The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Crazy. You break into someone's house, knowingly, and with the intention of stealing their property. You deliberately break the law. Somehow during this you get hurt. So you can sue the owner of the house - not just if they themselves hurt you in self defense, but even if you hurt yourself on an object in their house. This, to me, is stupid for the following reasons:
1) You've already knowingly broken the law and committed a crime against them. This should nullify (possibly depending on the severity of what the owner does) anything they do.
2) What people put in their house or on their property is their own business. It's ridiculous that someone can't put on object on their land because if someone tries to break in they might injure themselves on it.
3) It could start a string of burglaries that have the sole purpose of getting the burglar injured. All you need to do is break a window, then hurt yourself on something in the house and it's quids in.
In my view house owners should be able to put as many things between themselves and burglars as possible - even, for instance, a trap that would break the law should it be set off. Because it would only happen in the event of the burglar breaking the law. And yet if such an event did happen, the burglar could sue the individual to high heaven while getting off scott free - it seems the judicial system conveniently forgets what the criminal did to provoke the action in the first place.
There would have to be some punishment for the owner if they went as far as to main, torture or kill the criminal, but I think prison is a bit harsh. Fines, maybe, community service, I don't know. Probably not community service because that's given to out and out criminals, and I don't think people who defend their home can be classed as such.
This whole issue annoys me. How long is it until Claims Diect cash in?
"Been in an accident during a bungled burglary in the last three years? Yes? Well this is your chacne to capitalise and make even more money from your hapless victim. Our team of no holds barred ruthless fresh out of training school solicitors will make the owner pay for buying a house in that position! It was clearly their fault all along! They should have put easy-shatter windows in, and not the messy sort that cuts you.
Take Mr Scum, he tried to parachute through his neighbours skylight - we got him £22 000! Or Mrs Fecklessidiot, when her tunnel collapsed after trying to dig under her victim's house, we got her £40 000! Or even Mr Benefitfraud, when the brick he threw bounced off the window and hit him in the jaw, we got him £5000, plus a new jaw! Remember, where there's blaim, there's a claim!"
The laws in this country are just too much in favour of the criminal. It's not right. If they want to have it this way they should make crime legal. That would sort out a lot of problems, but they would have to find a way around the whole contradictory element there.
Anyway, this was going to be a short post and it seems pretty long looking up from way down the bottom here, so I'll leave it there.
1) You've already knowingly broken the law and committed a crime against them. This should nullify (possibly depending on the severity of what the owner does) anything they do.
2) What people put in their house or on their property is their own business. It's ridiculous that someone can't put on object on their land because if someone tries to break in they might injure themselves on it.
3) It could start a string of burglaries that have the sole purpose of getting the burglar injured. All you need to do is break a window, then hurt yourself on something in the house and it's quids in.
In my view house owners should be able to put as many things between themselves and burglars as possible - even, for instance, a trap that would break the law should it be set off. Because it would only happen in the event of the burglar breaking the law. And yet if such an event did happen, the burglar could sue the individual to high heaven while getting off scott free - it seems the judicial system conveniently forgets what the criminal did to provoke the action in the first place.
There would have to be some punishment for the owner if they went as far as to main, torture or kill the criminal, but I think prison is a bit harsh. Fines, maybe, community service, I don't know. Probably not community service because that's given to out and out criminals, and I don't think people who defend their home can be classed as such.
This whole issue annoys me. How long is it until Claims Diect cash in?
"Been in an accident during a bungled burglary in the last three years? Yes? Well this is your chacne to capitalise and make even more money from your hapless victim. Our team of no holds barred ruthless fresh out of training school solicitors will make the owner pay for buying a house in that position! It was clearly their fault all along! They should have put easy-shatter windows in, and not the messy sort that cuts you.
Take Mr Scum, he tried to parachute through his neighbours skylight - we got him £22 000! Or Mrs Fecklessidiot, when her tunnel collapsed after trying to dig under her victim's house, we got her £40 000! Or even Mr Benefitfraud, when the brick he threw bounced off the window and hit him in the jaw, we got him £5000, plus a new jaw! Remember, where there's blaim, there's a claim!"
The laws in this country are just too much in favour of the criminal. It's not right. If they want to have it this way they should make crime legal. That would sort out a lot of problems, but they would have to find a way around the whole contradictory element there.
Anyway, this was going to be a short post and it seems pretty long looking up from way down the bottom here, so I'll leave it there.
Page:
School have stupid rules.
some kid had my brother by the throat and was punching him, my brother punched the kid in the head, the kid gets a black eye and the teachers give my brother the detention and the kid gets off scot free!
some kid had my brother by the throat and was punching him, my brother punched the kid in the head, the kid gets a black eye and the teachers give my brother the detention and the kid gets off scot free!
oh and another point i bet there's also a higher conviction rate in america with longer sentences, and more people are brought to justice.
Mr. Snuggly Wrote:
>
> Hey Richard, you know what country does that? America. And do you
> know what country has the highest crime rate, and the highest murder
> rate in the world? Yep, you guessed it.
I bet though Britain has an average crime rate higher than america.
>
> Hey Richard, you know what country does that? America. And do you
> know what country has the highest crime rate, and the highest murder
> rate in the world? Yep, you guessed it.
I bet though Britain has an average crime rate higher than america.
do you mean accidents or murders/ delibrate injury?
90% of gunshot wounds are inflicted by close family/friends of the victim...
I would rather shoot and kill a burglar, than let him do the same to me or any of my family.
I don't think we should all have guns and defend our "castles" (although if we actually did have a castle...).
However, if the police can't protect us, we should at least be allowed to protect ourselves.
True America does have the highest murder rates. But very little of that is to do with burglers getting shot. America has high murder rates because of many different types of crime. Blacks are 4 times more likely to be murdered than whites in America. Most crimes that happen to blacks happen in their own neighbourhoods. The highest instance of crime is found in the deprived areas... It is a far more complex issue.
I am not pressing for us all to have guns. But if someone intrudes into my home, with the intent of breaching my "human rights" then I should be able to defend myself and my family, their safety is paramount, and a responsibility of mine.
If they can get away with burglary, then they might start going further.
However, if the police can't protect us, we should at least be allowed to protect ourselves.
True America does have the highest murder rates. But very little of that is to do with burglers getting shot. America has high murder rates because of many different types of crime. Blacks are 4 times more likely to be murdered than whites in America. Most crimes that happen to blacks happen in their own neighbourhoods. The highest instance of crime is found in the deprived areas... It is a far more complex issue.
I am not pressing for us all to have guns. But if someone intrudes into my home, with the intent of breaching my "human rights" then I should be able to defend myself and my family, their safety is paramount, and a responsibility of mine.
If they can get away with burglary, then they might start going further.
VenomByte wrote:
> Vice wrote:
> Oh i'm sure if u did own a rifle and sum1 broke into your house in
> the pitch black in the middle of the night, it wouldn't scare or
> anger
> you and you'd just let them get away scot free. Plus that kid will
> be
> dead in a few years anyway as he prolly burgling to fund a drug
> addiction.
>
>
> Two wrongs do not make a right.
>
> If I or someone else were being dangerously threatened, I might well
> shoot. However, no matter what the kid did or was intending to do,
> there is no way on earth I would ever shoot someone in the back as
> they fled.
Yes. Because there is a difference. Tony Martin was shortly afterwards proved to have the mental age of a 10 yr old child. Granted, his personal space had been invaded and he had hand enough - the man snapped, and shot a kid in the back. The case is a sketchy one because if Martin had been of lucid mind, you could bet he wouldn't have pulled the trigger at all. Therefore he cannot be used as a proper example for the argument, he didn't set out to murder the boy at all. What bugs me is people like Richard Littlejohn championing Martin's cause, patting him on the back and using him as an example of how we should be able to defend our own homes with force if threatened.
Hey Richard, you know what country does that? America. And do you know what country has the highest crime rate, and the highest murder rate in the world? Yep, you guessed it. People like this thieving burglar scum should be locked up or deported, there's no doubt of that, but for God's sake, what happened to Tony Martin and the kid Fred Barras was a horrible, horrible state of affairs - I don't want to see anyone abuse it and use it as an example of why we should be carrying guns at home or how 'a man should defend his castle'. The whole case is sickening, really.
> Vice wrote:
> Oh i'm sure if u did own a rifle and sum1 broke into your house in
> the pitch black in the middle of the night, it wouldn't scare or
> anger
> you and you'd just let them get away scot free. Plus that kid will
> be
> dead in a few years anyway as he prolly burgling to fund a drug
> addiction.
>
>
> Two wrongs do not make a right.
>
> If I or someone else were being dangerously threatened, I might well
> shoot. However, no matter what the kid did or was intending to do,
> there is no way on earth I would ever shoot someone in the back as
> they fled.
Yes. Because there is a difference. Tony Martin was shortly afterwards proved to have the mental age of a 10 yr old child. Granted, his personal space had been invaded and he had hand enough - the man snapped, and shot a kid in the back. The case is a sketchy one because if Martin had been of lucid mind, you could bet he wouldn't have pulled the trigger at all. Therefore he cannot be used as a proper example for the argument, he didn't set out to murder the boy at all. What bugs me is people like Richard Littlejohn championing Martin's cause, patting him on the back and using him as an example of how we should be able to defend our own homes with force if threatened.
Hey Richard, you know what country does that? America. And do you know what country has the highest crime rate, and the highest murder rate in the world? Yep, you guessed it. People like this thieving burglar scum should be locked up or deported, there's no doubt of that, but for God's sake, what happened to Tony Martin and the kid Fred Barras was a horrible, horrible state of affairs - I don't want to see anyone abuse it and use it as an example of why we should be carrying guns at home or how 'a man should defend his castle'. The whole case is sickening, really.
Lets face it, the world would be a nicer place without burglars.
It's not as if this boy had to burgle to survive, that I could understand. He should still have been in school. He's got no need to steal, and certainly not from someone's home. It's just greed, on someone's part at least.
I believe there's a difference between stealing from a shop and breaking into someone's house to steal. There's also a difference between stealing from necessity and stealing so you can afford Rockports.
It's not as if this boy had to burgle to survive, that I could understand. He should still have been in school. He's got no need to steal, and certainly not from someone's home. It's just greed, on someone's part at least.
I believe there's a difference between stealing from a shop and breaking into someone's house to steal. There's also a difference between stealing from necessity and stealing so you can afford Rockports.
This stinks. Majorly. A burglar should nothave rights. They deserve to get hurt. I should raise a counter suit against the burglar for mental anguish caused by him being able to sue.
He may have been a kid, but its dark its the middle of the night, and being 16 or whatever, he isnt going to look a toddler. I would probably have shot him. Tony Martin should have been praised for what he did. Perhaps if he had then burglars would have been deterred a bit, now they are encouraged.
He may have been a kid, but its dark its the middle of the night, and being 16 or whatever, he isnt going to look a toddler. I would probably have shot him. Tony Martin should have been praised for what he did. Perhaps if he had then burglars would have been deterred a bit, now they are encouraged.
Page: