• Thief who has both legs and one arms broken by victim - claims that he is the real victim and that t
    317 replies, posted
[QUOTE=pkhzor;43691179]You really are dumb and should stop shitposting.[/quote] [QUOTE=pkhzor;43691179]Just stop posting and do a favor for yourself and everyone else in the world.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=pkhzor;43691284]If you come onto my property to steal my gasoline and make a run for it, we can maybe achieve that if I tackle your fat ass but you'd probably roll away before I could get a strong enough grip to break both of your legs and an arm in the same swift movement.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=pkhzor;43691589]if you ever talked to anyone outside of your room then you might know that.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=pkhzor;43691881]It's like all the people arguing with me haven't even read the god damn article. You're all stupid like that big fat american guy[/quote] [QUOTE=pkhzor;43691881]you think it's bad because you don't fucking read the whole story before replying and assuming things like an ignorant piece of garbage.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=pkhzor;43691923]if you bothered reading more than 2 words of every post you'd maybe learn more[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=pkhzor;43691966]You dribbling idiot.[/QUOTE] If you want anybody to take any of the shit you're saying seriously, then learning how to post without insulting, threatening, and demeaning anybody who disagrees with you would be a really good place to start.
[quote]He said he has repeatedly been a victim of crime at his gardening company costing him £30,000 over the past five years.[/quote] does everyone in newspaper reports exaggerate ballpark figures? how could crime cost his gardening company £30,000? even if he had top-of-the-line lawnmowers he'd have to had 30 of them stolen to make up that amount. or he'd have to been the victim of 400 of these petrol robberies
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;43687268]He might not be a victim but two broken legs and an arm seems a bit excessive over £50 worth of fuel Can you honestly say he DESERVED that?[/QUOTE] Deserve has nothing to do with it. When you do something like robbing someone YOU, no one else, have started a chain of events. Those events may backfire on you and, if it does, you can't really expect to control how bad it gets. Plus, £50 worth of fuel can be a big thing. For some people that may be the difference between being able to work or not. If you have that fuel that means you [i]need[/i] that fuel. If you are in business then it could be that the fuel will be used to generate income. No fuel= no income.
[QUOTE]does everyone in newspaper reports exaggerate ballpark figures? how could crime cost his gardening company £30,000? even if he had top-of-the-line lawnmowers he'd have to had 30 of them stolen to make up that amount. or he'd have to been the victim of 400 of these petrol robberies [/QUOTE] Petrol robberies are very common, it's hard to notice if they just take like 10-15L out of a 300L tank but it adds up if they do it from several vehicles. Also, it was just 50 this time because they got caught in the act, try 150 each time and the number of robberies needed drop down to reasonable levels. How was the man supposed to stop the 2 thieves if he had not used force? They were clearly running, he didn't have a gun or any other means of making them stop. This was his chance to stop his company from losing money. It wasn't excessive violence by any means. I doubt the guy broke his bones on purpose, if he did then how'd the other guy get off so easy? The thieves story has so many holes in it.
[QUOTE=innerfire34;43690872]when there's a threat against me i don't fucking panic and shoot to kill because my murderous intentions are obviously purer than his [editline]27th January 2014[/editline] also holy fuck have none of you retards ever torrented something?? bamzingwauw you're fucking criminals too i bet your minds are blown (no no this is different i don't mind some crimes) don't even compare stealing fifty dollars worth of a commodity to my lifetime commitment to pirating things people have spent their entire careers developing, some laws are just [I]meant to be broken[/I] and some laws you [I]have to be a sociopath[/I] to break[/QUOTE] I didn't know he was killed, fucking get over yourself because if two men and one with a weapon were threatening to beat you over 50$, you would make sure one of them can't get up while the other is subdued. [editline]27th January 2014[/editline] If he was killed over this then yes that is terrible. But like said before, he started this whole damn chain of events and he's the one breaking the law. It isn't about if he deserves it or not, he was the aggressor. This is as bad as suing a cop because you were shot while stealing something and threatened to shoot him.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;43692045]If you want anybody to take any of the shit you're saying seriously, then learning how to post without insulting, threatening, and demeaning anybody who disagrees with you would be a really good place to start.[/QUOTE] Demanding that people read the article is a sin so great that Hitler is now a saint compared to me. The only arguments in this topic are caused by the people who did not read the article which is pretty sad. It was explained that it was 2 thieves, nothing else he could've really done in the situation, nothing excessive about it. Yet this is somehow bad and he needs to be taken to court and assraped by the long arm of the law because why? It sure as hell isn't good pr for his company or for himself.
[QUOTE=pkhzor;43692410]Demanding that people read the article is a sin so great that Hitler is now a saint compared to me. The only arguments in this topic are caused by the people who did not read the article which is pretty sad. It was explained that it was 2 thieves, nothing else he could've really done in the situation, nothing excessive about it. Yet this is somehow bad and he needs to be taken to court and assraped by the long arm of the law because why? It sure as hell isn't good pr for his company or for himself.[/QUOTE] Have you considered that people are arguing about the ethics of home defence, and simply using the story as a basis, rather than specifically about the story?
Oh fuck he was taken to court and instantly acquitted what a crime where is the justice woe is this country all is lost
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43692760]Have you considered that people are arguing about the ethics of home defence, and simply using the story as a basis, rather than specifically about the story?[/QUOTE] No, they're arguing that this guy used excessive force which he didn't. [QUOTE=RainbowStalin;43692781]Oh fuck he was taken to court and instantly acquitted what a crime where is the justice woe is this country all is lost[/QUOTE] Wasn't just once he was taken to court, stop ignoring that fact before you post. He had to go to court 4 times over this.
[QUOTE=Carne;43687315]Breaking the arms and legs of someone who stole diesel does not sound like justice to me.[/QUOTE] I would understand accidentally breaking a single leg. But how do you call 2 broken legs and a broken arm lawful force?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;43693154]I would understand breaking a single leg. But how do you call 2 broken legs and a broken arm lawful force?[/QUOTE] By being pumped up on adrenaline from chasing down 2 thieves in the middle of the night and hitting one of them with a stick? Was 2v1, two of them got their asses handed to them by a single man armed with a stick. So you're saying he had other options? Tell me which ones include him busting both thieves and keeping them there long enough for the police to haul them to jail/hospital?
[QUOTE=pkhzor;43693203]By being pumped up on adrenaline from chasing down 2 thieves in the middle of the night and hitting one of them with a stick? Was 2v1, two of them got their asses handed to them by a single man armed with a stick. So you're saying he had other options? Tell me which ones include him busting both thieves and keeping them there long enough for the police to haul them to jail/hospital?[/QUOTE] [del]shooting[/del] hitting him in the leg with the stick obviously
[QUOTE=pkhzor;43693203]By being pumped up on adrenaline from chasing down 2 thieves in the middle of the night and hitting one of them with a stick? Was 2v1, two of them got their asses handed to them by a single man armed with a stick. So you're saying he had other options? Tell me which ones include him busting both thieves and keeping them there long enough for the police to haul them to jail/hospital?[/QUOTE] An assault stick. Britain to ban sticks next week.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;43691540]And people seriously maintain that Facepunch is rabidly liberal or aggressively progressive[/QUOTE] You say that like being rabidly liberal and aggressively progressive is a good thing
I can't even imagine breaking someone's bones, let alone 4. Just hearing them sob and yell in pain would be way too much for me. He shouldn't have been stealing, but this is way over the line
[QUOTE=Acezorz;43691382]this thread is filled with awkward shut-ins who were bullied at school, who have a warped sense of 'justice'[/QUOTE] I'd tell you about how I feel about this but I fear I'd get banned. Don't you fucking dare put people who are bullied in with the same group of people who don't share a similar opinion with you. Just because you want to look witty.
It's crazy to beat someone that bad over just a bit of gasoline, and it's really sick that there are people who think that that was the right thing to do. Okay, now I'm done pretending to feel sorry for the fucker. He got what was coming to him as far as I'm concerned.
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;43687268]He might not be a victim but two broken legs and an arm seems a bit excessive over £50 worth of fuel Can you honestly say he DESERVED that?[/QUOTE] actually i would of shot his knee cap off instead if he would of stolen from me. that's a permanent reminder to not fuck around with some random person.
Should have kept mod bda, you could have used excessive force on that troll!
[QUOTE=Acezorz;43691382]this thread is filled with awkward shut-ins who were bullied at school, who have a warped sense of 'justice'[/QUOTE] More like this thread is filled with people who aren't busy lathering themselves with their own ego because they think it is "wrong" to defend yourself and your livelihood against criminals who are actively destroying it. Woodhouse earned the fuel, Green didn't. Woodhouse would be at a loss without the fuel, and so he got it back using force. His livelihood is more important than the well being of a criminal. Criminals do not get to be treated "fairly" or "equally". They have fucked up. They have done wrong. They, and only they, are responsible for how society and individuals choose to respond to them. If you want to go down the route of "logical justice", the incident was a fluke. The victim is well adjusted and normal otherwise. There is no reason to imprison or punish him. He does not need psychological help.
[QUOTE=slamex;43693546]I'd tell you about how I feel about this but I fear I'd get banned. Don't you fucking dare put people who are bullied in with the same group of people who don't share a similar opinion with you. Just because you want to look witty.[/QUOTE] i'm not saying everyone who was bullied at school is an awkward shut-in or that they all think like that, i'm saying that most people with such deluded ideas of 'justice' probably were bullied because they enjoy revenge power fantasies lol
[QUOTE=Frustration96;43687316]Of course he did! I'm amazed he had the balls to claim to be the victim after someone defended themselves from a thief. Doesn't matter what he was stealing, he was still stealing.[/QUOTE] Yeah after one leg you'd think the defense would be over... [editline]27th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Acezorz;43691382]this thread is filled with awkward shut-ins who were bullied at school, who have a warped sense of 'justice'[/QUOTE] Or people with different opinions from you. Just because you constantly have your past on your mind doesn't mean its contents apply to all situations. [editline]27th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=DaysBefore;43691236]Can you imagine seriously calling BDA a shitposter (Aside from all those times he ironically shitposts anyway)[/QUOTE] He really is, though, he just shitposts for the opinion of the "enlightened", and there seem to be a lot of people wanting to claim that title.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43694015]His livelihood is more important than the well being of a criminal. Criminals do not get to be treated "fairly" or "equally". They have fucked up. They have done wrong. They, and only they, are responsible for how society and individuals choose to respond to them[/QUOTE] good job writing off every criminal as people who are instantly unredeemable and undeserving of basic human rights
my favorite part is that the guy disagreeing with BDA got banned, though...he did deserve it.
[QUOTE=Acezorz;43694208]good job writing every criminal as people who are instantly unredeemable and undeserving of basic human rights[/QUOTE] I'm not saying they aren't, I'm saying that if they are treated badly, or terribly hurt while committing their act, they have no one to blame but themselves. To be "fair" towards criminals is exactly the same as being unfair towards victims. You're acting like the victim suddenly becomes a criminal or evil or whatever if they don't kindly respect some invisible boundaries that keep them from "violating" their violator. Because the well being of someone who is actively detracting from society is apparently the same as those who they are harming in the process.
[QUOTE=Primigenes;43693916]He deserves like a punch or some shit. Doesn't deserve to be crippled, holy shit. [editline]27th January 2014[/editline] Jesus Christ, with some of the post in this thread you'd think we'd just adopt Hammurabi's Code and cut off his hands[/QUOTE] This. Beating someone half to death with a fence post over a few gallons of diesel fuel is freaking insane. It's just an expression of this uniquely American idea that as soon as you jaywalk or commit petty left, you are now a "criminal" that should be executed on sight. As a culture, we fetishize the idea of being able to legally beat or kill somebody because they're "criminals". It's how people end up shot in the face for knocking on a door to ask for help with a broken down car: because this country is full of people that fantasize about the day they finally get a legal excuse to use their guns/fists/whatever against a person they see as lesser than themselves. Here's a radical fucking idea: A couple cans of fuel isn't worth ANYONE'S life, or ANYONE'S grievous bodily injury, I don't care who they are. If I catch someone stealing petty shit like that from me, I call the cops like a normal person. This guy beat the shit out of that dude because he wanted to, and he felt like he had an excuse to. I really don't care what the letter of the law says, in my book that makes you a shitty person.
[QUOTE=be;43694168] He really is, though, he just shitposts for the opinion of the "enlightened", and there seem to be a lot of people wanting to claim that title.[/QUOTE] Pretty much the only questionable aspect to BDA's posts is how weirdly cheery he is all the goddamn time.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43694015]More like this thread is filled with people who aren't busy lathering themselves with their own ego because they think it is "wrong" to defend yourself and your livelihood against criminals who are actively destroying it. Woodhouse earned the fuel, Green didn't. Woodhouse would be at a loss without the fuel, and so he got it back using force. His livelihood is more important than the well being of a criminal. Criminals do not get to be treated "fairly" or "equally". They have fucked up. They have done wrong. They, and only they, are responsible for how society and individuals choose to respond to them. If you want to go down the route of "logical justice", the incident was a fluke. The victim is well adjusted and normal otherwise. There is no reason to imprison or punish him. He does not need psychological help.[/QUOTE] it's not wrong to defend yourself - it's wrong to "defend" a few gallons of fuel by breaking the limbs of a person who was running away from you (and therefore not an active threat anyways) in which world is beating someone up vigilante-style considered fair and just ?
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;43687602]Unless your life was in immediate danger (i.e they were shooting at you) then no you can't shoot them, but even if you chased them to the end of say your driveway or across your field you can be charged with brandishing a weapon in a public place and threatening with a deadly weapon, if you were to fire and injure them it becomes assault with a deadly weapon. Basically the uk laws go from "yes this is fine" to "holy shit no you are a very bad man" and escalate rapidly from there. Please note that I say can because in most cases you won't but it depends entirely on what the crown wants to do with regard to prosecution and the severity of the offence.[/QUOTE] I know in Texas it's apparantley perfectly fine to shoot a home intruder so long as you shoot him in the front, you can't shoot them in their back (ie running away). IIRC it's the same for New Mexico, too. I also heard somewhere that putting pink ribbons on the corners of your property serves as a warning that trespassers will be shot, and leaves you legally justified to do just that, but that particular bit sounds too strange to be plausible. Another fun fact: In the state of New Mexico, if you get out of jail, you can ask for a gun and a horse and the state is legally obligated to provide you with both. We actually had a guy who flat-out refused to leave until he got his horse. [editline]27th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43687765]How about, then, we fix the underlying problems that are driving people to crime? Because I guarantee you, getting people out of poverty is a shitton more effective when it comes to preventing theft than fines, jail time, or physical assault.[/QUOTE] Sometimes it's not even about poverty. Where I work we have a fenced-in area marked with "no trespassing" signs where we store all our broken/scrappable refrigeration equipment, and the same guy from an apartment complex right next door keeps cutting the fence in order to steal copper from the scrap-yard so he can sell it for drug money. (a neighbor of his ratted him out) Thing is, our surveillance system is too low-res to effectively identify him. We can't put barbed/razor wire on the top of the fence because, get this, if someone were to climb the fence (which in this case is moot because the asshole cuts through it rather than climbs it) and get hurt (while performing the act of trespassing/theft) the company would be held liable.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43694015]More like this thread is filled with people who aren't busy lathering themselves with their own ego because they think it is "wrong" to defend yourself and your livelihood against criminals who are actively destroying it. Woodhouse earned the fuel, Green didn't. Woodhouse would be at a loss without the fuel, and so he got it back using force. His livelihood is more important than the well being of a criminal. Criminals do not get to be treated "fairly" or "equally". They have fucked up. They have done wrong. They, and only they, are responsible for how society and individuals choose to respond to them. If you want to go down the route of "logical justice", the incident was a fluke. The victim is well adjusted and normal otherwise. There is no reason to imprison or punish him. He does not need psychological help.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43694295]I'm not saying they aren't, I'm saying that if they are treated badly, or terribly hurt while committing their act, they have no one to blame but themselves. To be "fair" towards criminals is exactly the same as being unfair towards victims. You're acting like the victim suddenly becomes a criminal or evil or whatever if they don't kindly respect some invisible boundaries that keep them from "violating" their violator. Because the well being of someone who is actively detracting from society is apparently the same as those who they are harming in the process.[/QUOTE] what a fucking horrible way to view and understand the world around you [editline]27th January 2014[/editline] "i'm not saying that people that are criminals deserve to be treated badly, it's just if they're treated badly it's 100% their fault"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.