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

[leviadragon99]

Heh, I just love the fact that the guy he was stealing from had his own knife on hand as was better at knife-fighting than the thief, who I'm presuming failed both his stealth and backstabbing courses in thief school.

 

[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?

Actually there was another story like that, a group of thieves broke into a farmers house and the farmer shot and killed one of them while they were running away, he went to prison understandably.

Well that is a different prejudice: hoplophobia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia]

Arguably its as great if not greater problem in the UK than racism and far less acknowledged. There is a paranoid fear of firearms in the media and public that can be seen by how they describe them more as perversions than simple hunting tools.

The difference with this case it the accused used here used a cricket bats (not seen in a paranoid way as a weapon) against and extraordinarily larger threat and did not deal a lethal injury or one that could reasonably assumed to be lethal. I can see why an all-white jury would judge this Asian gentleman much more harshly than a white-man for using what is by all objective standards reasonable force given the extreme circumstances.

 

[zidine100]

Stop right there criminal scum.

what i know we were all thinking it.

 

[Grospoliner]

Am I the only one who thinks anybody stabbing a thief multiple times rather than just letting him go, over a tiny ass tv (Fits in a suitcase afterall) and a 200 dollar gaming console is perhaps a sign that the owner of said equoipment should be psychologically examined? The guy walks around with a knife as a matter of course, and is willing to kill a guy to protect negligible assets. And they just let him go about his business ...?

Ehhhh ... stop the world, I want to get off. Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks the resident is batshit insane and should be examined -multiple times- for possible violent malignancies. If only to know whether this guy is the type of person who will slit the throats of any coworker that steals his sandwich.... please~ tell me this guy is now seeing a psychiatrist for evaluation...

The criminal wasn't stealing food for survival, he was stealing personal property to sell (probably at Gamestop) either for drug money, or just to be a prick, or to keep it for himself (which would be a bad move on his part). If anything the cops should have kicked him a little when they got there just to add insult to injury. My personal property is something I have invested great amounts of time into and no one should be allowed to take that away from me. For some people, a 400 dollar investment is very steep. Not all of us make enough money that we can simply buy replacements for lost items, that could be months of saving just so he can purchase them.

Secondly, the thief stopped to engage the guy with deadly force. In my book, that means he's fair game to kill. I'd never initiate an attack on someone, but if attacked, I would use all force to end both the attack and the attacker. If the thief had dropped the suitcase and ran, then he would never have been stabbed. The thief got everything he deserved for what he did.

 

[GeneWard]

Violence sucks. Deterrence is the way to go. If I owned one, I would feel perfectly justified in pointing a gun in a thief's face, and if he leaves, I wouldn't pursue him or anything. I would only ever hurt another human being if my life was in danger. If he went for me with a knife, I would have no beef in shooting him, but anyone who wouldn't then immediately call an ambulance for the man and stay with him deserves to be robbed.

 

[bluegate]

In the Netherlands we're not even allowed to touch the thief by law =/
Was on the news recently, man beats burglar into submission (only bruises and no other sustained damage) and tied him up with a rope. Burglar goes free with a 'don't do it again'
Man gets what a month for violence.

So.. Lemme get this straight. We're nto allowed to defend our stuff?
For more lols, the burglars even have privacy rights. We're also not allowed to hang up camera's in our home. Last time a burglar got taped and somehow the court agreed that his face should never had been on tape (even though he was in the residence unauthorized) and the resident lost the case.

We're so weird..

Wasn't there a case about a year ago where two people tried to break into somebodies store, they got into a struggle and one of the burglars fell down a flight of stairs and broke his neck?

Last thing I heard about that case was that the guy who owned the shop wasn't being prosecuted.
Source [http://www.wilcootje.nl/algemeen/gewapende-overvaller-breekt-nek-supermarkt/]

As for the story of the topic, I hope that the burglar either dies or is crippled for life.

 

[Trasken]

It's hilarious how some random punks think having a knife automatically makes him the better fighter

 

[dangoball]

If someone pulled something simmilar to this (read: protect his/her things from being stolen by stabbing someone) where I live, they would be charged with attemted murder, not let free of all charges...
Oh well, what can we do.

 

[Frizzle]

Chicago, huh? I guess we should be glad there were no firearms involved. But more importantly: Who attempts to rob a home during LUNCH BREAK hours?

question: when are the majority of people going to be at home?
answer: at night.

it actually makes more sense during the day. for some reason.

OT:

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.

well to be fair, its justifiable homicide, not justifiable turning someone into a massive burden for the hospitals, possibly insurance companies.
still, you shouldnt have to kill a robber just so you don't get arrested.

Repeat after me : "Your honor, I was in fear for my life"
It's now justified.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm going to call bullshit on all the wannabe John Wayne's on this thread going "If it was me, the sucker wouldn't be breathing anymore!"

While living in the city, I was mugged by three guys. One of them pulled a knife on me, and demanded my wallet, my phone, and my MP3 player. And here's the thing you never realise until you actually get mugged: I was absolutely terrfied. I was thrown into a completely unexpected situation, my life was seemingly at risk, and these thugs were asking for my stuff.

So I gave it to them.

Looking back now, I rationalise that I could have probably outrun them, and made it to the nearest populated high street. Or I could have kicked the leader of the three in the groin, and made a break for it in the opening I created. But that's not what happened. They jumped me, and I was so shit scared that I gave them my stuff.

It's not glamorous, it's not exciting, I'm not particularly proud of it... yet I think I handled things the right way. Indeed, police members that I've spoken to said I did exactly the right thing. I know, I know, appeasing the muggers probably seems like 'weakness' or 'cowardice' to some of the more right-wing folk on here, but my life was legitimately in danger, and I didn't want to put it at risk over an outdated phone and a Creative Zen. Every police person I spoke to said the same thing: If it looks like things are going to escalate to violence, then don't bother. It's not worth putting your life at risk over a couple of gadgets and a (thankfully empty) wallet.

So I guess I'm addressing this to all the wannabe vigilantes on this thread: don't make boasts about how much kickass you'd unleash on any punk who tried to steal from you. Being mugged/robbed is one of the scariest things you can go through, and unless you're six feet tall, trained in martial arts and built like a brick shithouse, I can guarantee that if you're ever in the same situation, you'll do the same thing as me: go along with it while fervently praying that you're not about to get stabbed.

The guy in this story got incredibly lucky. There's a reason police say you shouldn't try to get involved in a fight with muggers or robbers- most people who do end up getting stabbed or shot. There's not point trying to rescue a 360 or a widescreen TV if it means you have to live in a wheelchair for the rest of your life, or your family has to attend your funeral. Stuff just isn't that important. Sure, cry all you want about how I'm appeasing the criminals with this cowardly attitude. I'm simply looking at this story from a pragmatic view, having been through something similar. Most of the people on this thread baying for blood, I'd wager, have never even been in this situation. Being jumped is fucking terrifying, and when it actually happens to you, all thoughts of being the Batman/Chuck Norris combination of your imagination go swiftly out the window.

Mugging = robbery

Muggings begin right away with overwhelming threat of serious injury, surrounded and overwhelmed. Even if you were somehow not terrified you are tactically at a huge disadvantage, resisting theft is out of the question and even self-defence options are so limited. It wasn't "appeasement", you didn't have a choice. Three armed men you have no choice but throw yourself on their mercy.

But if it was one guy with a knife, you can't be forced to submit to their mercy when you COULD defend yourself.

Self-defence is a right, not a responsibility. You don't HAVE to fight against threats, but if you can you are within your rights to.

You have to realise when it comes to mugging, the mugging actually BEGINS many minutes even before you actually realise it. I don't know your particular situation but generally it is not the case that several people just suddenly and spontaneously try to shake someone down for their goods. They scope out their target, the surroundings, their escape route, the possibility of samaratins, allies or police who may intervene on the mugging.

May I ask where the mugging happened? Was it just on the streets in full view of anyone who might intervene? What did they do afterwards to escape?

Nevertheless, getting the drop on one-thief who is skulking out of your house is very different from being suddenly surprised by three armed thugs when you are most vulnerable away from your residence where most you friend/family are.

 

[lacktheknack]

sometihng similar happened to me last year here in new zealand, iwas comign home in the afternoon and found someone in my driveway with my ps3 and laptop, attempting to leave with them. i gabbed him and got my stuff back. he got away but was later arrested and got to server 12 months for a bunch of stuff. hes lucky a neighbour came out and broke up the scuffle or the bastard still would have been in a headlock when the cops arrived. also, he was there with 5-6 other people, the cowards all ran when i got there. and hes lucky that he wasnt still inside, or he would have had some serious injuries
the cops didnt even think of arresting me, despite what i did was technically assult, as because i was defending myself and my property, it was self defence.

moral of the story is dont fuck with gamers or steal out shit, we'll fuck you up good if we get half a chance

Second moral extrapolated: Video games DO cause violence in players. (How else am I going to interpret "gamers will fuck you up good if we get half a chance"?)

 

[mjc0961]

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.

No, not the same thing in America. What you described is not defending yourself. What you described is murder. There's a difference, and it's one that you clearly don't understand. Of course, as I recall, you're the guy who was going around saying we should have no privacy, so I'm not going to bother explaining this difference to you because you will simply refuse to listen.

But to everyone else, this guy is wrong. Murder is not allowed, no. But self defense is. It just actually has to be self defense instead of emptying an entire magazine into someone like a fucking sociopath.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

Well of course it is like that. Shoot a guy who pose a threat to you once means you're doing it for protection. Shoot a guy who is bleeding and on the floor then you are shooting someone who does not pose a threat to you thus that is attempted murder if he survives and murder if he dies.

 

[Axeion]

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.

Here in California, we're told to leave the house and let the thief steal everything. The only time we can show any force is if there is a direct verifiable threat to our life, i.e. they are brandishing a gun and even then it's still a grey area. Yay for human rights!!

Here in Kentucky were told off record to fire one shot into the waste of flesh trying to rob you. Then shoot one warning shot into the floor! When my uncle asked why the second shot the officer replyed " we cant tell when you fired that warning shot an besides its easyer to patch the floor than the roof." .

Funny how houses with out gun owners out here get targeted when their gone from home.Criminals take path of least resistance.

 

[Acting like a FOOL]

Am I the only one who thinks anybody stabbing a thief multiple times rather than just letting him go, over a tiny ass tv (Fits in a suitcase afterall) and a 200 dollar gaming console is perhaps a sign that the owner of said equoipment should be psychologically examined? The guy walks around with a knife as a matter of course, and is willing to kill a guy to protect negligible assets. And they just let him go about his business ...?

Ehhhh ... stop the world, I want to get off. Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks the resident is batshit insane and should be examined -multiple times- for possible violent malignancies. If only to know whether this guy is the type of person who will slit the throats of any coworker that steals his sandwich.... please~ tell me this guy is now seeing a psychiatrist for evaluation...

It's funny how you only think it's wrong that a man acted to defend himself and label him a sociopath.

Somehow the guy who casually invades other peoples homes against moral and social convention and commits larceny is somehow exempt from judgment.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I used to steal 360's like you... Then I- oh fuck it.

Wait Chicago?! Hey 'Merica stop with the knife crime. That's our schtick!

 

[iLikeHippos]

I believe, good sir, that you have mixed the conundrum of trifling thieves with murdering marauders, a lone-wolf burglar with a rage-induced viking. It's but my guess, since you're coming off as a tad psychopathic, as you seem to pose the same solution for both of them.

Thieves will enter your home when no one's inside and try to leave without creating a ruckus.

A marauder will bash in your door, loot your shit, and if you're home, he'll gut you and rape your wife and twist the necks of your children.
And, for good measure, light a cigar, look himself in the mirror and than light your house on fire with a grin on his ugly face.

I find your solution to be perfectly viable against the latter; the marauder. That is quite logical, actually, and not to mention necessary. One life in means to defend your family and property you wouldn't want to fund him with. And yeah, I do suspect that the conversation option is not available.

However, it's just psychotic to propose the same bloody solution towards the thief, as he's most likely to be more scared than you are if he'd find you home. He'll run away at the merest sight of you and never look back. Or, if he thinks he's in the clean, act innocent and stroll away.

It's 'The easier option + what is necessary' against 'The easier option + what is unnecessary' . The easier option is evil in the latter, but necessary in the former formula. But if you happened to have no qualms with neither, than who am I to dictate?

And you continue to remain in "Lala Happyland". Most people who burglarize are either organized criminals or junkies. Seriously, everyone isn't capable of the necessary "option". Every man/woman can't stop these people by normal means and will have to resort to the use of lethal force. It's easier to smash someone in the head with a bat from behind then it is to wrestle him to the ground.

And that is, more or less, what I have emphasized. Except on the subject of subduing the criminal with brawl and muscles. There's no such option unless you are a police officer or a bad-ass who smokes cigars before you speak epic lines and quotes 'Yippie-Ki-Yae, ************!' non-ironically.

And the merry-go-around doth spin around! We return to the formula of above, to dictate what action you'd ought to take. I've already mentioned my piece of the cake, to not brutally murder a thief without giving him a chance to leave. The ones who stay are the marauders, and they are the true ones who actually pose such a threat as you claimed, and must be dealt with accordingly to your position.

And yes, not everything is in black and white, but to suppose all the variables possible would perhaps reach the billions, depending how deep into details you do decide to dwell on. And such posts as these aren't worthy of such deep content. Keep your message clear and linear.

At this point, I've already said what needs to be said. I think.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

Chicago, huh? I guess we should be glad there were no firearms involved. But more importantly: Who attempts to rob a home during LUNCH BREAK hours?

question: when are the majority of people going to be at home?
answer: at night.

it actually makes more sense during the day. for some reason.

OT:

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.

well to be fair, its justifiable homicide, not justifiable turning someone into a massive burden for the hospitals, possibly insurance companies.
still, you shouldnt have to kill a robber just so you don't get arrested.

Repeat after me : "Your honor, I was in fear for my life"
It's now justified.

yes, that makes it justified.
but legally, only if you kill them.