to think this sentence is excessive

[joanbyers]

www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/allotment-attacker-jailed-1-5191070

Essentially owner of property catches a criminal, calls for help said help beats up the criminal, and he has now been sentenced to four years in prison. It seems that this is not the first time this has happened to him, so when he came across three intruders stealing his stuff took matters into his own hands, called a friend (who was not charged, for some reason) who smashed one of the intruders up, the owner then took him to hospital in a wheelchair where he spent several weeks and had surgery.

It is not clear whether previously or subsequent to the pummeling, but said intruder is now serving an unrelated sentence of four years for kidnap.

Seems odd that he would plead guilty, I would imagine most people would consider it fair enough, par for the course, occupational hazard of being a crook, and would struggle to convict.

I think criminals deserve what they get, to a point. To beat someone up to the point of them having a broken back, leg, arm and nose is madness though. In all honesty I think he deserved the sentence.

Would you think it was fair enough if a woman had been caught stealing and he decided to sexually assault her? Or if they kept him for a week and tortured him?

There has to be a point where its revenge and not defending your property and this crosses that line imo.

Seems fair enough. Think you'd be hard pressed to describe an attack which left with injuries to that extent as reasonable force unless there were unusual circumstances
And most importantly he pleaded guilty

Hang on. A bloke comes across three men stealing his stuff. Two run away but the bloke finds an accomplice and searches through the allotment until he finds the third thief and beats the living shit out of him (with the accomplice). So he didn't attack him whilst he was actually in the process of stealing but was rational enough to realise he needed backup in order to assault someone?

Tbh while I agree that the thief is obviously not a nice man, you don't just get to kick the crap out of someone. The guy wasn't just slightly hurt he had multiple broken bones. I think the bloke got off quite lightly actually.

Yabvu

YABU

havent read the link but from the comments on this thread it sounds like he is a thug who found a good (in his mind) excuse to let loose on someone. those injuries aren't self defence or a citizens arrest.

"Would you think it was fair enough if a woman had been caught stealing and he decided to sexually assault her? Or if they kept him for a week and tortured him?"

i agree with this.

The rational part of me wants to say I agree with the above posters about it being unreasonable force etc etc...

But a very large part of me wants to say serves him right - if he hadn't been there this wouldn't have happened in the first place!

Recalcitrant burgler gets beeten up? Boo Bloody Hoo.

Beaten,sorry.Damn you autocorrect.

"But a very large part of me wants to say serves him right - if he hadn't been there this wouldn't have happened in the first place!"

The two positions aren't mutually exclusive though, the burglar got what he deserved and the sentence is correct for someone who used violence as a means of revenge and not defence.

Yabu.

We live in a supposed civilised country. This is not a civilised way of dealing with things, is it?? It makes you a criminal also, it makes you be on a level with the thief. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Guy near DHs work stole some chocolate from pound shop so a group of guys ran after him and beat the shit out of him. It made me feel sick, that is no way to deal with people. Stealing possessions is not a nice thing to do but beating the living daylights out of someone is worse. Barbaric.

if the burglar got what he deserved then the sentence is wrong though mayor.

it cant be deserved, but also warrant a conviction and prison sentence. either it was deserved or it wasn't.

He deserved those four years, it's one thing to defend your person and your home from a criminal, another to break his back. He could have killed that man.

if the burglar got what he deserved then the sentence is wrong though mayor.

Not necessarily. I have no sympathy for criminals who get killed in the pursuit of their crimes, however that doesn't mean that those dishing out violence are not to be punished where they act in a criminal manner.
So when gangster A is gunned down by gangster B I think that A got what he deserved but that B should still be charged and jailed

surely if gangster B should be charged and jailed that means logically gangster A deserved to be charged and jailed, not killed. or maybe gangster B should also be killed because they killed someone? why do you have different standards for 2 different people?

And if gangster b was shot and killed I'd say that they got what they deserved also.
The law only allows for them to be charged and jailed which I think is correct, that doesn't mean that this all i believe they deserve.
However we place restrictions on the law because as a society we should hold ourselves to a standard that is higher than the criminals or above individual reactions.
If someone raped or killed a member of my family (or anyone for that matter) I'd believe they deserved to die however I wouldn't believe that anybody or state body should have the right to dish out such punishment as then they would be as bad as the criminal.

if you believe not killing them as legal justice is a higher standard then surely that is saying you dont believe killing them is right and therefore deserved.

I guess the best way to have handled this would have been not to prosecute him in the first place.

why joan? he violently attacked someone

YABU

I think he got off lightly. He took the law into his own hands, hunted down his victim and beat him so badly he broke his back, multiple bones and put him in hospital for weeks. He should have got 10 years.

Considering you get 4 years for raping a child nothing surprises me anymore unfortunately

YABU. People have the right to defend their property.

"People have the right to defend their property."

Which is not the same as hunting the intruder down after they have left the property and giving them a beating.