that, unless it allows for extenuating circumstances.
Clearly, assaulting someone and breaking three of their limbs defaults to being against the law. So it's just a matter of deciding if there are sufficient extenuating circumstances to justify it, taking into account whether or not it was a cold calculated act, an unintentional act, and the likely state of mind of the accused in the circumstances he found himself in.
All of the above is far too complex for "the common sense of most people" to decide with any degree of reliability, so it goes to a Jury and they decide what was reasonable (always a tricky one), on behalf of the rest of us. That's why he was prosecuted. The Jury ARE in a way, "the common sense of most people" but with the huge advantage of having ALL the facts (unlike us) and of having the subtleties of the law explained to them by lawyers (unlike us). It was the right way to deal with this tricky situation.
Do you think you would be that person on the jury who wouldn't budge on their "principles" and drag the deliberation out for days?
It'd probably go to an hour or so, just long enough for the judge to accept a majority verdict.
Besides, once the evidence had been delivered, even if I believed he did it out of spite, as long as there was a reasonable doubt, I'd be duty bound to acquit.
What an absurd post. Who do you think he is, Superman ? He's supposed to chase two thieves, one of them armed, then perform a citizens arrest, detaining both of them until the police arrive while at the same time worrying about whether he is using "reasonable force".
Oh dear, he hurt two thieving scrotes who were out to rob him. Tough luck, perhaps they'll have second thoughts next time. Your obvious sympathy for the criminals leads me to suspect that you have close friends or relatives in the same "line of work" ? Nothing else would explain you calling the victim a violent thug.
I probably am prejudiced against convicted thieves, they tend not to be the most honest of folk.
Two thieves - one armed vs one unarmed man who disarmed one thief and turned the weapon on him in self defence.
Hmm. Let me think for a second...