Bit of sense on crime for a change

[Guest]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9595066/Conservative-Party-conference-2012-new-right-to-attack-burglars.html

This is a bit harsh. After all, he might wake up.

“But if you act in a grossly disproportionate way … I think if the burglar is out cold on the floor and you then stick a knife into him, that, in my judgment would be grossly disproportionate.”

But all in all, a step in the right direction.

[Jackpicbum]

Hi I just did like you said and had good results, but I think this topic could have a little more of information

[GostHacked]

Hog tie him and wait for the cops to arrive.

I prefer the laws in the USA where they have the right to protect themselves, even with deadly force. The laws here in Canada suck as well, and the burglar has more rights that you do.

[Guest Peeves]

You enter my castle, you might just have a fatal response. I have bats, a gun ,2 dogs, and a wife to serve and protect.

I certainly wouldn't use disproportionate response, but..............

I agree the law to protect the victim is in need of revision.

I see no more need to protect the criminal.

[GostHacked]

You enter my castle, you might just have a fatal response. I have bats, a gun ,2 dogs, and a wife to serve and protect.

I certainly wouldn't use disproportionate response, but..............

I agree the law to protect the victim is in need of revision.

I see no more need to protect the criminal.

If one violates my rights, then they must know that they have given up their rights, right on the spot.

[wyly]

If one violates my rights, then they must know that they have given up their rights, right on the spot.

then it becomes murder not even the police are allowed to kill someone who isn't resisting(even though they have)...

I recall getting into a car years ago I thought was mine(same colour and make,model) with a woman in the front seat who i thought was my wife (my car was parked right next to it with my wife in the passenger seat) so would that woman or her husband have the right to shoot me right on the spot because I violated their private space?...

[cybercoma]

then it becomes murder not even the police are allowed to kill someone who isn't resisting(even though they have)...

I recall getting into a car years ago I thought was mine(same colour and make,model) with a woman in the front seat who i thought was my wife (my car was parked right next to it with my wife in the passenger seat) so would that woman or her husband have the right to shoot me right on the spot because I violated their private space?...

In Texas, they would.

[jacee]

You enter my castle, you might just have a fatal response. I have bats, a gun ,2 dogs, and a wife to serve and protect

Somewhat oddly phrased ... or did you really mean that along with gun and dogs, you have a wife to serve and protect you?

You might want to check the criminal code but ... you might beat a murder rap by defending yourself or family from violent attack, but not against property crime.

You might just want to check that out ...

Edited October 10, 2012 by jacee

[GostHacked]

then it becomes murder not even the police are allowed to kill someone who isn't resisting(even though they have)...

I recall getting into a car years ago I thought was mine(same colour and make,model) with a woman in the front seat who i thought was my wife (my car was parked right next to it with my wife in the passenger seat) so would that woman or her husband have the right to shoot me right on the spot because I violated their private space?...

Maybe it's not so obvious that people need to use some kind of judgement in each situation.

[Guest Peeves]

Somewhat oddly phrased ... or did you really mean that along with gun and dogs, you have a wife to serve and protect you?

You might want to check the criminal code but ... you might beat a murder rap by defending yourself or family from violent attack, but not against property crime.

You might just want to check that out ...

Purposely posed as such. We act in concert. Wife to nuts, dogs to ankles, me to head, unless they have it under control.

BTW do I ask if they're involved in a property crime or murder/assault as they break in in order to determine my response...? Suppose I could as they lay there semi-conscious...

[guyser]

..., and the burglar has more rights that you do.

Aw geez, not this again.

[Guest Peeves]

Aw geez, not this again.

Unfortunately recent charges against the victims of crime prove that concern.

Police have laid charges against home owners and business owners for protecting themselves and their property.

Don't dismiss that opinion too readily.

The icing on the cake...

Six months after being arrested, strip-searched and charged with assault and kidnapping for catching the man who had stolen from his grocery store, Wang (David) Chen is still reeling from what he sees as an incomprehensible injustice.

"I kept thinking it's unfair," he said in an interview at his Chinatown grocery store Wednesday. "I did what I needed to do, what was right at the time."

• Kenney lends support to shopkeeper
  

Anthony Bennett, the man he's accused of tackling, tying up and confining in the back of a truck, is the same person business owners in the area say has been stealing from them for years.

When he pleaded guilty to two counts of theft in August, Mr. Bennett got a lighter sentence because he agreed to testify against Mr. Chen - the man facing trial for catching him.

According to a court transcript, because Mr. Bennett is a Crown witness he got 30 days in jail instead of the 90 the Crown had requested.

http://m.theglobeand...?service=mobile

[guyser]

Sorry Peeves criminals do not have more rights than anyone else.

We all have rights.

Edited October 10, 2012 by guyser

[TimG]

Sorry Peeves criminals do not have more rights than anyone else. We all have rights.

Sure but the issue is who's rights take priority when they come into conflict. The idea that criminals have rights that trump the rights of their victims is extremely odious to many people.

[cybercoma]

Sure but the issue is who's rights take priority when they come into conflict. The idea that criminals have rights that trump the rights of their victims is extremely odious to many people.

It's also not true, but you would have to get your news from somewhere other than SUN to get that.

Edited October 11, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest]

It's also not true, but you would have to get your news from somewhere other than SUN to get that.

It's obviously true. You only have to look at this quote from Peeves. There might be a discussion on what rights are, I guess.

When he pleaded guilty to two counts of theft in August, Mr. Bennett got a lighter sentence because he agreed to testify against Mr. Chen - the man facing trial for catching him.

According to a court transcript, because Mr. Bennett is a Crown witness he got 30 days in jail instead of the 90 the Crown had requested.

But things are changing. While I can grudgingly accept that stabbing an unconcious burglar might be going a step too far, I'm glad we have the right to stab concious burglars.

Anything that happens to a criminal while they are committing a crime ought to be regarded under the law as solely their own fault.

[bleeding heart]

Does anyone have more than this single example?

Even a few doesn't prove the point repeatedly being made, that "the criminals' rights" actually trump the victims' rights.

Such allegations demand a serious and honest attempt at exposing a trend...not impressionistic outrage summoned from one or two examples.

Edited October 11, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Peeves]

Sorry Peeves criminals do not have more rights than anyone else.

We all have rights.

Of course criminals have rights. Of course they don't have more rights, and of course often the victim gets the short shrift.

I can think of cases where the victim was victimized again by the courts.

[GostHacked]

Of course criminals have rights. Of course they don't have more rights, and of course often the victim gets the short shrift.

I can think of cases where the victim was victimized again by the courts.

When the court will lessen the charges of the criminal to testify against the person who detained him, kind of shows me that the courts don't exactly work in the favour of the victim as it should.

Looks like he was known by several businesses that he was a thief. This one shopkeeper did what he needed to do to protect himself and his store and his customers and now he may be charged with a crime himself? Are you f'n kidding me??

[bleeding heart]

When the court will lessen the charges of the criminal to testify against the person who detained him, kind of shows me that the courts don't exactly work in the favour of the victim as it should.

But again, this is a single example. And even given the fact that there are no doubt others, to assume that "the courts don't work in favour of the victim" means that some sort of ongoing trend is needed to support this allegation.

[guyser]

The idea that criminals have rights that trump the rights of their victims is extremely odious to many people.

Well...since they dont....

[Guest Peeves]

But again, this is a single example. And even given the fact that there are no doubt others, to assume that "the courts don't work in favour of the victim" means that some sort of ongoing trend is needed to support this allegation.

The fact that the law needed changing supports that 'allegation.'

I could look up few cases ( I know of), that meet that standard, but I won't. The law was altered..that's pretty much a proof as a proof is a proof of a proof.

[bleeding heart]

The fact that the law needed changing supports that 'allegation.'

No one has "proven" that the law "needed" changing; only that it was.

I could look up few cases ( I know of), that meet that standard, but I won't. The law was altered..that's pretty much a proof as a proof is a proof of a proof.

Tell that to those who disagree with the "need" for any alteration of any laws.

Start with abortion, I guess, and go from there.

My point being: proof has been requested, and offers of evidence have been declined.

As usual, we are left with a single example, and claims of a handful (at best) of others.

[Guest]

No one has "proven" that the law "needed" changing; only that it was.

There have been examples of burglars being shot in the UK and Canada where the shooters were treated like criminals. The law needed changing, all right.

[blueblood]

It's obviously true. You only have to look at this quote from Peeves. There might be a discussion on what rights are, I guess.

When he pleaded guilty to two counts of theft in August, Mr. Bennett got a lighter sentence because he agreed to testify against Mr. Chen - the man facing trial for catching him.

According to a court transcript, because Mr. Bennett is a Crown witness he got 30 days in jail instead of the 90 the Crown had requested.

But things are changing. While I can grudgingly accept that stabbing an unconcious burglar might be going a step too far, I'm glad we

have the right to stab concious burglars.

Anything that happens to a criminal while they are committing a crime ought to be regarded under the law as solely their own fault.

I strongly suggest rifling through the criminal code, section 494 explains what a citizens powers of arrest are. It's up to the citizen executing the arrest to articulate why he used x amt. of force to affect an arrest during the commission of an offense. Where citizens run into problems is they try and arrest after an offense has taken place.

I think section 25, 27, and 30 also state the parameters of how an ordinary citizen can legally stop the commission of an offense. S. 27.1 CC even states parameters on an airplane.