UK man who attacked armed thugs holding family hostage is jailed - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Hezzy;18966390]It isn't right to make criminals suffer, it makes us no better than them. They should be locked away from the public.[/QUOTE] Yes, ideally. But sadly, the justice system seems to be incapable of doing that. How many times do these criminals walk free without prosecution or are released early on 'good behaviour' to free up prison capacity? Not to mention the few who manage to slip away. Is it wrong to want justice for yourself, is it greedy? Victims don't often confuse justice with revenge after the fact. The justice system is meant to provide justice, but it fails in that capacity because it's an institution which is by definition, seperate from human feeling and from human suffering. It has to be, to make unbiased decisions. But this also means, that the courts don't understand the pain that the victim has suffered fully. So it's unable to punish properly. This is why the Victim should decide what happens to the perp. Not in the heat of the moment, or in revenge. But after counselling and a trial. So that they can decide on a fair punishment. The court system should handle justice, the victim should decide punishment except in cases where the victim is dead or otherwise unable to decide reasonably. Our justice system is broken, we leave Victims out in the cold while these scumbags walk off laughing as they choose their next target. And of course it's right to make criminals suffer, they made the victims suffer. It's only fairness. Hezzy, I love ya'll and i'mma let you finish. But these people need to be punished.

I honestly agree that he should be jailed. I mean, it seems like the guy [b]chased[/b] the guys who were [b]running away[/b] and then [b]brutally beat[/b] them while they were [b]clearly incapacitated[/b]. All of the bold stuff above is the reason it was not really self defence. You don't defend yourself by making your opponent incapable or unwilling to ever attack again (that is the responsibility of the justice department). Just because they held the group hostage/broke into their house/whatever, does not mean they lose all of their rights. I can understand kicking a table at someone, or even incapacitating them if they entered my house. However, if they run away, he could've just as easily called the police. Or even chased after the guys, apprehended them and NOT beaten them to a brain damaged pulp. If you look at his options, he really didn't have to pick the one he did, and that gives him responsibility for said actions and the extreme levels of violence that they entailed. If that was his only option, it would have been self defence. But it wasn't. So it isn't.

[QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18966536]Yes, ideally. But sadly, the justice system seems to be incapable of doing that. How many times do these criminals walk free without prosecution or are released early on 'good behaviour' to free up prison capacity? Not to mention the few who manage to slip away. Is it wrong to want justice for yourself, is it greedy? Victims don't often confuse justice with revenge after the fact. The justice system is meant to provide justice, but it fails in that capacity because it's an institution which is by definition, seperate from human feeling and from human suffering. It has to be, to make unbiased decisions. But this also means, that the courts don't understand the pain that the victim has suffered fully. So it's unable to punish properly. This is why the Victim should decide what happens to the perp. Not in the heat of the moment, or in revenge. But after counselling and a trial. So that they can decide on a fair punishment. The court system should handle justice, the victim should decide punishment except in cases where the victim is dead or otherwise unable to decide reasonably. Our justice system is broken, we leave Victims out in the cold while these scumbags walk off laughing as they choose their next target. And of course it's right to make criminals suffer, they made the victims suffer. It's only fairness. Hezzy, I love ya'll and i'mma let you finish. But these people need to be punished.[/QUOTE] That system is open to abuse, what if the defendant is rich, and privately organises a payment instead of a punishment. They don't need to be punished, they need to be rehabilitated, or kept away from the public in cases where they cannot be rehabilitated.

[QUOTE=Kingy_who;18966727]That system is open to abuse, what if the defendant is rich, and privately organises a payment instead of a punishment. They don't need to be punished, they need to be rehabilitated, or kept away from the public in cases where they cannot be rehabilitated.[/QUOTE] Whatever satisfies the victim. If he wants cash, that's fine. It's much better than the current system, where if the defendant is rich, the judge and jury get bribed.

[QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18966784]Whatever satisfies the victim. If he wants cash, that's fine. It's much better than the current system, where if the defendant is rich, the judge and jury get bribed.[/QUOTE] But everyone should be treated equally in the eyes of the law no matter what race, religion, country of origin or financial status.

[QUOTE=P13 B01;18966723] If that was his only option, it would have been self defence. But it wasn't. So it isn't.[/QUOTE] You've never been in that situation, and neither have I. I'm sensible enough to know however that I'd probably react in the same way. It's true what he did was wrong, but to take his life away for three years. While the people who actually did this walk free completely because they haven't been caught yet? [QUOTE=Kingy_who;18966836]But everyone should be treated equally in the eyes of the law no matter what race, religion, country of origin or financial status.[/QUOTE] It shouldn't be you who decides that. It should be the victim. If money is enough to compensate the victim for his suffering, and it brings greater satisfaction than seeing the criminal punished. Who are you to deny that victim the ability to feel better? In the case of murder, obviously the victim can't decide punishment. Which is the only time when the justice system should decide punishment in lieu of the sufferer.

a lot of People are racist.

[QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18966536]Yes, ideally. But sadly, the justice system seems to be incapable of doing that. How many times do these criminals walk free without prosecution or are released early on 'good behaviour' to free up prison capacity? Not to mention the few who manage to slip away. Is it wrong to want justice for yourself, is it greedy? Victims don't often confuse justice with revenge after the fact. The justice system is meant to provide justice, but it fails in that capacity because it's an institution which is by definition, seperate from human feeling and from human suffering. It has to be, to make unbiased decisions. But this also means, that the courts don't understand the pain that the victim has suffered fully. So it's unable to punish properly. This is why the Victim should decide what happens to the perp. Not in the heat of the moment, or in revenge. But after counselling and a trial. So that they can decide on a fair punishment. The court system should handle justice, the victim should decide punishment except in cases where the victim is dead or otherwise unable to decide reasonably. Our justice system is broken, we leave Victims out in the cold while these scumbags walk off laughing as they choose their next target. And of course it's right to make criminals suffer, they made the victims suffer. It's only fairness. Hezzy, I love ya'll and i'mma let you finish. But these people need to be punished.[/QUOTE] You assume several things: A victim who can weigh up accurately the damage caused (although we know that people tend to overestimate rather than underestimate) The justice system is all about punishment (is rehabilitation not better?) The criminal is an active agent and thus fully responsible for their actions (social conditions, wealth and drugs may be counter arguments to this). I'll give you an example: a poor, desperate, mentally ill person who was never diagnosed tries to rob a rich family. He gets caught. The judge decides that he is guilty. The victims decide that he should be killed (because their precious daughter was scared during the incident and that is a terrible, terrible thing). Should the man be punished? [editline]06:37PM[/editline] [QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18966838]You've never been in that situation, and neither have I. I'm sensible enough to know however that I'd probably react in the same way. It's true what he did was wrong, but to take his life away for three years. While the people who actually did this walk free completely because they haven't been caught yet? It shouldn't be you who decides that. It should be the victim. If money is enough to compensate the victim for his suffering, and it brings greater satisfaction than seeing the criminal punished. Who are you to deny that victim the ability to feel better?[/QUOTE] I agree that the people who did the act should not walk free. However, the issue was whether HE should be imprisoned. I would also argue that you are hardly sensible if you would react in such a way. It is also quite amusing that while you claim that all criminals are agents (in that they should be fully responsible for their actions and thus punished), you seem to see all victims as the opposite (even though, as I pointed out, they often have many choices when it comes to their reaction). "If I were in that situation I would react the same way, no matter what." Are you saying that under certain conditions, you are not responsible for your actions? Because if you admit that, you actually have to admit that many criminals - who under your system would be harshly punished by the victims - may have committed the crime not out of choice, but out of a combination of environmental and situational pressures.

[QUOTE=P13 B01;18966896]You assume several things: A victim who can weigh up accurately the damage caused (although we know that people tend to overestimate rather than underestimate) The justice system is all about punishment (is rehabilitation not better?) The criminal is an active agent and thus fully responsible for their actions (social conditions, wealth and drugs may be counter arguments to this). I'll give you an example: a poor, desperate, mentally ill person who was never diagnosed tries to rob a rich family. He gets caught. The judge decides that he is guilty. The victims decide that he should be killed (because their precious daughter was scared during the incident and that is a terrible, terrible thing). Should the man be punished?[/QUOTE] That doesn't sound fair to me at all, though I'm sure most people wouldn't abuse this system. There would have to be procedures in place to make sure that the victim gets counselling after the event and before punishment is decided. But this problem is the same as with the jury/judge system. The jury can decide on a moderate punishment but if the judge is racist. He can hand down a horrible sentence. Infact, you can argue that having a biased judge is worse, because he can hand down many oppresive sentences. While a victim can only decide on their own suffering. If we keep the system of appeals, then hopefully unfair punishments can be reduced or even negated by having a judge decide a 'Level' of punishment that is allowed. Obviously the death sentence should be discounted. Even though I'm in support of it. Wouldn't it be better if the victim had the right to choose? I just think that sentencing should take into account the wishes of the victim. At the moment, the judge is supposed to decide in a completely unbiased way. Ignoring the injured party.

[QUOTE=Kingy_who;18966254]Our laws are better than US laws where you can shoot someone for misplacing their foot on your property.[/QUOTE] Yeah, this situation is sooo much better.

[QUOTE=P13 B01;18966896] you seem to see all victims as the opposite (even though, as I pointed out, they often have many choices when it comes to their reaction). "If I were in that situation I would react the same way, no matter what." Are you saying that under certain conditions, you are not responsible for your actions? Because if you admit that, you actually have to admit that many criminals - who under your system would be harshly punished by the victims - may have committed the crime not out of choice, but out of a combination of environmental and situational pressures.[/QUOTE] There is always a choice, there is never a situation where you are forced to commit a crime. Short of someone holding a gun to your head or a knife to your families necks...sound familiar? I don't believe that situational 'pressures' should be taken into account. If people just had the moral strength to not hurt other people, they wouldn't get themselves into this situation. I accept that as a result of things outside the criminals control, they would be more likely to commit a crime. However, I deny utterly that they should be given a lighter sentence as a result. If you say that they might not know what they are doing is morally wrong. Then I answer, we have a word for that. Psychopath. These people are a danger, and it's even more reason for them to be removed from society. It isn't hypocritical, the difference is that crimes commited out of situations that are forced on people, and commited in the heat of the moment. Are somewhat excusable in the case of the victim. Those under the influence of drugs, are responsible depending on wether they used them or were forced to use them. It's true that under certain situations people cannot be held responsable. If there mind is working normally. Drugs, mental illness and desperation can contribute to this. But most crimes are pre-meditated. In the case of a person being hit by a drunk driver, the victim would be able to punish the driver fairly. Because he made the choice to get drunk. People often walk into situations like that, with open arms. They bring it on themselves. These are exceptions though. If you take into account that most criminals aren't punished anywhere near enough to satisfy the victims. This system is better. The whole point of the justice system is to provide justice, which is satisfying the victim. I can see how it can be abused, but these things are easily worked around. For example, we could have a third party give what they think is a fair 'area' of punishment. Then the victim is free to choose in that area. At the very least, courts should take into account the feelings of the victim and have a little empathy. This system can be abused, but so can the current system and at least this would provide the victim with a small measure of relief. Just because the criminal is punished, it doesn't mean that the vitim can go on living there life normally. These things often leave permanent scars on people, they have control taken away from them. People need to be able to decide punishments for the criminals, in order to regain control of their lives and move on.

[QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18967235]There is always a choice, there is never a situation where you are forced to commit a crime. Short of someone holding a gun to your head or a knife to your families necks...sound familiar? I don't believe that situational 'pressures' should be taken into account. If people just had the moral strength to not hurt other people, they wouldn't get themselves into this situation. I accept that as a result of things outside the criminals control, they would be more likely to commit a crime. However, I deny utterly that they should be given a lighter sentence as a result. If you say that they might not know what they are doing is morally wrong. Then I answer, we have a word for that. Psychopath. These people are a danger, and it's even more reason for them to be removed from society.[/QUOTE] I wasn't going to suggest that. Regardless, I'll just use your own statements to refute you. [QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18967235]You've never been in that situation, and neither have I. I'm sensible enough to know however that I'd probably react in the same way.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18967235]There is always a choice, there is never a situation where you are forced to commit a crime[/QUOTE] Well, would you agree that extreme violence is a crime? THERE IS ALWAYS A CHOICE. That's what you said. Well, why did the man not choose phone the police? Either he is responsible for his violent actions because he had a choice, or he is not because he didn't have a choice. If he isn't responsible (and so didn't have a choice), then there are arguments to state that some criminals didn't have a choice and thus aren't responsible. It's these sorts of things that are the reasons we have judges. Anyway, I would contest your statement that there is always a choice. Or at least your argument that there is necessarily a wrong choice in all situations. The classic example is if you steal to feed your family. You have technically wronged the person you stole from, while having [i]limited[/i] responsibility for your actions (you were desperate). Likewise, if I commit a serious crime while drunk, I have lessened choice in that instance and lessened responsibility. I would be considerably wrong for drinking so irresponsibly. I would also be somewhat wrong for committing the act (like being involved in the car accident that killed someone), but I have lessened responsibility and thus don't face murder charges (there was no intent). And since you edited while I was posting (and covered some of these points): [QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18967235]It isn't hypocritical, the difference is that crimes commited out of situations that are forced on people,[/QUOTE] Like poverty. [QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18967235] and commited in the heat of the moment.[/QUOTE] If your response "in the heat of the moment" is to violently beat somebody, for the good of society, I believe you should be locked up. Ultimately, if something [i]that[/i] violent is part of you, you are considerably dangerous. [QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18967235]Are somewhat excusable in the case of the victim.[/QUOTE] Again, you assume the black and white situation of criminals always being evil (and in control) and victims always being good (and not in control) simply because of the roles that they play in this imaginary scene of yours. I question this assumption. [QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18967235]Those under the influence of drugs, are responsible depending on wether they used them or were forced to use them.[/QUOTE] Drugs do not always = Crime. Therefore making a decision to take drugs is not necessarily making a decision to do crime. Therefore even if you chose, lessened responsibility is likely. [QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18967235] the victim would be able to punish the driver fairly. Because he made the choice to get drunk.[/QUOTE] True. The victim would be ABLE. But that does not necessarily mean that they WILL. And they SHOULD. Which is why we have judges. [QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18967235]People often walk into situations like that, with open arms. They bring it on themselves. These are exceptions though. If you take into account that most criminals aren't punished anywhere near enough to satisfy the victims. This system is better. The whole point of the justice system is to provide justice, which is satisfying the victim.[/QUOTE] Justice is not about satisfying victims. It is about protecting society. [QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18967235]People need to be able to decide punishments for the criminals, in order to regain control of their lives and move on.[/QUOTE] What about in the case of a victim punishing the criminal excessively, realising later, and then regretting? What if the victim gives the criminal a fine and because the criminal has almost no way of paying it off, they commit another crime/kill themselves?

[QUOTE=P13 B01;18967488] Anyway, I would contest your statement that there is always a choice. Or at least your argument that there is necessarily a wrong choice in all situations. The classic example is if you steal to feed your family. You have technically wronged the person you stole from, while having [i]limited[/i] responsibility for your actions (you were desperate). Likewise, if I commit a serious crime while drunk, I have lessened choice in that instance and lessened responsibility. I would be considerably wrong for drinking so irresponsibly. I would also be somewhat wrong for committing the act (like being involved in the car accident that killed someone), but I have lessened responsibility and thus don't face murder charges (there was no intent).[/QUOTE] There is always a choice, sometimes that choice is pushed to either side by influences outside of the perp's control. My point is that victims don't choose the situation, they react. Perps, choose the situation, they instigate the crime. As such they are fully responsible for whatever the outcome is. Not the victim. If I were to rob a store because I was addicted to drugs, been drinking and I were shot and killed. That would be my own fault. Despite me being under the influence of drugs, and ultimately not in control. At the very least, a person shouldn't be punished for reacting poorly to a situation they've never had to deal with before. Read those two statements again, in context. In the second one, I was talking about instigating a crime. Not reacting to a situation. In the first one, I was talking about a victim reacting. Though you can probably argue that the instigator is 'reacting' against there situtation in life. But this isn't right. The man in this case, didn't target an innocent person, he picked a person who had previously attacked him. I'm not saying he made the right decision, he didn't. I would react the same way. It's the wrong decision...with hindsight. He didn't have that hindsight, he reacted poorly, but it was still a reaction. That excuses him of any responsibility in this case.

[QUOTE=Kingy_who;18966254]Our laws are better than US laws where you can shoot someone for misplacing their foot on your property.[/QUOTE] You just can't misplace your foot one someone's property.

[QUOTE=johanz;18967752]You just can't misplace your foot one someone's property.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and they can't just shoot without warning either.

I'm at a loss for words. Because I doubt anything I can think up can describe how fucking retarded this is. Really, I hope the morons who jailed him get a sentence. I'm also a little concerned that racial predudice may have been a factor, perhaps not racism as such, but just 'oh-noes-hes-arab-he-must-be-a-terrorist-durr'. I swear to god I'm moving out of here at first oppertunity, this country's a sinking ship if shit like this is happening.

[QUOTE=A.C.I.D;18965286]I would request that OP get rid of the daily mail and replace it with this or some other, not so obviously bias source. [editline]05:05PM[/editline] Tells you more about what happened and shows both sides.[/QUOTE] Still says he "fought them off".

[QUOTE=zpiscool;18968379]I'm at a loss for words. Because I doubt anything I can think up can describe how fucking retarded this is. Really, I hope the morons who jailed him get a sentence. I'm also a little concerned that racial predudice may have been a factor, perhaps not racism as such, but just 'oh-noes-hes-arab-he-must-be-a-terrorist-durr'. I swear to god I'm moving out of here at first oppertunity, this country's a sinking ship if shit like this is happening.[/QUOTE] Another person who didn't read past the title.

[QUOTE=zpiscool;18968379]I'm at a loss for words. Because I doubt anything I can think up can describe how fucking retarded this is. Really, I hope the morons who jailed him get a sentence. I'm also a little concerned that racial predudice may have been a factor, perhaps not racism as such, but just 'oh-noes-hes-arab-he-must-be-a-terrorist-durr'. I swear to god I'm moving out of here at first oppertunity, this country's a sinking ship if shit like this is happening.[/QUOTE] Yeah I mean someone getting jailed for nearly beating someone to death makes the country a sinking ship.

[QUOTE=smurfy;18968497]Still says he "fought them off".[/QUOTE] Yes it gives stuff to fuel both sides and tells the full story unlike the OP's daily mail article.

Is it okay for Americans to start openly bashing England now? Seriously, we only make little jokes every now and then and in return we are shat upon by the East.

[QUOTE=AngryAsshole;18965885]It is perfectly fine. Just because you can sympathize with criminals, don't expect anyone else to show restraint. These peoples lives are fucking worthless. I'd rather die than turn to hurting decent people. The very act of hurting an innocent person, devalues your existence. The only thing that seperates people from animals, is our ability to judge right from wrong. When you stop caring about right and wrong, you are nothing. Why are you so uncaring?[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter what someone does, no one person should ever be in a position to decided what is right and what is wrong. That is why our justice system relies on juries so that an agreed decision can be made and based on the opinions of a group of people. Leaving a single person to determine the fate of one or more persons based on whether or not they deserve it is a very, [u]very[/u] bad idea. Hitler and Stalin anyone? [QUOTE=fear me;18968713]Is it okay for Americans to start openly bashing Britain now? Seriously, we only make little jokes every now and then and in return we are shat upon by the East.[/QUOTE] No. We British take a lot more shit from you than "little jokes every now and then".

In a situation like that, yes. He had every right to defend himself, his family, and his property. Continuing to pursue them once they were fleeing and no longer posed a threat? That's crossing the line.

Irl law abiding citizen

ITT: People don't read. There's self defense, and then there's chasing a man down and hitting a man with a coffee table.

[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;18982189]ITT: People don't read. There's self defense, and then there's chasing a man down and hitting a man with a coffee table.[/QUOTE] ITP: Person who doesn't read

If your break into my house i will beat you into the ground and make your last moments as agonizing as possible before finishing you. I don't care if you plea for mercy. YOU WILL DIE AND DIE PAINFULLY!

[QUOTE=Maegord;18983379]If your break into my house i will beat you into the ground and make your last moments as agonizing as possible before finishing you. I don't care if you plea for mercy. YOU WILL DIE AND DIE PAINFULLY![/QUOTE] holy shit! i don't want to mess with you that's for sure!

[QUOTE=BlargCow;18983780]holy shit! i don't want to mess with you that's for sure![/QUOTE] Yeah, this guy sounds pretty tough, we probably shouldn't disagree with him on the internet.

[QUOTE=Maegord;18983379]If your break into my house i will beat you into the ground and make your last moments as agonizing as possible before finishing you. I don't care if you plea for mercy. YOU WILL DIE AND DIE PAINFULLY![/QUOTE] Hahaha, more like you'd end up getting killed yourself while trying to play hero.