This Guy Should Get a Medal (death, examples, psychologically, England)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with you: if I caught someone breaking into my home, it's open season. However, if the police have already brought the guy down and are in the process of handcuffing him, I don't think I'd kick him in the face (I'd have done that long before the police arrived!)
I'm with Fred. Once the police get him he's done. Before they get there? Fred I might not kick the face, but between the legs. I'd kick hard enough where a couple of the man's body parts may be sticking out his ears!
Also of relevance is the fact that the burglary "suspect" had already left the house, leaving the occupants of the house in no danger whatsoever, and unharmed. The suspect was, at that point, not an impending danger to anyone, whether or not he was in police custody.
But, I take it, we can agree that this man wasn't protecting his family when he hit the burglar in the face?
I think that's correct.
I really think the guy was just hopped up on adrenaline, and furious. His rage got the best of him, and it's going to cost him dearly. A habitual burglar very much deserves to be kicked in the face - and repeatedly. But even criminals have rights.
We have a system of laws, but very little "justice" in this country. Justice involves a settling of scores. Too many seem to feel that justice is served by the issuance of minor terms which bring no satisfaction to those who have been wronged by the actions of a criminal. Our jail and prison systems focus on the fallacy of rehabilitation rather than punishment. Perhaps this homeowner believed that even if caught, the perp would not suffer any significant damage as a result of what he had done. That and the rage which no doubt boiled within led him to pop the guy in the face, which IMO should be (and probably will be) overlooked by the DA when deciding to bring charges.
This guy gave up his rights when he was caught breaking into another's home with the intent of causing harm, whether that involved stealing or attacking the residents within. Maybe it's unfortunate the police got there quite so quickly. Allowed to proceed, the homeowner could have made sure this criminal would never be able to rob anyone again. As it is, he will be free soon (if not already so) and will be burlarizing again before long.
Problems need to be solved in an effective manner.
Also of relevance is the fact that the burglary "suspect" had already left the house, leaving the occupants of the house in no danger whatsoever, and unharmed. The suspect was, at that point, not an impending danger to anyone, whether or not he was in police custody.
Someone caught in the act is not a "suspect" - he is a criminal. And under these circumstances is a violent criminal. And if he's not in custody, he certainly is a threat to whomever he chooses to victimize next.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,799,298 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workin_Hard
Local story - Homeowner gets to intruder and deals some justice before the police could haul him away - after which they cuffed the homeowner and now he's facing assault charges! Outrageous!!! He was doing what anyone who's home has been invaded and family threatened should have the absolute right to do!
"Police say they had brought the burglary suspect, Irvin R. Lambert, 51, to the ground and were handcuffing him when Anderson kicked him in the face. They charged Anderson with assault and battery. Paramedics treated Lambert at the scene for facial injuries, police said. Anderson and Prince William police disagree on the details of the incident last Saturday, which raises the question: Was Anderson a vigilante who helped catch a dangerous burglar or a father seeking to protect his family?"
Under the circumstances, I would have done the same. If I catch someone inside, it's hunting season.
The problem is that he caught the guy leaving the house and administered a beating off of his property. If this had actually happened in his house I doubt he would have ever worn bracelets. In any castle doctrine state you are definitely justified to apply lethal force if someone breaks the plane of your house and possibly if you simply feel threatened on your property.
If I lost my temper, as this man obviously had, I would probably be pleading innocent due to Temporary Insanity with a side dish of PSTD for good measure. I think this guy should get a decent lawyer to plead Temp Insanity and then sue the burglar for triggering the insanity and any damage done to the dwelling during the event.
If I lost my temper, as this man obviously had, I would probably be pleading innocent due to Temporary Insanity with a side dish of PSTD for good measure. I think this guy should get a decent lawyer to plead Temp Insanity and then sue the burglar for triggering the insanity and any damage done to the dwelling during the event.
You do make a good point. It's almost as though you've done this sort of thing before.
If I lost my temper, as this man obviously had, I would probably be pleading innocent due to Temporary Insanity with a side dish of PSTD for good measure. I think this guy should get a decent lawyer to plead Temp Insanity and then sue the burglar for triggering the insanity and any damage done to the dwelling during the event.
There is a clear downside to pleading the defense of temporary insanity "with a helping of PTSD" -- that's why it gets invoked so rarely. If you don't plead it and get convicted of a criminal offense, you get a finite prison sentence (or, in this case, probably probation and community service). However, if you claim that you have a mental illness that's making you uncontrollably violent, then an acquittal on that ground doesn't mean you go free -- you get confined to a mental institution, and you don't get out until a panel of doctors decides that you are no longer a danger to others. Which may take years (and probably a couple of lawsuits, too). Surely, if you committed a triple homicide, then you have a choice between a lifetime in prison or 20 years in the much nicer psych ward, so pleading the defense of temporary insanity makes sense. However, if your choice is between a year in jail and indefinite confinement to a mental institution, I'd say that for your lawyer to invoke that defense would be tantamount to legal malpractice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
