Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Britain says "Burglars Need Protection" <or> The lunatics Have taken Over the Asylum

4thTimeLucky · 05-11-2003, 07:48 AM

Mad_Gecko

Thanks for replying. I'm glad to see we agree on points i-iii. There are some on this thread who do not.

Then there is (iv) and (v). I take you aren't disagreeing with (v) as Mr.Matin's position is stated fact. What you disagree with is (iv). Yet I think you'll find we may agree even on this.
Point (iv) sates - A prisoner who has been found guilty of X and then shows no remorse for X and threatens to do X again should not be released on parole.
What Mr.Martin did (his X) was use unreasonable force in executing Barras. He has shown no remorse for this X and he has said that put in the same position again he would do the same again - i.e. he is still threatening to break the law once more and be a repeat offender.
I have no problem with him saying he will defend himself, but that is a different claim, that is Y. What I have a problem with is him threatening to do X again.
Have I brought you with me on this one?

Compensation?
You may know this already, but I am staunchly against a compensation culture and have argued against it on a number of threads (McDonalds, the valedictorian girl and 9-11 victims).
Therefore I am not in favour of frivilous law suits about losing sexual performance because you were shot at by an angry farmer (as happened in this case).
There are two options open to a person with my beliefs.
1) Say that I have no problem with trespassers and burglars locing their right to compensation, but not their right to life.
2) Say that in certain circumstances bruglars have the right to sue.

Choosing (1) would be a hellof a lot easier in this conservative crowd and given my dislike of litigation, but I am going to say (2).

So here goes: In certain circumstances people who are injured as a result of their offences have a right to compensation. Whether compensation is due must be decided in a court of law.

Examples:
- A man sets a series of near fatal traps (unreasonable force) on their property, intending to inflict debilitating injuries upon trespassers. A person (they could be a burglar or a child fetching their ball) goes on to the property, is injured and is no longer able to walk or work again.

- A black man breaks into a house and is trapped by the owner. The owner then calls the police, who have a grudge against this person also. Both the owners and the police start to beat up the handcuffed offender. (I make him black and involve the police to make analogies with other cases you will be familiar with, where you would probably have no qualms awarding compensation).

I hope that this answers your question.

I think, Mad_Gecko that we are not so far apart in our views, but may differ in emphasis.

What I am really interested to know is whether any of those who claimed that a robber loses their right to life will step forward and challenge my seven step argument or my six questons.

05-11-2003, 07:48 AM	#35 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Mad_Gecko Thanks for replying. I'm glad to see we agree on points i-iii. There are some on this thread who do not. Then there is (iv) and (v). I take you aren't disagreeing with (v) as Mr.Matin's position is stated fact. What you disagree with is (iv). Yet I think you'll find we may agree even on this. Point (iv) sates - A prisoner who has been found guilty of X and then shows no remorse for X and threatens to do X again should not be released on parole. What Mr.Martin did (his X) was use unreasonable force in executing Barras. He has shown no remorse for this X and he has said that put in the same position again he would do the same again - i.e. he is still threatening to break the law once more and be a repeat offender. I have no problem with him saying he will defend himself, but that is a different claim, that is Y. What I have a problem with is him threatening to do X again. Have I brought you with me on this one? Compensation? You may know this already, but I am staunchly against a compensation culture and have argued against it on a number of threads (McDonalds, the valedictorian girl and 9-11 victims). Therefore I am not in favour of frivilous law suits about losing sexual performance because you were shot at by an angry farmer (as happened in this case). There are two options open to a person with my beliefs. 1) Say that I have no problem with trespassers and burglars locing their right to compensation, but not their right to life. 2) Say that in certain circumstances bruglars have the right to sue. Choosing (1) would be a hellof a lot easier in this conservative crowd and given my dislike of litigation, but I am going to say (2). So here goes: In certain circumstances people who are injured as a result of their offences have a right to compensation. Whether compensation is due must be decided in a court of law. Examples: - A man sets a series of near fatal traps (unreasonable force) on their property, intending to inflict debilitating injuries upon trespassers. A person (they could be a burglar or a child fetching their ball) goes on to the property, is injured and is no longer able to walk or work again. - A black man breaks into a house and is trapped by the owner. The owner then calls the police, who have a grudge against this person also. Both the owners and the police start to beat up the handcuffed offender. (I make him black and involve the police to make analogies with other cases you will be familiar with, where you would probably have no qualms awarding compensation). I hope that this answers your question. I think, Mad_Gecko that we are not so far apart in our views, but may differ in emphasis. What I am really interested to know is whether any of those who claimed that a robber loses their right to life will step forward and challenge my seven step argument or my six questons. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 05-11-2003 at 07:51 AM..