Man jailed for fighting off knife-wielding attacker. Attacker goes free

[blas87]

Yeah, let's wait for law enforcement and let them do their jobs.

So if a guy is raping me, I should just lay back and let him do what he wants, and just let the cops go look for him later and hope I don't get knocked up or get an STD. Because that'd be just wrong to attempt to get out of his grasp and then beat him and his male units into bloody ravioli pillows.

So if someone breaks into my house, I should call the cops and just hope and pray that nothing happens and the cops get there in time, and if something does happen, hey, its ok, even if you get shot or beaten, the cops will do their job!

Fuck yes I'd beat them while they're down. You try to jump me or rape me, I don't want to give you a bloody nose or a pain in the groin, I want you to fucking suffer.

How do I know that them running off wasn't to go get back up or a better weapon?

Edit to add: I guess every situation is different, but I'd probably be on so much adrenaline if it ever happened to me that there's no saying what I could do if I had the upper hand.

Edit to further add: While I'm at it, anyone rolling their eyes at me thinking "Well, that would just make you as bad, if not worse than them and be stooping to their level", well then that's fine. I have too much pride to lay back and just take it and let someone try to jump me or rape me or rob me, to just let it happen and depend on law enforcement alone to take care of it. If I had the control or the upper hand, I'd be willing to stoop to their "level", and it would not in any way make me a bad or worse person than them, I AM better than them because I'm not a rapist or a thug or a robber, and I'll do what I need to do to protect myself.

[Greenday]

Yeah, let's wait for law enforcement and let them do their jobs.

So if a guy is raping me, I should just lay back and let him do what he wants, and just let the cops go look for him later and hope I don't get knocked up or get an STD. Because that'd be just wrong to attempt to get out of his grasp and then beat him and his male units into bloody ravioli pillows.

So if someone breaks into my house, I should call the cops and just hope and pray that nothing happens and the cops get there in time, and if something does happen, hey, its ok, even if you get shot or beaten, the cops will do their job!

No one said that. Not ONCE in this thread did anyone say you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself. What is being said is that once THREE men had another pinned down, with absolutely no way to fight back, beating him with potentially lethal objects was NOT self-defense.

If I had the control or the upper hand, I'd be willing to stoop to their "level", and it would not in any way make me a bad or worse person than them, I AM better than them because I'm not a rapist or a thug or a robber, and I'll do what I need to do to protect myself.

Wait, you'd be willing to stoop to a bad person's level, but that wouldn't make you yourself bad? Can't have it both ways. Beating a helpless person sounds like a thug to me. And that is NOT protecting yourself.

[Stormraven]

On the OP, given that it appears they took time to get weapons and the like, it does sound like they crossed the line.

There is a line, yes. If the person is, indeed, helpless - and the intended victim is capable of noticing that then any further beatings are crossing that line.

But, as Blas noted, adrenaline is a powerful thing. Not to mention that most self-defense courses don't tell their students to 'break free and run'. They tell their students, 'take him down and keep him down'. If you have to fight for your life, then it's best that you win that fight.

As for 'stooping to 'their' level', most of the time I've heard that phrase, it's applied, not to beating helpless thugs, but to fighting at all. The attitude I've seen and heard is that any use of force is 'stooping to their level'.

So, yes, getting a thug helpless and beating him would indeed be stooping to his level. Beating him because he thought you were helpless? Not so much.

[Greenday]

So, yes, getting a thug helpless and beating him would indeed be stooping to his level. Beating him because he thought you were helpless? Not so much.

For a simple robbery? Please. Stolen property can be replaced. Brain damage cannot. In fact, beating a robber to the point of brain damage is worse than anything the thief was after.

Aw, the police won't get there immediately. Obviously. Awesome, you hit him with a bat and knocked him unconscious. Now the police can get there. No one will fault you for that. If he wakes up, knock him out again. But bashing his head in? Gross overkill.

[kibbles]

Yeah, let's wait for law enforcement and let them do their jobs.

So if a guy is raping me, I should just lay back and let him do what he wants, and just let the cops go look for him later and hope I don't get knocked up or get an STD. Because that'd be just wrong to attempt to get out of his grasp and then beat him and his male units into bloody ravioli pillows.

There is a big difference between defending yourself against an attack, and continuing to beat someone when the danger is no longer present. Once someone is subdued or fleeing, beating them turns from self defense to assault.

[Tanasi]

The burgler is the only one at fault. If he didn't want to take a beating then he shouldn't have broke into those folks house. I don't blame those fellows for putting a beating on him, he deserved it and if he suffered from it, too damn bad he shouldn't have been in their house.
Here we have the Castle docterine. A few years ago on New Years Eve some boys broke into my house while my wife and kids were gone. I was downstairs half-asleep when they kicked in the kitchen door. I was setting next to the alarm panel and it beeped to alert me. I grabbed a shotgun and silently crept up the stairs with the dogs in tow. When I saw that it was kids and they were trashing my kitchen. So instead of killing them I set the dogs on them. Four kids fled from three dogs and the dogs won. If they had been adults and was putting my family in danger I'd splattered them all over the place and wouldn't have worried a second about it. The kids got juvi probation until they turned 19. This past spring the ring leader with another gang in tow broke into my green houses and trashed them and killed the majority of my youngest daughters rabbits all does with babies.
It appears in England these boys would have got off with barely a slap on the wrist. It doesn't matter that the burgler got the worst of it, he put himself in that situation and sometimes you get the bear sometimes the bear gets you. The homeowners should have been given a medal for apprehending the thief.

[kibbles]

Given a medal for beating someone?? I don't think so. I don't agree with the non-sentence the thief got; but, three men beating one man who was no longer a danger to them, nope they don't deserve anything least of all a medal.

[jackfaire]

Tanasi is the logic "They hurt me I should hurt them?"

If so should the hypothetical families of people you shoot and kill be entitled to shoot and kill you and also face no consequences?

[Stormraven]

For a simple robbery? Please. Stolen property can be replaced. Brain damage cannot. In fact, beating a robber to the point of brain damage is worse than anything the thief was after.

Aw, the police won't get there immediately. Obviously. Awesome, you hit him with a bat and knocked him unconscious. Now the police can get there. No one will fault you for that. If he wakes up, knock him out again. But bashing his head in? Gross overkill.

And how, exactly, does a person know that the stranger forcing his way into their house is just interested in robbing them? How do they know he's not going to kill them, or even 'just' torture or rape them?

Answer: They don't. If someone breaks into my property, I'm not going to stop and ask them what they're planning. I'm going to get whatever weapon I can get to hand and I'm going to deal with them as what they are - an intruder into my home.

But - and let me make this clear - if he, she, or they leave my house, I won't chase them. I'll stay alert and prepared in case they come back, and I'll call the police to report the situation, if I haven't already. (Which I'm likely to have done, unless they're blocking access to the phone)

[Greenday]

But - and let me make this clear - if he, she, or they leave my house, I won't chase them. I'll stay alert and prepared in case they come back, and I'll call the police to report the situation, if I haven't already. (Which I'm likely to have done, unless they're blocking access to the phone)

That's fine. I agree with that. You aren't turning self-defense into revenge.

But regardless, let's say someone breaks into your house with the thoughts of doing more than just stealing. You take a baseball bat and slam them in the head with it, knocking them out. At that point, there is no justification for continuing the beating. While they are a threat, do whatever it takes to make them not a threat. But an unconscious body is not a threat and revenge in the form of continuing to beat them is the kind of mentality that sets humanity back a notch.

On a side note, I don't get why the burglars aren't being charged with anything. If the brain damaged guy hasn't been charged yet because of his injuries, he better be charged after treatment.

[Tanasi]

Given a medal for beating someone?? I don't think so. I don't agree with the non-sentence the thief got; but, three men beating one man who was no longer a danger to them, nope they don't deserve anything least of all a medal.

Yes they deserve a medal they removed a known and mostly unpunished thief from society. I say again the thief put himself in that situation and got what he deserved. Seems like I remember reading or hearing that the theif has numerous prior convictions.

Tanasi is the logic "They hurt me I should hurt them?"

If so should the hypothetical families of people you shoot and kill be entitled to shoot and kill you and also face no consequences?

No the logic is if you don't want me to shoot you then stay out of my house unless invited. And no, I did his family no harm wereas their thief of a son did harm and mine and I was justified in my actions so I committed no crime. If the thief's family comes looking for revenge then they are breaking the law and I would take whatever measures I deem necessary to protect my family and myself. I don't go looking for trouble but I also don't run from it.

When are folks going to learn being a criminal can be dangerous and sometimes their lifewill be forfieted. If the crimnals can't or don't want to take this risk then I suggest they find another way to make a living. Why are those that roll over and give in to the criminals, their lawyers and the liberal judges are considered more moral than those that standup and take care of themselves? Since when has it become non-PC to stand-up and be a man/woman instead of a sniviling coward?

[Slytovhand]

“What do I think of Western civilisation? I think it would be a very good idea.”

Sort of says it all, doesn't it??

Humanity went through many stages - from being small tribes, to larger groups, to societies, to... what we have now. Once upon a time, we had no laws at all - it was pretty much kill or be killed. Then, we just let the powerful rule and control, and the weak got walked all over. Slowly, 'civilisation' evolved (if you believe it has - going from some of the above posts, it would appear some don't!), and we got ourselves laws and law enforcement, and judges and judgements and punishments. A system of 'justice' (for want of a better word) which decried that it was a bad idea in a society to just allow someone to decide the fate of those who had done them wrong - it's a BAD idea to 'take the law into your own hands'.

Now, if you don't really want to agree with those laws, then go take a look at a few countries around the world where such is not the case. Take a look at a country in anarchy. Look what happens when the law is ignored, worthless, or even close to non-existent. And if you're serious about your stance - move!

Because, at the moment, while people take all the benefits that civilisation gives, but chooses to randomly ignore laws that they don't like... well, what can you really say about them?


Back to the specific OP point and the 'victim's' head injuries - how do you arrest someone if they are incapable of understanding their rights?? "You have the right to an attorney. Do you understand?" "Huh?" "I said....."


Oh, btw, the logic of 'they might be running away to get help' or 'I don't know what they might do next'... so - wars should only end when everyone in the opposing country are dead? And their allies? For that matter, shouldn't we just walk into the ghettoes and just wipe them all out now? After all, we just don't know what they might do next. They might be planning on invading your home right now! Quick - better go get them before they get you... NOW - GO!

No, the law isn't perfect. But - are you?

[Nyoibo]

For a simple robbery? Please. Stolen property can be replaced. Brain damage cannot. In fact, beating a robber to the point of brain damage is worse than anything the thief was after.

Aw, the police won't get there immediately. Obviously. Awesome, you hit him with a bat and knocked him unconscious. Now the police can get there. No one will fault you for that. If he wakes up, knock him out again. But bashing his head in? Gross overkill.

Skipping the "simple robbery" as someone else already covered that, "beating someone to the point of brain damage" if I hit someone in the head with a cricket bat they'd most likely be dead of have serious brain damage from one hit, knock him out and knock him out again? You do realise that that is just as likely to cause the same sort of damage as "bashing his head in"?

Oh, btw, the logic of 'they might be running away to get help' or 'I don't know what they might do next'... so - wars should only end when everyone in the opposing country are dead? And their allies? For that matter, shouldn't we just walk into the ghettoes and just wipe them all out now? After all, we just don't know what they might do next. They might be planning on invading your home right now! Quick - better go get them before they get you... NOW - GO!

No, I don't believe in pre-emptive strikes, I do believe however that if you've just broken into my house then you've forfeited your right to getting the benefit of the doubt that you might just be running away.

[Slytovhand]

Nyoibo, Greenday is in America - they don't get 'cricket bats'... or 'cricket'

[linguist]

Here we have the Castle docterine.

most castle doctrine laws set limits. yes, you may use deadly force, but if the use of force subdues the assailant without killing him (there was a thread some time back about a pharmacist who was arrested after he shot a robber in the head, rendering him unconscious, then proceeded to empty his gun into the robber's abdomen), you can't finish the job or, as in this case, continue to beat him.