The law is an ass

[hyperD]

Ah yes, the foul inner-city sink estate of... um... High Wycombe?

Have you been to High Wycombe, Nick?

I have, it's a ******* tuliphole and makes Slough look like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

The problem with justice and laws, is that everything is great when they work as they are supposed to i.e. protect the victims and prosecute the perpetrators. When it doesn't, some people start to take it upon themselves to act out justice and protection for themselves.

Growing vigilantism is a sign that the current justice system is simply not working and not fit for purpose.

[EternalOptimist]

I dispute parts of the UK are civilised. One has a natural right and duty to protect oneself and ones family in those areas. Pro-actively if necessary.

This is a red herring. It's not the geography thats the problem, these 'uncivilised' dudes can catch up with you anywhere, even in your safe suberbia.

Threaded is 100% correct, you have a duty, and you should have the legal right to protect your own, from those that would do you harm.

If some invader thought it was acceptable to tie my wifes hands behind her back, then make her crawl around bedrooms, then I think a bit of brain damage is the least of his problems. If NF or PSB or anyone else thinks differently, then my opinion of them goes through the floor

[NickFitz]

It is higher for most crimes than the national average.

With the exception of the town centre (which is exceptional in any town or city) High Wycombe has average levels of crime, whether compared with the rest of Thames Valley or with England and Wales as a whole.

[NickFitz]

If some invader thought it was acceptable to tie my wifes hands behind her back, then make her crawl around bedrooms, then I think a bit of brain damage is the least of his problems. If NF or PSB or anyone else thinks differently, then my opinion of them goes through the floor

Of course it's not acceptable, but neither is breaking a cricket bat over somebody's head once they no longer represent an immediate threat to yourself, your family or your property.

Rather than going to prison himself, he could have seen the criminal he caught go to prison. That guy couldn't be taken to court as a direct result of the brain damage caused.

He took the law into his own hands and as a result not only did he get himself locked up, he allowed a known criminal to walk free. Sounds pretty bloody stupid to me.

[EternalOptimist]

Of course it's not acceptable, but neither is breaking a cricket bat over somebody's head once they no longer represent an immediate threat to yourself, your family or your property.

Rather than going to prison himself, he could have seen the criminal he caught go to prison. That guy couldn't be taken to court as a direct result of the brain damage caused.

He took the law into his own hands and as a result not only did he get himself locked up, he allowed a known criminal to walk free. Sounds pretty bloody stupid to me.

so would you break the cricket bat over his head if he did represent an immediate threat ?

[Cliphead]

So crooks don't just wait until the house is empty?

This is Maine we're talking about. Usually Grandpa is installed in the rockin' chair on the porch with the AK47 which doubles up as a walking stick.

Then there's the dawgs with 80' of chain and sparse vittles, the neighbours who's firing range overlaps, and neighbourhood watch patrolling in the Humvee with more hardware than B&Q.

[George Parr]

Of course it's not acceptable, but neither is breaking a cricket bat over somebody's head once they no longer represent an immediate threat to yourself, your family or your property.

.

FFS this guy's home had been violated and his family had been tied up. I doubt he would be thinking rationally about the minimum use of force, the instinct to protect your loved ones takes over. Do you have a wife and kids? If someone broke into my home and threatened mine God knows what I would do to them.

[NickFitz]

so would you break the cricket bat over his head if he did represent an immediate threat ?

That would almost certainly be justifiable self defence, assuming that it was the minimum level of force necessary.

[NickFitz]

Have you been to High Wycombe, Nick?

I have, it's a ******* tuliphole and makes Slough look like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

People's ideas of what constitutes a tuliphole tend to vary according to experience. Every time I drive out of town I pass the shrine, about half a mile away, to a 17 year old boy who had his throat cut with a broken bottle early on New Years Day a couple of years ago. It's adjacent to the estate where he lived and which I would regard as a tuliphole; I doubt that High Wycombe has anything to match it. It doesn't make the entire neighbourhood a tuliphole though.

Incidentally, it was claimed in court that his assailants, who had been attacked by him after an argument, were acting in self defence, but they still got life for murder because their response was totally disproportionate, and quite right too. Or should they have been let off as well?

[hyperD]

...assuming that it was the minimum level of force necessary.

Why would you quote that caveat in a real life incident where in an emotionally heightened state you could not possibly judge that?

People always advocate that a reasonable response is acceptable. Well, those people have never been in that situation, because if they did, they would be the first ones shouting at the top of their voices: "anything goes".