I believe the reason they do it is simple…

There is the belief that if one day Britain found itself in such a dire situation that it needed financial help from other countries then these countires who we’ve helped out now would be more inclined to want to give us a helping hand in our time of need. Sadly I don’t see this is a very realistic prospect given the amount of corruption that there is in the countries that we choose to help out.

I did saw an interesting fact a few days ago…did you know that all the cash in the world combined cannot pay off the US national debt?

Whilst I certainly don’t condone what the thieves did, I can’t condone what Mr Woodhouse did either.

The only things I do agree with is that Mr Woodhouse is certainly the victim as he was a victim of theft, and £75 as a fine to the thieves is frankly a joke. They should have been charged £750 each and been made to pay all legal costs and any damage caused to Mr Woodhouse’s business, plus some hours of community service.

Breaking both arms and a leg of someone who was merely taking £50 worth does strike me as a bit too heavy-handed to me.

But “taking the law into one’s own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one’s own understanding of right and wrong” is… http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism

To respond to a burglar alarm I doubt the Police would have been there within twenty-four hours…

That’s just sensationlist nonsense.

Re 32

I don’t wish to be too controversial, but I do think that you are living as your pen name suggests. Either that or cuckoo land.

Not too controversial at all, and no offence has been taken. I get told that all the time and frankly it doesn’t bother me.

Take note of 33 & 34.

“as I do my level best not to associate myself with such people.”

What on earth does that mean? You clearly think you can choose the type of people who trespass on your property to rob you!

No, of course you can’t choose the type of people who trespass on your property, but why please explain to me why I should choose to put my own life at risk by confronting someone who is potentially dangerous…?

At the end of the day, you and you alone are responsible for your actions, no-one else. If you choose to take the law into your own hands and engage in confrontation/violence to effect justice so be it, but you have to be prepared for the fact that you may very well be arrested/charged for whatever action/s you choose to take. No-one forced the gentleman to get into a confrontation with the thieves…he clearly reacted with anger and he made a consious decision to go after them. Had he of broken an arm during a struggle or something, I could see a use of self-defence, but breaking two arms and a leg is not a reasonable and/or proportionate response in my opinion. Guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Yes, I agree, I would lose little sleep if the bandits had received life threatening injuries and then later, died. They would indeed be the architects of their own misfortune. Two less, to cause misery and mayhem.

And you’d happily recieve a criminal record and a custodial sentance for voluntary manslaughter?

I find it bizarre but also rather interesting that you’d be willing to completley wreck the rest of your life in the process…

…would you mind if I pop around to rob you ? I’m sure I’ll get a welcome, a cup of tea and a sandwich.

Of course I’d mind…it’s not as if I’m going to invite you over to rob my place is it…?!:stupid:

You’d have to work out where I actually live first (hint, my location field in my profile hasn’t been updated for quite sometime!).

And no, you wouldn’t get a cup of tea or a sandwich, but probably a response similar to this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10477992/Professional-mediator-talks-masked-man-out-of-burgling-her-home.html

Cloud 9 – it is worrying that you are representative of the current passion for equating both victim and oppressor.

To my mind it is a morally corrupt society which fails to divide the attacker and the attacked.

Well perhaps I’m just seeing things from a more balanced perspective, unlike some on here who appear to want to parade the gentleman around as if he is some kind of hero?

Yes, what happend to him is very unfortunate, however it doesn’t give him the right to react the way that he did.

If I were him and had been the victim of a spate of burglaries in the past, I’d be more inclined to look at improving the security measures in order to minimise the risk of it happening again in the future.

It is a morally corrupt society which fails to instil the sense of responsibility for ones actions.

So you are suggesting that this should only be applied to criminals and that everyone else doesn’t need to have a sense of responsibility for their actions instilled into them; or are you suggesting that we are all in fact morally corrupt?

Guilty of a crime has almost been removed down to a level of he was only a little bit naughtier than an innocent person.

That’s a fairly generalised statement. Of course there is a scale in terms of the severity of guilt, just as much as there is a scale in terms of the type of crime committed.

Yes charliehunt, I totally agree. I am in favour of tougher punishment as a clear deterrent as long as it is administered in the right way and by the right people. I would most certainly welcome a change in attitude by society.

What I cannot subscribe to is the thought of people taking the law into their owns hands and administering their own form of punishment that they feel fits the crime, whether it be at the time of the event or not.

We need to be tough on crime as well as the causes of crime. We need to work with those in society who are more likely to be led down a criminal path in order to instil the sense of responsibility for their actions, as you suggested earlier.

WHY -Why should the onus be on the person to add to his security???

Why not?

If I were in the position of owning my own business, I would want to take all possible and necessary steps to add to the security of the business to avoid things from happening. Whether this be CCTV, a night-time security guard, whatever it takes, at least I know my business would be secure. Surely that’s a better and more proportiante response compared to giving chase and choosing to cave someone’s head in, breaking their bones or inflicting some other injury onto them?

punishment should be strong enough to be a deterrent.

Indeed, I’m minded to agree with you on this…but the “punishment” should be proportiate and administered by the relevant authorities, not by the victim him/herself!

Ok you’re right it doesn’t add much to the debate directly…but the point I was getting across was the fact that I didn’t immediatley charge in like a bull in a chinashop, arm myself with a weapon/s and be willing to use it if someone was still in the property. There will be those on here that will probably think the police didn’t do a good enough job, or that I shouldn’t have had to call the locksmith out in order to get the additional security measures put in place as they no doubt would have simply attacked the criminal if they had come across them and claimed self-defence, but I just don’t see how this would make a difference! As I said above, no-one was hurt and the house is much safer than it was. I’ve since moved, but not as a result of the burglary, just in case you were wondering!

For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps I should explain what I would have done if I had caught/seen the criminals in the act…I probably would have given chase for as long as I could (I’m rather unfit and not that fast tbh!), and if I had caught up with them I would have grabbed hold of them and tackled them to the floor. I would have restrained them so that they could not cause me any injury, which would probably have meant sitting on them. I certainly wouldn’t have punched/kicked them or attacked them with a weapon because I just don’t see what that would achieve? I would have called the police and got them arrested.

If it went to court, I would expect the criminal to have to explain themselves and their actions so as to understand exactly why they did it. I wouldn’t allow them to hide behind a lousy excuse or have a defence lawyer do it for them (of course they’d be entitled to have one present though!), they would be expected to speak for themselves. Now, if it was a first-time offender, I would expect a hefty fine (£750+) along with costs of getting the damage at the house repaired and the replacing of the items that were stolen so lets say £1500. I would then expect some sort of community service and a re-habilitation course to be issued. If at any point these were ignored or disregarded, then a stint in jail would be necessary.

If it were a repeat offender, it would obviously depend on their past history as to whether I would expect them to be sent to jail or not.

I certainly wouldn’t just watch them walk away from court with a slapped wrist as has been suggested above.

Another thing I would do, although this is probably a completley seperate debate in itself, I would reform the prison service so that criminals do not get to have such a good lifestyle when they are in jail. No TV’s, no internet, just basic facilities. Plus, I wouldn’t have early release times for good behaviour…the sentance set by the court would be the amount of time that is spent in jail.