|
|
Let's Hear it for Progressive Justice
The shape of things to come here: brothers beat down home invaders and receive multi-year jail terms for their trouble. Well what do they expect? Sure, the robbers tied them up on the floor, but the robbers also said the family wouldn't be killed as long as they didn't move! Those maniacs went after the robbers with a cricket bat! Put one of them in the hospital! And a good thing too it happened in Britain, otherwise that poor thief likely would not have gotten the best of care!
Couple of thoughts:
1 - Here in most of the States, we could've just shot the guys and been let off free. To me, that's appropriate.
2 - These guys did seem to hold him down and beat him with a cricket bat* and a metal pole past the point of no return.
3 - The problem may be in the pursuit.
Some details are clearly missing here, though. If they were in the house and still fighting, that's one thing. But chasing the guys down after they've decided to bail is another. I think even our Castle Doctrines prohibit that.
*Inappropriate unless you're a zombie
The judge appears to think everyone in the world has been police-trained to recognize the difference between "still struggling" and "writhing on the ground in mortal agony, thus no longer a threat." Or maybe that they must be trained as such before they are allowed to defend their home and family with potentially deadly force.
Still a retarded judgement.
Posted by: Tatterdemalian on December 16, 2009 11:17 AMIn your home is one thing. Chasing them down is a different thing. I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but I don't think the case is as black and white as some might thing.
Even here in Ohio where we've got the Castle Doctrine laws, I can kill them in my house if I feel threatened (affirmative defense here, IIRC). However, I can't chase them down the street if they elect to bail.
I think I need to move to Texas where I can kill them for being hippy-looking.
Posted by: Ron ap Rhys on December 16, 2009 11:38 AM