Subject:
|
Re: What the...?!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:58:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
161 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
Shot burglar wins right to sue Martin
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/2987642.stm
I don’t claim to know the details of this case beyond what is stated in the
linked articles, but I think I have to disagree with some of the broader
conclusions reached in the case.
A person’s home should be respected, and when it is not - those trespassing
should not necessarily expect to avoid personal harm or even death.
They are giving the criminal the right to sue his intended victim. If a
person tried to invade my home -- to hurt my loved ones or myself, or just to
take some of our things -- I can assure you that they are not going to be
leisurely questioned about their specific motives or if they happen to be on
their way out. In fact, I think I can pretty much guarantee a “shoot first,
ask questions later” policy when it comes to home invasion.
Personally, I am really sick of the quasi-parental role governments now seek
to fulfill. It’s as if they were trying to settle a disagreement between
violent siblings.
The consideration that the intended victim may or may not be a mentally
unbalanced person is entirely a separate question. If he has slipped through
the cracks of their mental health system it is surely more a reason to
forgive his actions than to punish him for them.
What am I not seeing or understanding here? What explains the legal postion
taken by the government?
-- Hop-Frog
|
Not that I watch alotta telly, but on Judge Judy once, a woman was sueing a guy
for monies lost because the fradulent deal he suckered her in to went south and
she lost money.
Judge Judy looked at her and said something like “You want to use the legal
system to get back money lost in an illegal transaction?”
I’ve heard about similar things since the late ‘70’s--a crook’s baking into a
house, slips on the floor, breaks a leg and sues the homeowner--I’m not sure if
they’re ‘urban legends’ or not, but this link posted sure looks legitimate.
A guy breaks into a house with his buddy--the homeowner, not knowing what the
indended purpose of the two strangers who B&E’d into his house took what I would
consider proper measures to insure his property and family--i.e. he shot them.
One dead and the other wounded.
Now the homeowner, from what I read, is searving time for manslaughter.
Well that ain’t right.
And the second guy who didn’t die, but was wounded, is sueing the homeowner for
shooting him.
That ain’t right either.
How can an illegal activity be coverd by the law?
It is similar to trying to get the law to retrieve money lost in illegal
activities--it shouldn’t be allowed to happen.
That’s my take anyway.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | What the...?!
|
| Shot burglar wins right to sue Martin (URL) I don't claim to know the details of this case beyond what is stated in the linked articles, but I think I have to disagree with some of the broader conclusions reached in the case. A person's home should (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
