College Student Kills Intruder With a Sword

[Mully69ylluM]

Im sorry, but however hard you may argue otherwise, the taking of another mans life cannot be justified, the English system works perfectly well. The sad fact of the matter is that if people were too sure of their right to defend themself in their own home than opportunistic acts of 'self-defence' would sky-rocket. Also at the same time, as hard as it maybe for some of you to realize, even those who break the law have rights and if we forget this than we are just as guilty.

The british legal system works well? Are you fucking kidding me? Where is the justice in some gang of chav's battering a World War 2 veteran to death and getting 2 years each for it. Whereas someone beats a paedophile to death and they get life? How can you say it works well? Its bollocks!

On topic though, I'm glad this guy got hacked up. Little shitbag.

Although I cannot comment on certain cases with the sparse information you have so kindly provided, your decision to fall back to the good old Daily Mail stalwarts of killer chav's and societies need to murder paedophiles shows I shouldn't even bother.
The British Legal system works as well as it possibly can with the resources it is provided. To look broadly at the cases you provide, of a gang of youths randomly attacking an old man and a paedophile (suspected or otherwise) being singled out with the sole intent of killing him, distinctions are obvious.
Whereas the killing of the veteran was probably the result of a spur of the moment decision, the killing of the paedophile was a premeditated and cold-blooded attack, with planning obviously going into it. Premeditated murder always rates higher than murder/manslaughter and vigilantism is a crime in itself. The chavs were most likely minors and could plead 'diminished responsibilty' for their actions.
But before you again cry that 'Paedophiles deserve to die'(I like my rhymes )
Remember the case of another recent murder of a(suspected) paedophile by a member of the public, a man who could not distinguish between an individual who brutally assaults children and a Paediatrician because, in his own words 'they both touch kids.'

If the information that I provide isn't to your standards, feel free to use Google or any mainstream british tabloid newspaper website and find it yourself. As you already knew the paper this information came from, I didn't have to provide anything .

The problem is that gangs are just that, gangs. If any person is overwhelmed with the amount of people thrown at them, they will always lose out. They always go in search of the vulnerable and people who cannot defend themselves to any degree. Cowards all of them. As for the premeditated killing of a paedophile, I would go to the same extent (against one who is convicted of it, not based on rumours) to wipe one off the face of the earth. That is one less risk in the world that we are failed to be protected from.. If I thought there was any danger of my children being even in contact with someone who would sexually abuse them, I would wipe them out with no question. There were 2 brothers who lived where I used to, who lured kids into thier house and faced 4 days of sexual abuse before being thrown into the street. They were burned alive, and good enough for them. I applaud the people who did that, sick people.

The difference between a Paediatrician and a Paedophile? That is probably the most retarted statement I have ever heard. No offence to you of course, this is just my opinion. You are entitled to your own, as is every other person <3

 

[ThePeaceFrog]

Im sorry, but however hard you may argue otherwise, the taking of another mans life cannot be justified, the English system works perfectly well. The sad fact of the matter is that if people were too sure of their right to defend themself in their own home than opportunistic acts of 'self-defence' would sky-rocket. Also at the same time, as hard as it maybe for some of you to realize, even those who break the law have rights and if we forget this than we are just as guilty.

The british legal system works well? Are you fucking kidding me? Where is the justice in some gang of chav's battering a World War 2 veteran to death and getting 2 years each for it. Whereas someone beats a paedophile to death and they get life? How can you say it works well? Its bollocks!

On topic though, I'm glad this guy got hacked up. Little shitbag.

Although I cannot comment on certain cases with the sparse information you have so kindly provided, your decision to fall back to the good old Daily Mail stalwarts of killer chav's and societies need to murder paedophiles shows I shouldn't even bother.
The British Legal system works as well as it possibly can with the resources it is provided. To look broadly at the cases you provide, of a gang of youths randomly attacking an old man and a paedophile (suspected or otherwise) being singled out with the sole intent of killing him, distinctions are obvious.
Whereas the killing of the veteran was probably the result of a spur of the moment decision, the killing of the paedophile was a premeditated and cold-blooded attack, with planning obviously going into it. Premeditated murder always rates higher than murder/manslaughter and vigilantism is a crime in itself. The chavs were most likely minors and could plead 'diminished responsibilty' for their actions.
But before you again cry that 'Paedophiles deserve to die'(I like my rhymes )
Remember the case of another recent murder of a(suspected) paedophile by a member of the public, a man who could not distinguish between an individual who brutally assaults children and a Paediatrician because, in his own words 'they both touch kids.'

If the information that I provide isn't to your standards, feel free to use Google or any mainstream british tabloid newspaper website and find it yourself. As you already knew the paper this information came from, I didn't have to provide anything .

The problem is that gangs are just that, gangs. If any person is overwhelmed with the amount of people thrown at them, they will always lose out. They always go in search of the vulnerable and people who cannot defend themselves to any degree. Cowards all of them. As for the premeditated killing of a paedophile, I would go to the same extent (against one who is convicted of it, not based on rumours) to wipe one off the face of the earth. That is one less risk in the world that we are failed to be protected from.. If I thought there was any danger of my children being even in contact with someone who would sexually abuse them, I would wipe them out with no question. There were 2 brothers who lived where I used to, who lured kids into thier house and faced 4 days of sexual abuse before being thrown into the street. They were burned alive, and good enough for them. I applaud the people who did that, sick people.

The difference between a Paediatrician and a Paedophile? That is probably the most retarted statement I have ever heard. No offence to you of course, this is just my opinion. You are entitled to your own, as is every other person <3

I know it sounds retarded, but it happened and some poor sod was lynched in some sink estate because people believed that it was fine to murder another without the due process of law.

 

[Enzeru92]

ha I give props to the student and say he shouldn't be charge for anything because come on its his home and the guy attacked him first

 

[Eatbrainz]

DAYMN that was badass!

though if i were to defend my home id invest in two 44. Magnums

 

[Lenoh]

ANARCHY IN THE GALAXY!

I'll bet the kid tried to charge his katana afterward, I would, just for owning somebody that hard with a friggin' KATANA.

 

[Doctor_Insano]

i dont think they should charge the boy for his ninjacapades, anyone stupid enough to walk into a little over a metre of sharpened steel, well... deserves it. as for legality: at least in canada, it is legal to own and CARRY a sword, as long as its not concealed: and you dont swing it at people. despite what the police might say: it's legal, they have no real right to do anything, ive carried a 2 janded sword on the bus with me when i was moving it, no one got in trouble, and no one harassed me either, hell we all have swords at my house: they dont go click: and yeah, like was posted earlier: swords are smarter for home defense than any "gun", although a replica samurai sword is useless if u actually use it. spend a bit more money and get something with a full tang XD

 

[Chaotic Neutral]

Since the thread is still going for some strange reason, I'll take the opportunity to make a reply to the people wondering why the kid had a katana. The answer is that in most of America, it is perfectly legal to own whatever sort of blade you like, as long as it's kept within the confines of your own home. Any blade longer than a certain length however (in Florida, where I'm writing from, this is four inches, and it must be a folding knife), counts as a weapon, which you must have a permit to carry concealed. And most places make it illegal to carry weapons openly, because that's just asking to start shit. In your own home though, you can use pretty much anything on someone who's attacking you (as long as you aren't in California *rimshot*). They're in your house, potentially threatening you and/or your family; if they didn't know they were breaking into the house of someone who collects sharp objects as a hobby... well, they shouldn't be breaking into your house in the first place.

And yes, a (short) sword is still an excellent self-defense weapon inside a home. The majority of gunfights between civilians take place at a distance of about seven feet between the two participants, and an average person with a knife can move twenty-one feet in the time it takes a police officer to draw a gun, aim for center of mass, and fire. They've run trials to prove this. Meanwhile, you have the fact that it's been confirmed since time immemorial that a piercing weapon (e.g., a handgun), is more effective at inflicting fatal wounds than a slashing weapon (e.g., a sabre), but in terms of ending the fight the situation is reversed: someone who takes a fatal gunshot to a vital organ can keep moving for as long as two minutes before the body shuts down, but someone who's had the nerves, muscles, and tendons that operate their good hand severed is pretty much done fighting.

In short, the gun is a brutally efficient weapon at range, in the hands of a professional. As for me, in any situation where I'd be in the right to draw a weapon. I'd rather have a decent knife.

 

[Weaver]

IMO if someone breaks into your home and starts stealing your shit you should be able to kill them.

 

[shadow741]

The intruder must've looked like the dog on the left in this:http://graphicshunt.com/funny/images/scared_puppy-12311.htm

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I remember a cop once explaining that the best weapon to defend yourself with in most homes is a longsword. Handguns over penetrate, and during an adrenaline rush it's very easy to miss with a handgun. Shotguns have the over penetration problem as well, and aren't very effective in closed quarters if you're not very proficient. Knife fighting is a very VERY dangerous thing to do. But a sword gives you plenty of reach, and the risk of the other guy carrying one to pull on you is very slim.

You can consider a sword a viable weapon, me, I'll stick with a weapon with a longer effective range than about 12 feet. Keep in mind I'm actually a fencer and am presumably capable of effectively using a Sabre.

Yes, there are circumstances when a blade is better than a firearm, but in the vast majority of cases if one arrives at a gunfight with a sword they are woefully underarmed. Yes, over penetration is a problem, but frangible ammunition offers a stop gap solution there. With regards to difficulty of use, let me assure you that delivering an effictive cut or thrust with a blade while distressed is dramatically more difficult than hitting a man sized target across a living room.

 

[Starke]

I remember a cop once explaining that the best weapon to defend yourself with in most homes is a longsword. Handguns over penetrate, and during an adrenaline rush it's very easy to miss with a handgun. Shotguns have the over penetration problem as well, and aren't very effective in closed quarters if you're not very proficient. Knife fighting is a very VERY dangerous thing to do. But a sword gives you plenty of reach, and the risk of the other guy carrying one to pull on you is very slim.

You can consider a sword a viable weapon, me, I'll stick with a weapon with a longer effective range than about 12 feet. Keep in mind I'm actually a fencer and am presumably capable of effectively using a Sabre.

Yes, there are circumstances when a blade is better than a firearm, but in the vast majority of cases if one arrives at a gunfight with a sword they are woefully underarmed. Yes, over penetration is a problem, but frangible ammunition offers a stop gap solution there. With regards to difficulty of use, let me assure you that delivering an effictive cut or thrust with a blade while distressed is dramatically more difficult than hitting a man sized target across a living room.

Dude, it's been four months. Why do you feel the need to necro the thread?

Secondly, when moving around in a house, most combat will occur at < 10 feet. At that range there's a definite advantage for someone with a sword. And, if you're defending your home, we can assume you know the terrain.

 

[Danpascooch]

Are they kidding? What the hell are they charging him for? Not letting the attacker kill him?

Seriously, the guy breaks into his house, attacks him, and he's holding a sword, it's a no fucking brainer to swing the damn thing at the guy, for all he knew the burglar had a knife and he was seconds from death.

Mad props for sword defense.

The only way I could POSSIBLY see a prosecution being justified is if he sliced at him again after the attacker fell to the ground.

 

[WestMountain]

That kid will probably be scarred for life because he killed a human being, though that's pretty awesome done by the kid

 

[Dr Snakeman]

I actually read this story in the paper after it came out. I cut it out, and kept it in my wallet; I whip it out whenever I want to inject a little more awesomeness into my day.

 

[ArcWinter]

That is not a sword. That is PURE AWESOME.

I am extremely impressed with that kid. Let him off without a charge please.

no but seriously katanas are the best sword all you rapier people can just leave

 

[Omnific One]

He better not be charged; it was completely the burglar's fault. Goes to show that it is a bad idea to attack people wielding swords.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

So we're all assuming that the student's version of events is true. If it is then sure, he should definitely get off. But that's the question...

What if he's lying and he attacked the burglar unprovoked? It's not too far a stretch to imagine someone all tired and angry going to his garage after he'd already been stolen from and in a fit of adrenaline, fright, and incredible anger, attacked the person.

 

[BoogieManFL]

it's totally astonished matter. however the kid student will be charged so that none can go ahead in crime seeing this position. it sounds like a story but terrible thing , really terrible.i don't think that even a kid or student can do this crime, disgusting. in this country allowed to keep sword with a man? i don't think so.

Do you realize that this post is from 2009?