Thief Attempts to Steal Xbox 360, Instigates Knife Fight, Loses

[lRookiel]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

Why are laws put in place to defend burglars/thieves/other criminal types? and to prosecute innocents trying to protect their property as well as their own lives -.-

SOCIETY, Y U NO LISTEN?

 

[Treblaine]

In UK I think it's different - reasonable force to defend person and property, but if, for example, you obstruct someone who is fleeing, then you can get in a lot of trouble. The definition of reasonable gives some problems as well.

Although of course it also depends on the jury. There was a case of a man recently, can't find the exact case because I can't remember the relevant details quite clearly enough, but effectively, family and himself tied up, brother or uncle or someone came home and released man, and they pursued attacker with cricket bats and beat him to a bloody, brain-damaged pulp.

Ah, found it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8469850.stm

I wonder if it had been a white family, would he have ever gone to jail?

In the U.K they would have been fine if they were black, white or oriental, but we have a heavily anti eastern european and anti midle eastern attitude here,and that disgusts me

It's sad that color would matter either way but that is just another issue we have here. But this is no case, no decision to be made. It's one of the very few things the american colinists got right, you have the right to defend your land.

In america they have this concept called "jury selection" which weeds out blatant racists and makes sure you don't have a case of an all-white jury trying an Asian (India/Pakistan) person. Also when a white man is on trial for a crime against a black person there is at least one black guy on the jury to be in the Juror's Room so all the white guys don't just say:

"lets let him off, the N***** had it coming"

I once knew an ex-barrister who was so proud of how in UK courts there is zero jury discretion. And yet UK has seen such miscarriages of justice, with juries clearly holding terrible prejudices. Such a problem for things like trying the nearest irish people they can find every time the IRA bombed a pub. Guildford Four were a poignant example of this. As was the case of Jill Dando.

It got to the point where the police didn't really have to have a strong case with incontrovertible evidence, they jut had to play to the jury's prejudices.

 

[Something Amyss]

Never mess with a guy who's been practicing shooters for years.

Twitch reflexes, baby.

Any judge that has at least 2 functioning brain cells will throw those cases out. Anyone in this country can file a lawsuit for any reason. Not everyone can win one.

Dude, nobody's going to let that get in the way of their "the legal system is broken and criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens!" rant.

 

[Flames66]

I take it from that that you do not condone carrying a knife? I always have one on my person but not for defence reasons. I carry it because it is a useful tool (it is a multi-tool with screwdrivers and such). If there was someone coming at me armed and I thought using my multi-tool would stop their advance, it would be in them without a second thought.

Just 'posing that a criminal has more proficiency with his blade than you do with your swiss army knife .. In this, the realm of inifinite possibilities that not everybody is Batman?

Just 'posing you're an average boy or girl, of whom doesn't fight crime in the dark of night and has fifteen black belts in various Far East martial arts and can kill people by tearing out their hearts through their chest. I think the most logical, and by far the most -common- (thankfully) rationale is to not go trying to beat down on people.

Let's say I do win the fight ... I get my xbox and tv back (huzzah!!) I've still put a man in intensive care with blood on your hands, and that shit sticks with you for fucking years and you never forget it. Conversely let's say I lose the fight, and I end up in hospital for weeks on end, and have to live with the multitude of health complaints till the end of my days.

There are reasons why vigilantism is frowned upon. And frankly, good reasons why law enforcement tells you that you should back away and not impede people in such a case. Things are things ... they can be replaced. And even if they can't be you're still alive and your conscience is free.

In either case it's still better than a measly tv and an xbox going missing.

You make an interesting point. I have been doing martial arts for a while now and have been trained that if someone attacks you, assume that they have a weapon and the intent to use it. I agree that this is not always the best approach.

Now the reason I am in full support of this persons actions. In this age of lawsuits, most people are so afraid of being taken to court and so on that they do not stand up for what they believe. I admire anyone with the courage to do so even if I do not entirely agree with their beliefs. Personally, I believe that the person here was entirely correct to confront the criminal and to respond in kind when he drew a weapon.

 

[Treblaine]

I take it from that that you do not condone carrying a knife? I always have one on my person but not for defence reasons. I carry it because it is a useful tool (it is a multi-tool with screwdrivers and such). If there was someone coming at me armed and I thought using my multi-tool would stop their advance, it would be in them without a second thought.

Just 'posing that a criminal has more proficiency with his blade than you do with your swiss army knife .. In this, the realm of inifinite possibilities that not everybody is Batman?

Just 'posing you're an average boy or girl, of whom doesn't fight crime in the dark of night and has fifteen black belts in various Far East martial arts and can kill people by tearing out their hearts through their chest. I think the most logical, and by far the most -common- (thankfully) rationale is to not go trying to beat down on people.

Let's say I do win the fight ... I get my xbox and tv back (huzzah!!) I've still put a man in intensive care with blood on your hands, and that shit sticks with you for fucking years and you never forget it. Conversely let's say I lose the fight, and I end up in hospital for weeks on end, and have to live with the multitude of health complaints till the end of my days.

There are reasons why vigilantism is frowned upon. And frankly, good reasons why law enforcement tells you that you should back away and not impede people in such a case. Things are things ... they can be replaced. And even if they can't be you're still alive and your conscience is free.

In either case it's still better than a measly tv and an xbox going missing.

Well, that's an assumption.

While it's expected that the average criminal armed with a knife will be above average proficiency, you cannot say that every law-abiding-citizen is below that. Average is average. Average is not everyone.

Many people who carry a knife have trained themselves to hold their own in a fair fight with a felon.

"Let's say I do win the fight ... I get my xbox and tv back (huzzah!!) I've still put a man in intensive care with blood on your hands"

Nope.

The actions you did to recover your property was to GRAB them.

The perpetrator CHANGED that situation to be one of self-defence when he responded to the grabbing by pulling out a knife and using it with intent to harm, it was no longer about recovering your property and apprehending a fugitive, but about self-defence.

The fact that your 360 was recovered after that is ancillary to surviving.

"Conversely let's say I lose the fight"

Part of preventing you from losing a fight is to draw your own weapon and get up an active defence. Turning your back and running away is not an option, that exposes you to too much risk. You could try to grab their weapon also and beat them insensible to prevent them grabbing it off you. A person who is trained in close combat with a knife would be best to draw their own weapon that trying to wrestle with the culprit's weapon and turning your back and running is rarely a sound option for your health.

As what kind of society would we be if we are expected to just watch criminals saunter off with stolen goods and be forbidden from even barring their way or trying to snatch back what is rightfully yours... because they might draw a concealed weapon.

 

[Coldster]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

Same thing in America, actually.

I've been told by a police officer that if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, empty the entire clip into them to make sure they die. If they survive, they can sue you for everything you own. If they break into your house.

Yep. That's exactly what a Canadian police constable told me as well! I don't think I could really bring myself to do it though. Funny how that works.

OT: Wow, get owned thief. You got exactly what you deserved.

 

[AngloDoom]

For me, it boils down to one point alone:

Was the thief fleeing from the building when the "fight spilled into the street"? If yes, then the 'victim' was hunting him down to stab the crap out of him. If not, we can assume it was the thief's poor use of a knife that got him stabbed.

Personally, I think the victim was absolutely stupid for not just getting a good look at the guy's face and ringing the police once he started waving a knife about - I don't care what they've stolen, if they pull a knife on me I'm not going charging into it. Still, it worked out for him in the end.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Crime doesn't pay, kids. Especially when you try to rob the wrong person.

 

[Ruwrak]

Was a similar case in Sweden. A burglar sat in a mans garage trying to steal his car by hotwiring it. The owner just closed the door and used the key's to lock the car. Whenever the thief unlocked the door, the man locked it again with the push of a button. He then called the cops, who came and arrested both of them. Thief walked free with a "Don't do it again". He got jailed for "Depriving the thief of his freedom".

So sick. People should stop calling the cops, beat criminals to death and dump them in ditches. They are scum and the government doesn't punish them for their wrong doings.

Hey, get your facts straight man. Police releases noone It's by decree of the justice department, not the police themselves |3

So the (whatever they are called in proper english) Deputy of the Justice (the one who says this person gets sued and this person doesn't) is responsible for that

And otherwise you have one weird country.

 

[The Funslinger]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

Same thing in America, actually.

I've been told by a police officer that if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, empty the entire clip into them to make sure they die. If they survive, they can sue you for everything you own. If they break into your house.

Then you plug him in the head just to be sure. Sorry but people lose their right to live the moment they threaten family, me, or my belongings in my home. It's ridiculous that they punish people for protecting their own property.

I'm pretty sure you can defend yourself publicly, though it'd vary from state to state. That's why people can get carry licenses for handguns.

 

[kuolonen]

snip

Just 'posing that a criminal has more proficiency with his blade than you do with your swiss army knife .. In this, the realm of inifinite possibilities that not everybody is Batman?

Just 'posing you're an average boy or girl, of whom doesn't fight crime in the dark of night and has fifteen black belts in various Far East martial arts and can kill people by tearing out their hearts through their chest. I think the most logical, and by far the most -common- (thankfully) rationale is to not go trying to beat down on people.

Let's say I do win the fight ... I get my xbox and tv back (huzzah!!) I've still put a man in intensive care with blood on your hands, and that shit sticks with you for fucking years and you never forget it. Conversely let's say I lose the fight, and I end up in hospital for weeks on end, and have to live with the multitude of health complaints till the end of my days.

There are reasons why vigilantism is frowned upon. And frankly, good reasons why law enforcement tells you that you should back away and not impede people in such a case. Things are things ... they can be replaced. And even if they can't be you're still alive and your conscience is free.

In either case it's still better than a measly tv and an xbox going missing.

So let me get this straight. First you were ranting how the robbed person should be put in padded cell for being overly defensive of his posessions. Now you rant about how this course of action is wrong because of the psychological after effects and heatlh dangers its poses on oneself.

For your first argument, why does it matter to you if a person is inclined to shank people who break into his home (and pull a knife on him)? You should be happy. This kind of news works as detergent for criminals to break into your home because they never know if theres a knife nutty in there. So unless you are planning on breaking into peoples homes and wish to get away unmolested I dont see the reason for your wish to incarcerate this man.

Now for the second point, at first you were ready to get the guy sectioned for his actions, now you are worried over his mental and physical health? Letting past the fact that not everyone is carved from the same wood, is it not a persons own choice if he wishes to endanger himself? And again, how does this adversly affect you? Heck, this might not even be the first time this man had to defend himself & his belongings.

Also, can you please drop that "a measly tv and an xbox" -attitude? You apparently earn 3000 euros per month, but for all we know, those items were the most expensive thing in that mans life and his most prized possesions. Its good to know that some people are still doing so well enough that they can scoff at +400? loss, but some of us actually need to live on can diet.

 

[wooty]

Ha, if that was britain, the defender would be in prison and the robber would receive a fair amount of compensation.

FAIRNESS IN ACTION!!

 

[Insanity72]

This sparked my interest because i didn't actually know what the self defense laws in Australia were, after a little researching i now know that i have the right to defend my self with reasonable force if i truly believe i am in danger.

Unfortunately it's the court that decides whether the amount of forced used was reasonable.

EDIT: although if you defended yourself with a knife, you would be charged with possession of a deadly weapon and intent to use it.

 

[rob_simple]

I think it's unreasonable to state 'blah blah thieves should die' because you don't know what has forced these people to turn to crime. Say he was out of options, and was going to sell the Xbox and telly for cash to feed his family. Does he deserve to die for that?

Sure, criminals should be punished for their actions, but if you think they all deserve to die no questions asked then maybe it's you that this world doesn't need.

 

[rob_simple]

I think it's unreasonable to state 'blah blah thieves should die' because you don't know what has forced these people to turn to crime. Say he was out of options, and was going to sell the Xbox and telly for cash to feed his family. Does he deserve to die for that?

Sure, criminals should be punished for their actions, but if you think they all deserve to die no questions asked then maybe it's you that this world doesn't need.

He had a suitcase to carry crap in, he could have stolen food but he went for the electronics, really altruistic that one.

Edit: And he deserves to die for threatening another with a knife, not because he is a thief.

Yeah, well it's sort of like give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he'll be sorted for life.

He'd make a couple hundred bucks off the electronics, that will go a lot further than a few tins of food.

And it's possible, especially given the outcome, that he had no intention of using the knife but carried it merely to scare people long enough to make an escape. I'm more interested in the mindset of the person being robbed that was carrying a knife of his own.

Again, not defending his actions, merely stating that situations are never as black and white as people make them out to be.