The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I know what you mean. What determines if someone is an adult? Most theme parks say a 12 year old is an adult. Then again, you have to be 18 to vote and you only have to be 14 to be charged adult prices on a bus. I don't believe any of these ages determines if someone is an adult, an adult or someone who is responsible for themselves and makes thier own decisions, in my opinion, (this only applies to people in a stable mental state) is a person who is developed enough to fully understand who they are and what they are doing. Physically, it is as soon as they finish, or in some peoples opinion, at the end of puberty. I believe that if someone knows what they are doing and has willingly decided to do it, fully knowing what the consequences are, and why it is deviant or illegal, then, they should be classed as an adult. That could be a 12 year old, or a 23 year old. They obviously couldn't use this at theme parks or on the bus though because. how do you determine if someone is is in the above state of knowledge and understanding. The 15 year old knows what he was doing, but I don't think he thought of the consequences, which turned out to be death, other wise he wouldn't have done it. I think he deserved to be taught a lesson, but not killed.
Mr. No shoes
Mr. No shoes
I don't like the way everyone says "kid" as if the age matters. They're not a toddler, they can think for themselves, they know they are breaking the law. A "kid" doing it is just as bad as a grown adult. I might well shoot them both, but I'd be more likely to try and tie them up and beat them about a bit before ringing the police.
If someone broke into your house and had murdered a friend, but not seen you, and he was fleeing, would you then pull the trigger?
Mr. No shoes
Mr. No shoes
VenomByte wrote:
> 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.
You know it'd have been fine under Thatcher though...
:^D
> 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.
You know it'd have been fine under Thatcher though...
:^D
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.
> 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.
Well, I'm not surprised.
Soon enough burglary will be a sensible, safe and respected career path with many qualifications avaliable. Although you'll probably need a licence to burgle - show it to house owners and they have to open a window for you and direct you to their most valuable possesions.
Soon enough burglary will be a sensible, safe and respected career path with many qualifications avaliable. Although you'll probably need a licence to burgle - show it to house owners and they have to open a window for you and direct you to their most valuable possesions.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> There'll be a new law soon:
> "You must make your house safe enough so that anyone forcing
> entry through windows or door will no suffer any injuries whilst
> looking for, carrying or removing your valuable good"
Already happened. There's a couple I've hear of in my area who spend half the time out of the country. Burglars always climb onto bins, then onto the garage, then through a window and steal all their stuff. Eventually they put bars up on the window, but the burglars took a saw and got in anyway. So they tried to put up barbed wire, and were told they couldn't because it might injure someone.
And Snuggly, there is nothing wrong with having a ponytail or long hair. Or a plaited beard.
> There'll be a new law soon:
> "You must make your house safe enough so that anyone forcing
> entry through windows or door will no suffer any injuries whilst
> looking for, carrying or removing your valuable good"
Already happened. There's a couple I've hear of in my area who spend half the time out of the country. Burglars always climb onto bins, then onto the garage, then through a window and steal all their stuff. Eventually they put bars up on the window, but the burglars took a saw and got in anyway. So they tried to put up barbed wire, and were told they couldn't because it might injure someone.
And Snuggly, there is nothing wrong with having a ponytail or long hair. Or a plaited beard.
Mr. No shoes wrote:
> Have you noticed the way gypsy caravans and houses are closer to your
> house/school/work every time you look? I think they want to take over
> or something...
D'oh gypsys don't have houses oops...
> Have you noticed the way gypsy caravans and houses are closer to your
> house/school/work every time you look? I think they want to take over
> or something...
D'oh gypsys don't have houses oops...
Have you noticed the way gypsy caravans and houses are closer to your house/school/work every time you look? I think they want to take over or something...
Hopefully if it gets taken to court, he'll be fined for wasting time. I reckon this is probably a good bet, there's no chance in hell this idiot is going to make any money. It's just a shame ponytailed gypsy villains like him are allowed to live in civilised society.
Page: