I feel sorry for this chap, I really do.

[captainhastings]

I think but not a 100% its a bit like having a dog now and if some one breaks in and the dog nails them you can actually get into bother for having a dangerous dog

[henry d]

15 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

His response should have been to say he was only doing what he'd seen the police doing on countless television programmes

Are the police trained in how to do it and how to assess the safety of the situation? Joe Blo isn't unless he can provide evidence he watches police interceptors 8 hours a day and passed a written test perhaps?

[AVB]

Years ago I was in a meeting in an office overlooking a train station car park and saw some scrotes trying to break into a car. Me and mate startled them and then took chase. Me in my 2.8 Capri, them in an escort.  They eventually binned the car into a couple of parked cars and were picked up by the old Bill. When questioned by the police they said “you were by chance driving past and not chasing it wasn’t you?”   I replied “of course officer” and he told us to clear off. 
 

[Rewulf]

15 minutes ago, AVB said:

Years ago I was in a meeting in an office overlooking a train station car park and saw some scrotes trying to break into a car. Me and mate startled them and then took chase. Me in my 2.8 Capri, them in an escort.  They eventually binned the car into a couple of parked cars and were picked up by the old Bill. When questioned by the police they said “you were by chance driving past and not chasing it wasn’t you?”   I replied “of course officer” and he told us to clear off. 
 

These days you would have been tazered, arrested and prosecuted, maybe losing your job and  home. 

The thieves would have got a caution, because they had a tough upbringing and learning difficulties. 

As far as 'condoning' the actions of Mr vigilante, are we not allowed an opinion? 

Or we can't voice an opinion? Especially when it's the 'wrong' opinion? 

If we called for the public hanging of Mr vigilante, after righteous Liberal hand wingers forced a murder conviction, would that be a thought crime too, putting our tickets at risk? 

 

3 hours ago, Rim Fire said:

As been said to voice your opinion on an open forum for all to see is mind boggling

Better to keep schtum eh? 

Better still to not even think it? 

[ordnance]

The police and courts rightly have to discourage vigilantism,  and that is part of what happened in this case. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

2 minutes ago, ordnance said:

The police and courts rightly have to discourage vigilantism,  and that is part of what happened in this case. 

Yes otherwise they would be unemployed!

[ordnance]

2 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Yes otherwise they would be unemployed!

No they would be busy locking up vigilantes 

[NoBodyImportant]

On 17/12/2020 at 09:23, Rob85 said:

Sad thing is if this was the USA the surviving thief would be the one charged with his accomplices death

Yep,  As it should. 

[NoBodyImportant]

Fun story.   My uncle did a few months for killing a man.  Guy robbed my uncles house on top of a mountain at gun point.  The drive way was about a 1/2 mile long around the mountain but ended up about 300 yards down the hill side.  After the guy left my uncle went on his back porch with his rifle.  He shot the guy at the end of the driveway when he stopped to look both ways before pulling out on the main road.  He was in jail for a few months before he was found not guilty. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by NoBodyImportant

[scobydog]

We should have a 3 strikes and then life meaning life, build a load of new prisons to house these low life scum in and leave them there. And I mean the bike thieving scum in this case, his mate should be charged with culpable manslaughter for going out with him.

[henry d]

25 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

Fun story...

Er, no.

[ehb102]

The one thing that human beings absolutely should not, must not, do is decide that the life of one human is worth more or less than another, or that a life is not worth living.

What happens if you decide that other people do not have the right to live? Murder. Genocide. Forced euthenasia. Ethnic cleansing. 

Recognising the humanity of other humans is the minimum required of a morally responsible person. If you can't manage that, why would the Police trust you with a lethal weapon? 

 

 

[figgy]

So what about war when both sides are kilking, or what would you do ehb102 if your family were being murdered and you had to take that person's life to stop them? 

I would bring back the death penalty in a heartbeat, and probably the majority in this country would. 

[JTaylor91]

33 minutes ago, ehb102 said:

The one thing that human beings absolutely should not, must not, do is decide that the life of one human is worth more or less than another, or that a life is not worth living.

What happens if you decide that other people do not have the right to live? Murder. Genocide. Forced euthenasia. Ethnic cleansing. 

Recognising the humanity of other humans is the minimum required of a morally responsible person. If you can't manage that, why would the Police trust you with a lethal weapon? 

 

 

But in certain circumstances one life is worth more than another. Is my life worth more than a paedophile, rapist, serial killer, child murderer or somebody who has committed the worst crimes. I would say so. 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, ehb102 said:

The one thing that human beings absolutely should not, must not, do is decide that the life of one human is worth more or less than another, or that a life is not worth living.

What happens if you decide that other people do not have the right to live? Murder. Genocide. Forced euthenasia. Ethnic cleansing. 

Recognising the humanity of other humans is the minimum required of a morally responsible person. If you can't manage that, why would the Police trust you with a lethal weapon? 

 

 

Recognising the humanity of others isn’t a prerequisite of suitability for firearms ownership.
We’re all human beings, some less so than others.
Like I’ve said, if you choose to go down the illegal route, then all manner of unpredictable consequences are likely to arise, and if you’re intent on illegally taking someone’s property or doing them harm, you can hardly complain at the severity of those consequences whether intended or not. 
If they hadn’t stolen someone else’s property, there’s a very good chance both would be alive today. Just a thought. 
 

[henry d]

... and if everyone recognised the humanity of their fellow human we would not be having these conversations.

[enfieldspares]

2 hours ago, figgy said:

I would bring back the death penalty in a heartbeat, and probably the majority in this country would. 

I wouldn't. Stefan Kiszko. Google it. 

[ordnance]

1 minute ago, enfieldspares said:

I wouldn't. Stefan Kiszko. Google it. 

+ 1

[WalkedUp]

3 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

Fun story.   My uncle did a few months for killing a man.  Guy robbed my uncles house on top of a mountain at gun point.  The drive way was about a 1/2 mile long around the mountain but ended up about 300 yards down the hill side.  After the guy left my uncle went on his back porch with his rifle.  He shot the guy at the end of the driveway when he stopped to look both ways before pulling out on the main road.  He was in jail for a few months before he was found not guilty. 

Frontier justice, poke a bear - get bitten 👍

[figgy]

And your point is ? 

I would still bring it back.  Plenty of no doubt whatsoever cases.

Is it more cruel to lock someone innocent up aged 45 and they die in prison before the life sentence is up or never get found innocent when they were. 

[enfieldspares]

4 minutes ago, figgy said:

Plenty of no doubt whatsoever cases.

Then you're a fool. Kiszko was a no doubt whatsoever case. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by enfieldspares

[Scully]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

... and if everyone recognised the humanity of their fellow human we would not be having these conversations.

Quite Henry, if that were indeed the case the bike wouldn’t have been stolen and the gremlin would still be alive, but that’s not what you meant is it?
It works both ways you see. 

[figgy]

46 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Then you're a fool. Kiszko was a no doubt whatsoever case. 

Thanks for your kind insight, 

No doubt to me is caught red handed, admit to the killing etc then death penalty. You or others don't have to agree. But seems a lot would like to see the death sentence back.

Edited December 23, 2020 by figgy

[enfieldspares]

17 minutes ago, figgy said:

Thanks for your kind insight, 

My apologies for my comment. But I actually attended the Kiszko trial...whilst a student in Leeds...and certainly there was absolutely no doubt in my mind at the time that he was guilty.

And indeed none in the mind of the Appeal Court.

But as would only emerge many, many years later police officers had lied, forensoc scientists had witheld evidence and...as DNA would eventually prove...someone else had committed the crime.

And I've also little doubt that if Kiszko had been executed that the real ,murderer would also have never been brought to justice as there would...with Kiszko dead....no "champion" to argue for his innocence.

And without his conviction being over turned no re-examination of the evidence which, by sheer luck, had not all been destroyed as most of it had been.

So, my apologies, but Kiszko was a no doubt whatsoever case.

[ordnance]

1 hour ago, figgy said:

And your point is ? 

I would still bring it back.  Plenty of no doubt whatsoever cases.

Is it more cruel to lock someone innocent up aged 45 and they die in prison before the life sentence is up or never get found innocent when they were. 

So if you were innocent and looking a life in  jail , you would tell them to ahead and execute you