Babylon Posted 30 June 2009 Posted 30 June 2009 Nice one old man... http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/P...nd_A_Half_Years
Guest Bilo Posted 30 June 2009 Posted 30 June 2009 He's my new hero. While I don't agree with the idea of taking the law into your own hands as it can go tragically wrong, the fact is that this guy wouldn't have taken a kicking if he hadn't trespassed on another person's property. Got what he deserved and hope the old fella isn't made an example of.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 30 June 2009 Posted 30 June 2009 EPIC PHAIL! Perhaps related to this honey? Supergran
Fox You Forest Posted 30 June 2009 Posted 30 June 2009 Nice work. Did anyone see what those burglars did to the old doctor on Crimewatch last night? Shocking.
StanSP Posted 30 June 2009 Posted 30 June 2009 Bet he ends up getting compensation He got a four and a half year jail sentence.
MikeyT Posted 30 June 2009 Posted 30 June 2009 Well done to the guy, serves the little shit right, but to send the old man to prison is unreal. Anyone normal would have done the same to protect their wife an property.
StanSP Posted 30 June 2009 Posted 30 June 2009 Well done to the guy, serves the little shit right, but to send the old man to prison is unreal. Anyone normal would have done the same to protect their wife an property. Old man didn't get sent to jail. The burglar did: McCalium, a cocktail barman, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail after being convicted of aggravated burglary.
MikeyT Posted 30 June 2009 Posted 30 June 2009 Old man didn't get sent to jail. The burglar did: Hahaha yep i read it wrong!
Blue Foxes Posted 30 June 2009 Posted 30 June 2009 Nice work. Did anyone see what those burglars did to the old doctor on Crimewatch last night? Shocking. Yea I saw that, he was 92! Cowardly
lou Posted 1 July 2009 Posted 1 July 2009 What an absolute legend! Wish hed been around when my Daughter needed him the other week after we catching burglars in ours.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 1 July 2009 Posted 1 July 2009 It just shows that the law does allow you to sort people out when you really need to. This lad threatened the old boy and his missus, and chucked a knife at them - it's safe to say they were in imminent danger from him and as such you can then happily use reasonable force without fear of prosecution. It's a bit different to old Tony Martin shooting dead a burglar who was supposedly running away from him at the time
Zingari Posted 1 July 2009 Posted 1 July 2009 It just shows that the law does allow you to sort people out when you really need to. This lad threatened the old boy and his missus, and chucked a knife at them - it's safe to say they were in imminent danger from him and as such you can then happily use reasonable force without fear of prosecution. It's a bit different to old Tony Martin shooting dead a burglar who was supposedly running away from him at the time wasn't tony martin alone , against several attackers and was subjected to this repeatedly ? and not all of us are ex fighting experts with the ability confidence and expertise to engage in unarmed combat and deliver sufficiently forcable blows to disable an assailant . tony martin was badly served by the law ( imo)
Bellend Sebastian Posted 1 July 2009 Posted 1 July 2009 wasn't tony martin alone , against several attackers and was subjected to this repeatedly ? and not all of us are ex fighting experts with the ability confidence and expertise to engage in unarmed combat and deliver sufficiently forcable blows to disable an assailant .tony martin was badly served by the law ( imo) They weren't attacking him though, that's the point. If they had been, he'd probably have got away with it
Zingari Posted 1 July 2009 Posted 1 July 2009 They weren't attacking him though, that's the point. If they had been, he'd probably have got away with it he found 2 young men in his house late at night whilst he was alone . this had happened before and he must have been very frightened by this time ( i know i would have been ) and the police had repeatedly ignored his calls . try imagining this situation as if you were an old lonely person in the dead of night and not from the comfort of a safe environment ( i'm not trying to be argumentative ) and also around the same time there was a case where some landed gentry had deliberately shot and wounded a poacher on his land ( though not fatally) and he was absolved of any guilt . how can it be ok to shoot a poacher but not a burglar again it's down to opinions , but mine is that Martin was badly served
Bellend Sebastian Posted 1 July 2009 Posted 1 July 2009 I'd probably be absolutely shitting myself, and if I had a gun I'd freely admit that I'd be tempted to do that if I found myself in that situation. I'm not really commenting on the rights and wrongs or whether justice is being done or not - it's just that it's something that gets talked about a lot and people are unsure of what they can and cannot do in these situations, when to my mind the law is pretty clear on the subject. Cannot comment on the poacher case because I wasn't aware of it. I think the fact that it involved the landed gentry may have had something to do with the leniency
Zingari Posted 1 July 2009 Posted 1 July 2009 I'd probably be absolutely shitting myself, and if I had a gun I'd freely admit that I'd be tempted to do that if I found myself in that situation.I'm not really commenting on the rights and wrongs or whether justice is being done or not - it's just that it's something that gets talked about a lot and people are unsure of what they can and cannot do in these situations, when to my mind the law is pretty clear on the subject. Cannot comment on the poacher case because I wasn't aware of it. I think the fact that it involved the landed gentry may have had something to do with the leniency yes indeed , the wording is clear but the meaning and interpretation remains very nebulous to me , but i suppose my natural tendency is to always veer towards the rights of the victim rather than the burglar . and yes, i too believe that justice comes more easily to those with the wherewithal
BoneDog Posted 1 July 2009 Posted 1 July 2009 he found 2 young men in his house late at night whilst he was alone . this had happened before and he must have been very frightened by this time ( i know i would have been ) and the police had repeatedly ignored his calls .try imagining this situation as if you were an old lonely person in the dead of night and not from the comfort of a safe environment ( i'm not trying to be argumentative ) and also around the same time there was a case where some landed gentry had deliberately shot and wounded a poacher on his land ( though not fatally) and he was absolved of any guilt . how can it be ok to shoot a poacher but not a burglar again it's down to opinions , but mine is that Martin was badly served Yes Tony Martin did what he had to. Well within his rights in the real world. Only a shat system sent him down. I got weapons next to my bed and they will get used if someone takes the wizz and enters my house. It's a wizz-take that he had to go prison. Some blokes came in his house and he shat himself and did what he had to to protect himself.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.