The percentage of politicians that are lawyers is truly gobsmacking. And all they do is make more laws. They don't simplify the existing ones, or make them easier to understand, they just keep bloating the system.
These kinds of things had me thinking of this movie, Seeking Justice, where citizens are part of a loose network of vigilantes who each do one thing as an untraceable favor to a person who has been wronged. Citizens clean up their town and most of them don't even know each other.
Hate to be Debbie Downer but let's be real, he'd probably get jail time in almost any state in the U.S. too. The moment the robber left the house, the guy and his girlfriend were out of imminent danger. Even Texas, which allows deadly force to protect physical property, would probably have a hard time justifying chasing someone down the street to kill them once the threat had passed.
That's true, but I also disagree with that aspect of the law, because home invasions are different to robberies. For a start, the criminal now knows where you live and can come back any time. Additionally he was fleeing with stolen property.
That's not self-defense though, that's vigilantism. As much as I understand wanting to feel safe in your home, once the perp has left the property and the threat of physical harm has passed, it's in the hands of law enforcement. You don't have a right to kill someone simply as a precautionary measure. For all you know they might never come back.
There are worse miscarriages of justice than this. In this case it's because he chased the person down the street and then killed them. However the circumstances are unclear.
I believe he had the right to pursue and reclaim any lost property using whatever force necessary if the property is of appropriate value.
The circumstances are not clear as to why lethal force was necessary but five years does sound like an excessive sentence based on the details thus far.
I'm an Aussie with a pet machete - and I'd still do do the same thing as he did.
I'm angry at the jury, why didn't they nullify?
Well ... I long ago decided that I wasn't interested in putting my life into the hands of the judicial system.
Let's face it ... the judges are as bent as hell, and don't get me started on the fucking lawyers.
The percentage of politicians that are lawyers is truly gobsmacking. And all they do is make more laws. They don't simplify the existing ones, or make them easier to understand, they just keep bloating the system.
Very true.
The law is now so convoluted that two 'experts' when posed the exact same problem can come up with entirely different answers.
if it was in England land of the cucks they would ignore the crime for 30 years
These kinds of things had me thinking of this movie, Seeking Justice, where citizens are part of a loose network of vigilantes who each do one thing as an untraceable favor to a person who has been wronged. Citizens clean up their town and most of them don't even know each other.
Very interesting concept. Just saying.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeking_Justice
Hate to be Debbie Downer but let's be real, he'd probably get jail time in almost any state in the U.S. too. The moment the robber left the house, the guy and his girlfriend were out of imminent danger. Even Texas, which allows deadly force to protect physical property, would probably have a hard time justifying chasing someone down the street to kill them once the threat had passed.
That's true, but I also disagree with that aspect of the law, because home invasions are different to robberies. For a start, the criminal now knows where you live and can come back any time. Additionally he was fleeing with stolen property.
That's not self-defense though, that's vigilantism. As much as I understand wanting to feel safe in your home, once the perp has left the property and the threat of physical harm has passed, it's in the hands of law enforcement. You don't have a right to kill someone simply as a precautionary measure. For all you know they might never come back.
Fair enough.
There are worse miscarriages of justice than this. In this case it's because he chased the person down the street and then killed them. However the circumstances are unclear.
I believe he had the right to pursue and reclaim any lost property using whatever force necessary if the property is of appropriate value.
The circumstances are not clear as to why lethal force was necessary but five years does sound like an excessive sentence based on the details thus far.