Wait so if he breaks in, carries the tv trips over the step its your fault, and you just have to watch him ? Law changed for the better. Now if only the UK was like that.

I read/heard about this guy who would shoot people that broke into his house. Killed 3 people on 3 different occasions, and no one ever broke in again. America: best country EVER.

It is stories like these that shake my faith in the over-all good of humanity. Especially considering stuff like this is happening with more and more frequency now-a-days. Back in my Dads day, if someone robbed you and you caught up with them with a group of your friends and beat the crap out of them, you'd be given a medal. Shooting intruders on sight was normal and applauded since you were removing scum from the gene pool. In this day and age though, you go to jail for defending yourself ><. Stupid

How do you know he won't be stealing again (unless they left him in a wheelchair for life in which case it was defnitely unreasonable IMO)?
Almost anything works better (and is cheaper than) prison but thats not the point here. Vigilanteism seems fine until someone gets murdered or beaten up for something they didn't do. It also puts a lot of power into the hands of self-appointed thugs. The IRA always claimed punishment beatings and kneecappings were done to protect the community despite being involved in drugs, protection rackets and organised armed robberies itself.

Famous for its low crime rates and never convicting the wrong person of course :rofl:

That actually reminds me of a case here in the US. Guy broke into a drug store and the pharmacist defended himself by shooting the person. However they charged the pharmacist with murder because he shot the burglar 11 more times instead of just stopping with the 1 to 2 shots.

I live in one of those states where you can shoot somebody for trespassing and theft, and thats what Id have done.

Says a lot about this country that this was even allowed to be filed. :rolleyes:

I agree, anybody that stupid shouldn't be allowed to live.

You can lose the protection of the law, but the cruncher is this: Only legal officials can do that. You, or anyone else for that matter not in a judicial position, has no right whatsoever to deprive people of their legal rights, you do not get to make that choice, it is simply not up to you!



The whole point is that policemen are allowed to enforce the laws by any necessary appropriate means, you're not allowed to do that, regular people who are not policemen are NOT allowed to do that!



And now we're wishing death to someone just because he filed a lawsuit you don't like?

What the hell is this, some bizarro reality where random people on internet forums get to decide who lives or who dies for whatever random arbitrary reason they please?!



Threatening a guy with a gun and tying him up in response to a simple robbery? Where's the proportionality in that?



Uhm...what?

You need to listen less your dad's self-agrandizing ranting and more to how the world really works.



What in all tarnation is this?

Killing someone because he filed a lawsuit you don't approve of?

:slap:

Perhaps you should lrn2read a bit better there Lcars. I said "back in my dads day". Nowhere did I say my dad said any of that. I just used my dad as a reference because of his age(him being 62). In those days, if someone committed a crime, and the public caught them, it was quite likely that person would get the crap beat out of them. And if the public didn't do so, it was even more common for the cops to administer proper justice. Please do not EVER defame my Father in any sort of way, It is one of the very few things that piss me off. My dad is one of the most honorable, kindest person that you could ever meet, and deserves utmost repsect.

You need to stop thinking that people who commit serious crimes(note, I said serious) deserve any rights whatsoever. Robbing someone of their personal property, assaulting someone, [censored], or murdering someone, all of those crimes, in my view, negate any civil liberties/personal rights the person who committed the crime, should have. If the person who is robbed, assaulted, [censored], etc, manages to catch up with the person who did it, they should have EVERY right to beat the crap out of the person(and in the case of [censored], killing said person).

I'm a firm believer that there would be a lot less crime if criminals were dished out similar punishments as to what they inflicted on their victims. ie: If they rob someone, that person should be allowed to go into the robbers house and take all that they want. If they assault someone, the victim should be given a baseball bat and told to go to town on the person. If they [censored] someone, a broken, jagged broomstick should be administered to the person. If they kill someone, they should be killed publicly in a similar manner.

Evidence? Hearing one or two exceptional, out of the ordinary cases where such a silly lawsuit has been won does not mean that it's at all common. Take a step back and think about it. The only reason such things were in the paper in the first place was because it was so different to usual.



It doesn't really matter how you see it, vigilantism causes societies to fall apart. Case in point here is the way many third-world countries (particularly in Africa) have become thanks to a corrupt and ineffective police force.



He hasn't won anything, and in all probability he won't.



Heartwarming to see how intelligent your preferred method of solving problems is.

I completely agree with that. What i meant by that is that victims who fight back should only be punished in extreme cases of unnecessary force, the way i said it earlier was bit too strongly worded.

Oh no, I will most certainly not stop thinking that, because modern society is based on the notion of actually having a justice system worth a damn, and people being allowed to lynch someone because they wore a pink T-shirt or whatever isn't really beneficial to such a system.

You don't get to decide who should be punished and how, that's up to the judges.



Well, then, you are clearly wrong, because the laws state quite clearly what rights one can be deprived of by the legal system under specific circumstances, and nowhere is vigilantism ever condoned.

Yet again, ordinary people are not allowed to make that decision!



No, they shouldn't, because we have a legal system to make sure justice is dealt equally and fairly, as well as meted out based on reason and logic rather than on the furious emotions of people who I wouldn't trust to sit the right way on a toilet seat.

Retribution should never be the governing principle in any society, and whenever it is you end up with a bunch of people killing an innocent man because he resembled someone they saw on the telly.



And there you perfectly illustrated the reason why you aren't allowed to decide such matters in the first place.

I never said that it should be vigilantism, I just said the victim should be allowed to administer the punishment. Once the person was convicted in a court of law, the victim should be allowed to administer the punishment(Jail does not deter any serious criminal from his life of crime). I personally believe our country was a good deal better off in the older days, then it is now-a-days(with the exception of racism and women rights). Life was a good deal better in those days. less crime, smarter children, better physical shape, all that jazz. Any society that would allow some idiot to sue someone because they apprehended him after he robbed them of property is on the wrong track. Not to mention other ridiculous cases where the robber gets bit by homeowners dog, or slips on a wet floor, or gets shot by homeowner while still inside the house(I do agree that shooting them after they left is wrong, but using the gun as a means to threaten them to stop running away is fine), and then sues the homeowner, is just wrong, in every shape and form.

Regardless, I don't care one whit what you think of my ideas or opinions, nor do I care one whit about your ideas or opinions. Lets just agree to disagree eh?

On the subject of vigilantism: I have to agree with Lcars on the matter. If a person breaks into your house, and your state is under the Castle Doctrine, you are justified in using what force you think is necessary to protect yourself, your family, and your property. However, I believe the Castle Doctrine only applies to your home, so you can't go chasing the burglar through the streets. The danger has left the zone, so you aren't threatened anymore.

As for actual vigilantism, I'm not a big fan of it. Dishing out your own justice (usually execution) is not the best things ever. We have a justice system for a reason. However, that justice system needs some serious work to be effective.

As for the lawsuit: I loled. I doubt the judge will accept that kind of thing.

As for Starwulf's idea of the victim administering the punishment: No. Just no. I don't think you've fully thought out the ramification of that kind of thing. Using the example of giving the victim a bat and letting them go to town on the criminal; The victim would become so charged with emotion, they would likely kill the criminal in a few swings to the head. The victim would see that they are no better than the criminal, having beat a defensless man to death, and then would probably get charged with man-slaughter or murder.

Leave punishment to the people meant to dish out punishment. The jails, or the executioner if the crime warrants it.

The IRA = fail. Simple next time he thinks of it ewill remember the beating, if he dose it again, beat him more.
People lose societies protection the moment they go against it, break the law dont expect the police to save your miserable ass becuase ou got the [censored] kicked out of you for robbing a home.


The UK famous for an ineffective police force, who cant do [censored] all against youths, and people getting killed because they cant defend themselves
Remember the story years ago, a man died, youths just kept kicking him, and kicking him. Yeah if he had a gun maybe that wouldnt have happened, no we have to rely on police the most they do is give out an ASBO, and thats kinda like stampcollecting to alot of offenders. If a criminal has a gun it dosent matter if its legal or not, he will get it somehow, may aswell even the playing field.


Corruption =/= vigilantism, Africa has problems for many reasons, sorry but if there were vigilantes around then maybe we wouldnt have as many drug dealers, thieves, murderers, etc. Hell some people need to be removed from society, vigilantes can do that nicely. Our police may not be corrupt, but we seem to have inneffective hit the nail on the head, when they decide speeding cars are the #1 priority (my mothers friend stopped for 2mph over the limit, waste of time) instead of you know serious crimes. Besides we should rely less on the police, save tax money for things that actuall work like they should.

@Verlox here there were rumors of letting "less dangerous" criminals out of prison, tomake up for them being over crowded, other people arent punished properly, those delivering punishment are on the opposite side of the spectrum, unless its fraud, I would rather too extreme than too lax punishments.

I think there's a word for that; vigilantism.



Seeing as how prison and fines are more or less the only punishments dealt, how on earth are the victims supposed to administer them?



Believe all you want, but fact is, crime, especially violent crime, is much lower nowadays than it ever was, as you can easily read http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31.

One must wonder why.

Lots of things to keep people entertained/subdued.

No, that's why most people don't really know their neighbors.

Kindly reread my post and Lcar's post, and then spend a few minutes thinking about it. Certain African nations are rife with vigilantism, which is a result of the ineffective police force. Rather than removing criminals this leads to large-spread violence caused by these self-sanctioned "executions" (murder is much more apt word), which is of course taken too far by the type of people who this idea appeals to. Is it OK to murder a thief or a drug dealer? You clearly think so, but what if that thief/dealer is only doing so to feed themselves and their loved ones? It is still OK then? ANd what is it that makes the vigilante any less disgusting than the criminals themselves?

The law exists so that ordinary people don't have to much such judgement calls, and undermining it doesn't do anybody any favours, except maybe excite those people who believe that complex problems with multiple causes can be solved by simple, bloody solutions.

Wow, what a surprise. This veered right into politics. Let me review to see if it can stay open.